Smut for Smut

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thanks both for sharing.

That's actually EXACTLY what you did:
(Today 01:44)Pippy Wrote: So I repeat, could you post links that would dissuade me from belief?

If you'll read slowly and out loud, I very carefully posed it as rhetoric. The point of rhetoric is that the answer should be alluded to in the question, and you don't actually have to answer the question. The point was that I cannot post links to change your beliefs, and I was establishing that point with rhetorical question. I apologize if that went over your head. So may I repeat, I did not ask you to provide links and then laugh at them. I specifically asked you not to provide links. For the second time.

An ecosystem doesn't have interdependent parts? Really?

You didn't mention the ecosystem, just the piece of lonely driftwood.

You would rather write gibberish than write things that have evidence to back up their claims. I didn't provide the link, I didn't make the link, nor do I support the link.

Last time I checked I am speaking legible english. I don't count whywontgodhealamputees.com as evidence. You did provide the link. You did support the link. I acknowledge that it may not be your website though...

Evidence for this claim please. It's a pretty bold claim. Lied to by whom? What lies are they telling? How do you know?

Because the officla Commission did such a terrible job that the "official" story cannot be true. Figure it out for yourself. One point out of millions. America's defense systems (on which they spend billions of dollars) failed catastrophically that morning. But they were still able to release the photos and names of every suicide bomber (that were not on passanger manifests) within 2 hours. And what are the chances that during the attack there were military training drills about the same attack. See 7/7 and other false flag examples for the pattern of military training while a 'terrorist; attack occurs. But simpky put, the official story is representative of such a terrible and flawed investigation, that my saying it is untrue is almost unarguable.

Right in time? Does that make any sense to you? I'm on the side that has evidence and peer reviewed and well-respected scholarly journals.

So when we are old men you won't be telling your grand children anything different than you now think about 9/11. The story will not be any clearer, or get refined any more. the version of 9/11 you believe in is perfect and will never change. I'm telling you that in history I am on the right side of this debate (methinks). you are of course allowed to think whatever you like.

I used to be a 9/11 truther.

Let me guess. You watched a couple homemade documentaries, and were made a believer. Then you watched a couple shiny pieces by Pop Mechanics and others, and flopped back. Good for you. I don't get why people say "i used to be a truther", well you wer'nt much of one if you 'used to be' one. I knew the game, and the part America played in it, long before that fateful day.

Actually it isn't. I said you asserted that you knew the truth, exactly what you said.
(Today 01:44)Pippy Wrote: It's not like after Loose Change I 'woke up' to the 9/11 truth, (b)ut that from day one I knew.

Please try harder. IT"S NOT LIKE AFTER LOOSE CHANGE I 'woke up' TO TRUTH. (emphasis mine)
BUT THAT FROM DAY ONE I KNEW. This doesn't mean, as it seems you assume that from 'day one' of watching loose change I 'woke up' to the truth. Day one was not the first day you watched the film. Say one was in 2001. God damn you're thick. Stop telling me what I did say after I have clarified what I already did say. Thanks.

You need to learn how to form your sentences a bit better.
(oday 01:44)Pippy Wrote: It's not like after Loose Change I 'woke up' to the 9/11 truth, (b)ut that from day one I knew.
This would mean that before Loose Change, you did not know.

Hey, let's do it again! No, you are mistaken. That would mean that before loose change, the movie that did not create my opinion, I already held an opinion. Deep breaths...

You need to learn how to form your sentences a bit better.

Try, as i suggested, reading slowed and may be out loud.

Stop right there. You said earlier that you believed in a God that did not interfere. So she loves us, but not enough to actually do anything? Why is that?

The reason god dosn't interfere is because she loves us. God loves us enough to know not to interfere. This is a giant learning machine. A kind of matter based simulation. How would the learning machine function if you had a mommy making sure nothing happened to you?

You don't believe that, so stop wasting your time with drawn out replies, since it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.

I appreciate that you heard and responded to me. I did say I don't represent people who beleive in faith healing, and you understood. Thank you.

As tavarish pointed out, yes, you did.

And Thor, the god of thunder who doesn't believe in gods. Do you beleive in thunder? As I have pointed out over again, no I did not. I'm sorry if my rhetoric confused you guys, but it made good sense to me when I wrote it.

The flagellan motor was rebutted in the Dover trial.

And the Dover Trial was rebutted by me when I just read that the opening argument defined ID as 'fish made with their scales already on'. That is not the argument or theory of ID I support, that is kindergarten level stupid.

We're being lied to about 9/11? Lied to about what?

How, why, who. Where and when are kinda out there in the open though.

So you DON'T believe that "God" miraculously cures people?

Nope, and certainly that we shouldn't expect her to, or wait on her.

But apparently this deity doesn't love anyone enough to restore a missing limb.

What is more important to the being in charge of everything? You're stupid litte arm and your whining about it, or that causality and free will are allowed to function?

Nope. I'm talking about the fact that this deity has NEVER regenerated a missing limb (or eye, or severed spinal cord) for ANYONE.

Nope. Not once, did you think she would? A hint, those crazy fundamentalists are wrong you know.

If this isn't the worst analogy I've ever encountered, it's certainly one of the top five.

I appreciate that, I made it special for this occasion. I tried to make one on par with comparing interdependent complexity with a piece of driftwood, which you were not involved in.

Wow, this is a juvenile argument. If this deity does one thing for you, he has to do everything for everybody?

Is it not juvenile to argue that god should fix only your legs and no on elses? If I am juvenile, you think the universe revolves around you. I don't actually think that, but I also don't think I am juvenile.

This just makes no sense whatsoever. It's a "miracle" that we can lose our limbs? This is simply asinine.

Oh, keep stewing over it though. It's a great thing, and something to be thankful for, that we live in a world with causality, consequence and free will. Unfortunately, 1 out of 1000 of you may lose a limb. We're sorry. If you'd like to not live in a world with these rules, you know where the door is.

Thanks.
-Pip

[tavarish]

If you'll read slowly and out loud, I very carefully posed it as rhetoric. The point of rhetoric is that the answer should be alluded to in the question, and you don't actually have to answer the question. The point was that I cannot post links to change your beliefs, and I was establishing that point with rhetorical question. I apologize if that went over your head. So may I repeat, I did not ask you to provide links and then laugh at them. I specifically asked you not to provide links. For the second time.

Please form your questions a bit better. It's not the issue of the reader to try to decipher what the author COULD have meant. Write what you mean clearly, as that question's rhetorical properties are clear as mud. Rhetorical questions have no clear answer. The one you posed has a clear answer, one that can be backed up with evidence.

You didn't mention the ecosystem, just the piece of lonely driftwood.

Reading > you.

Here's what I posted:

"You see driftwood along the beach. It functions as a wall as well as an ecosystem for microorganisms and sentient life. It is, by all definitions, complex. It has no singular function, but can assume many roles as a system. Who designed this?"

Last time I checked I am speaking legible english. I don't count whywontgodhealamputees.com as evidence. You did provide the link. You did support the link. I acknowledge that it may not be your website though...

Is my name Thor?

And, you're wrong! Try checking out http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ or http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/debates.html or http://godisimaginary.com/

You could also try reading "The God Delusion", or "God is not Great", or "Godless", or "The End of Faith".

I highly recommend all these sources. Of course, whether or not you actually take the time to check them out is up to you. You can lead a horse to water...

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3102-pos...l#pid60767

Because the officla Commission did such a terrible job that the "official" story cannot be true. Figure it out for yourself. One point out of millions. America's defense systems (on which they spend billions of dollars) failed catastrophically that morning.

So failure is evidence for a conspiracy?

But they were still able to release the photos and names of every suicide bomber (that were not on passanger manifests) within 2 hours.

First of all, they were on passenger manifests. They were not on the list of VICTIMS, which include all passengers other than the hijackers.
Second, the list was revised days after, when new information was presented, as there were mistakes made with individuals with similar names.

I don't see how this is evidence of a conspiracy.

And what are the chances that during the attack there were military training drills about the same attack. See 7/7 and other false flag examples for the pattern of military training while a 'terrorist; attack occurs.

There were four operations thought by conspiracy theorists to be running on 9/11 by NORAD, which had an effect on what happened that day.

1. Amalgam Virgo: Took place June 1-2 2001. It was an exercise involving a cruise missile and is an annual event.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/l...1jcmd.html

2. Timely Alert II: Scheduled for 9/11/2001. Absolutely no evidence to suggest it had anything to do with the attacks.

3. Northern Vigilance: Scheduled for 9/10-14/2001. An exercise in which fighters were set to Alaska and Canada as a preparation for a Russian attack with NATO fighters.

http://www.norad.mil/News/2001/090901.html

4. Tripod II - Scheduled for 9/12/2001 from Pier 92 in NYC, in preparation for a biochemical attack. On 9/11/2001, Pier 92 was made into a to treat injured and allow people to leave the city. The exercise was cancelled.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/19/se.01.html

No exercise took away any of the 14 planes that are ready and fueled 24/7 to intercept aircraft that day. However, this was not something they had trained for. The hijackers turned the transponders off, and it was simply unclear if it was a electronic malfunction or deliberate attack. They did not know where these planes were, nor did they know what the intentions of the crew were.

This is all in the 9/11 Commission Report. Have you read it in its entirety?

But simpky put, the official story is representative of such a terrible and flawed investigation, that my saying it is untrue is almost unarguable.

You making a statement based on assumption and bias doesn't make that statement true, not does it make it plausible. Back it up with something more than "OMG LOOK AT THIS COINCIDENCE!"

So when we are old men you won't be telling your grand children anything different than you now think about 9/11. The story will not be any clearer, or get refined any more. the version of 9/11 you believe in is perfect and will never change. I'm telling you that in history I am on the right side of this debate (methinks). you are of course allowed to think whatever you like.

You are on the side that has no cohesive list of events to put together. You fail to realize that the government did not tell the people what happened, the people told the government. For the US to be in on something on this monumental of a scale is nearly logistically impossible and ridiculously implausible. I'd rather be on the side with actual facts, peer reviewed scientific journals, and mountains of evidence.

Let me guess. You watched a couple homemade documentaries, and were made a believer. Then you watched a couple shiny pieces by Pop Mechanics and others, and flopped back. Good for you. I don't get why people say "i used to be a truther", well you wer'nt much of one if you 'used to be' one. I knew the game, and the part America played in it, long before that fateful day.

Ooh, good try, but far from the truth.

I could see the twin towers from my house, I live in an NJ town that borders NY. I knew people that died, and a memorial for those that the city lost on that day is erected not 5 minutes away from my front door. I was in utter disbelief at the sheer finality of it, watching news for hours on end for that entire week. I did a load of research, and actually wrote a thesis on why the attacks were planned, and convinced all of my friends of this. After all, why not blame the government for such a thing if the "official story" didn't make sense? This started from 9/11/2001. I didn't make any conclusions, but formed an argument that posited that America has something to do with attacks.

However, over some time, the conspiracy theorists seemed to have an obvious agenda, and most of the sites were simply spreading lies. I did research on progressive collapse, controlled demolition, learned the physics behind the planes hitting the towers, read the NIST report, read the 9/11 Commission Report, and studied both sides of the debate. You can only come to one logical conclusion if you value the scientific method and peer review. Belief has nothing to do with it, and just because you don't like an organization (the government), that doesn't mean they're guilty of murdering 3,000 people.

There is not one piece of evidence that a conspiracy theorist has provided that can stand up in court. Not one.

Please try harder. IT"S NOT LIKE AFTER LOOSE CHANGE I 'woke up' TO TRUTH. (emphasis mine)
BUT THAT FROM DAY ONE I KNEW. This doesn't mean, as it seems you assume that from 'day one' of watching loose change I 'woke up' to the truth. Day one was not the first day you watched the film. Say one was in 2001. God damn you're thick. Stop telling me what I did say after I have clarified what I already did say. Thanks.

That's even more loopy. How did you come to a conclusion on the DAY OF, with no information?

Hey, let's do it again! No, you are mistaken. That would mean that before loose change, the movie that did not create my opinion, I already held an opinion. Deep breaths...

"Even before I had information and evidence, I reached a conclusion".

How rational of you.

Try, as i suggested, reading slowed and may be out loud.

So I'm to blame for not understanding your vague assertions the way you meant them? "That day on", when you are clearly talking about watching a documentary, and not necessarily the subject of the documentary. Specify, don't assume others can read your thoughts.

The reason god dosn't interfere is because she loves us. God loves us enough to know not to interfere. This is a giant learning machine. A kind of matter based simulation. How would the learning machine function if you had a mommy making sure nothing happened to you?

I have a mom, she loves me and tries to protect me from harm. Guess what, I still learn about the world and make mistakes. What you're equating God to is an absent parent that let the kids drink the clorox all they want, and don't take them to the hospital when they fall down and crack their head open. Yes, love indeed.

I can imagine a deadbeat dad saying "I loved you enough to know not to interfere".

That is not the argument or theory of ID I support, that is kindergarten level stupid.

You have a habit of ignoring evidence. I gave you specific refutation of the bacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity argument you posted. That falls right in line with creationism.

I appreciate that, I made it special for this occasion. I tried to make one on par with comparing interdependent complexity with a piece of driftwood, which you were not involved in.

It's clear you didn't understand the analogy, nor read it fully.

Oh, keep stewing over it though. It's a great thing, and something to be thankful for, that we live in a world with causality, consequence and free will. Unfortunately, 1 out of 1000 of you may lose a limb. We're sorry. If you'd like to not live in a world with these rules, you know where the door is.

If the world functions perfectly well all by itself, why would you need a God? Why would you need that extra qualifying assumption?

[Thor]

Because the officla Commission did such a terrible job that the "official" story cannot be true. Figure it out for yourself. One point out of millions. America's defense systems (on which they spend billions of dollars) failed catastrophically that morning.

How did America's defense system "fail"? These were not enemy bombers that came from overseas. These were commercial airplanes that had been hijacked.

I'm telling you that in history I am on the right side of this debate (methinks).

What is "the right side"? That our government was somehow involved in a conspiracy to crash airliners into buildings? For what purpose? The stupidity of such a notion is staggering.

The reason god dosn't interfere is because she loves us. God loves us enough to know not to interfere.

"God" doesn't interfere because he "loves us"?

And I suppose if you somehow thought that "God" HAD interfered at some point to prevent you from getting hurt, you would say that he interfered because he loves you. "God" just can't lose!

This is a giant learning machine. A kind of matter based simulation. How would the learning machine function if you had a mommy making sure nothing happened to you?

Actually, my mother did make sure nothing happened to me. She made sure I didn't play with matches, drink laundry detergent, eat rat poison or climb out windows. So your argument is kind of absurd.

Imagine this scenario: Mommy sees little Billy has wandered into the street. Mommy says to herself, "Oh, my. Billy is in the middle of the street! But, because I love him so much, I can't interfere. After all, the world is a learning machine, and the learning machine can't function if I interfere. Billy will have to learn from this experience. Oh, gee. Billy just got squashed by a truck!"

Is the mother criminally negligent? If so, this is how your god acts every day.

And the Dover Trial was rebutted by me when I just read that the opening argument defined ID as 'fish made with their scales already on'. That is not the argument or theory of ID I support, that is kindergarten level stupid.

This is not a counterpoint to the rebuttal of the bacterial flagellum.

What is more important to the being in charge of everything? You're stupid litte arm and your whining about it, or that causality and free will are allowed to function?

Causality and free will can't function if this deity restores someone's missing limb?

I appreciate that, I made it special for this occasion. I tried to make one on par with comparing interdependent complexity with a piece of driftwood, which you were not involved in.

No, you were making an analogy comparing having a missing limb restored to buying a ticket on an airline and then going in the back yard and flapping your arms. Can't you even keep track of what you say?

Is it not juvenile to argue that god should fix only your legs and no on elses? If I am juvenile, you think the universe revolves around you.

Where did I say he should only fix my missing limb and no one else's? I think he should restore everyone's missing limbs! He should restore eyesight to all blind people. He should fix the spinal cords of all paralyzed persons. I'm not being selfish at all here.

Oh, keep stewing over it though. It's a great thing, and something to be thankful for, that we live in a world with causality, consequence and free will.

Yes, I'm very thankful to know that I can lose my limbs, eyesight or ability to walk at any moment.

[Pippy]

How did America's defense system "fail"?

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.

For what purpose? The stupidity of such a notion is staggering.

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.

This is not a counterpoint to the rebuttal of the bacterial flagellum.

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.

Causality and free will can't function if this deity restores someone's missing limb?

Pretty much.

No, you were making an analogy comparing having a missing limb restored to buying a ticket on an airline and then going in the back yard and flapping your arms. Can't you even keep track of what you say?

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?

Yes, I'm very thankful to know that I can lose my limbs, eyesight or ability to walk at any moment.

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

And dear Tav, thank you for replying.

It's not the issue of the reader to try to decipher what the author COULD have meant.

I'm actually asking you NOT to decipher what I could have meant. If I say Loose change did not make me a truther, I was one from day one. That is pretty clear. Day one is not the first day I saw the film, that would be a nonsensical sentence. It makes sense to me, but again I apologize if it did not in translation.

It functions as a wall as well as an ecosystem for microorganisms and sentient life.

Ummm... Is the driftwood an ecosystem, or the beach it washed up upon? As far as I know there are only one kind of sentient life on this planet, dolphins are a close second. And as far as I know, neither driftwood or a beach are a suitable ecosystem for humans. I passed over it because as an analogy it was terrible. I mean is the driftwood also a "wall"? Or is the beach the 'wall'? As a 'wall' neither of them are very functional...

Is my name Thor?

My apologies, my lines got crossed. I retract my prior statement, you in fact did not and do not have anything at all to do with wywontgodhealamputees.com

So failure is evidence for a conspiracy?

Ah ah ah! I did not say there was a conspiracy (that is a given for both of out theories). I said that the statement that we are being lied to is my only claim. And that the fact that we are being lied to is undeniable. If at some point in the entire Commission and NIST and news and official government reports there is known untruth, misleading false information, that I am right in my assertion. So pick one. Any fact. They took over airplanes with box cutters. Unlikely. 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.

No exercise took away any of the 14 planes that are ready and fueled 24/7 to intercept aircraft that day. However, this was not something they had trained for.

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.

This is all in the 9/11 Commission Report. Have you read it in its entirety?

Yup. Did you get the new revised edition that mentions how building 7 (with a lot of very interesting things in it) burned for a while, and then every support failed at once and the building collapsed (form fire) in seconds. At least it garners a mention, they skipped it in the first edition hoping no one noticed a third collapsing building.

However, over some time, the conspiracy theorists seemed to have an obvious agenda, and most of the sites were simply spreading lies.

Well, that is a fact. The CT world is 80% disinformation. But that isn't a slight on the CT world. The truths that these people are rubbing up against are so important that resources need to be spent confusing and obfuscating it. Like the guy (I am running out of time to look up his name) who got charged for death threats again former congresswoman Cynthia McKinna. You know, that guy who had a minted Amero (that turned out to be not true). He said in court that he has been in the employ of the FBI for years, they pay him and tell him what to say. The judge laughed and said that is not a defense for threatening the life of a congresswoman, and his FBI handlers slowly shook their heads in rage. Does the gummint wasting money creating disinformation not tell you how much they don't want you to know what they are hiding?

That's even more loopy. How did you come to a conclusion on the DAY OF, with no information?

Well let's look back. The Iraq war had never ended, GwB had fraudulently stolen 2 elections, but the Americans were too distracted to notice. PNAC had asked for a new pearl harbour (I read the before 9/11). And, oh yeah, there is an influence in America that is evil. So day one, as everyone in school was yelling and I was worried about my family in Manhattan and if I was gonna be drafted, I knew.

Thanks,
-Pip

[tavarish]

How did America's defense system "fail"?

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.

Yes - because they were completely prepared for the event in which 4 airplanes are hijacked and turned into 500mph missiles with their transponders turned off. You do know they don't just shoot planes down if they're off course, right?

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.

Lockheed's not doing so well from an "open ended war"

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/new...p?ID=38269

http://nosint.blogspot.com/2007/09/lockh...-with.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...refer=home

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/200...eed-Martin

Again, what about this points to the government lying about 9/11?

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.

Yes, the silly video in which Ken Miller, a PhD in biology explains in detail how a bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex with video presentation. How absolutely absurd of me.

Ummm... Is the driftwood an ecosystem, or the beach it washed up upon?

The driftwood that washed up on shore and creates shelter for living organisms is an ecosystem, yes. I'm not talking about the beach. I'm talking about the wood.

As far as I know there are only one kind of sentient life on this planet, dolphins are a close second. And as far as I know, neither driftwood or a beach are a suitable ecosystem for humans. I passed over it because as an analogy it was terrible.

I understand now. You have a broken understanding of the concept, so then you dismiss it as somehow being without merit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentient

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

I'm not talking about humans living on driftwood. I'm talking about animals that find shelter there and make a home in the driftwood that washes on shore. The analogy was that this is a necessarily complex structure, both in its composition and its function. Who designed this?

I mean is the driftwood also a "wall"? Or is the beach the 'wall'? As a 'wall' neither of them are very functional...

I'm not talking about the beach, I'm saying exactly what I meant. The driftwood acts as a wall between animals/organisms and the elements. I never said it was efficient, but it works fairly well for its functions.

I see you're having a really hard time understanding this.

Ah ah ah! I did not say there was a conspiracy (that is a given for both of out theories). I said that the statement that we are being lied to is my only claim. And that the fact that we are being lied to is undeniable.

You implied that the government ran false flag operations and had foreknowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen. This is a conspiracy theory.

The fact that we are being lied to - can you provide evidence? Not coincidence or assumption this time, please. Something that can hold up in court.

If at some point in the entire Commission and NIST and news and official government reports there is known untruth, misleading false information, that I am right in my assertion.

So a single bit of false information is somehow proof that the whole thing was a lie?

So pick one. Any fact. They took over airplanes with box cutters. Unlikely.

Which proves what? A meteor hitting the Earth is unlikely, but guess what, it's happened. People winning the lottery twice in a row is unlikely, but it's happened.

Our existence is unlikely, but we exist.

Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen.

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.

Explain to me how that borders on a lie. Because they don't give you information?

If you want to argue there was no plane, what about the hundreds of eyewitnesses in Alexandria who saw a plane hit? The giant pieces of fuselage and engine taken out of the pentagon? The black boxes found? How about the family members who had to identify the remains of their loved ones? I bet it would be interesting to explain to them how a plane didn't actually hit that building. Some people were still in their seats, for fuck's sake.

No foreknowledge, lie. The failure is not evidence for conspiracy, it is evidence of lies and deceit.

Let's posit a scenario.

You and me are walking down the street, we see a guy in a tow truck go up to my car and steal it. You accuse me of having foreknowledge of this because it's my neighborhood and you don't trust me very much. You think i'm pulling an insurance job. I tell you I didn't have anything to do with it, and I explain to you that I locked the doors and rolled the windows up, but I didn't account that a guy in a tow truck was going to take it. It was an unknown to me.

You then say that my failure to guard my car is evidence of my lying.

I can't win.

You're asserting something without evidence, as always.

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.

There actually were a lot of peeps. A whole fucking bunch of them. They simply couldn't act because there was no precedent for it. They can't just go off the cuff when hundreds of lives may or may not be at risk. That day was a giant clusterfuck. It's not like they were taking everything on in a nice, structured schedule. The planes are also on alert for something akin to enemy bombers, not a goddamn commercial airliner being used as a missile.

Yup. Did you get the new revised edition that mentions how building 7 (with a lot of very interesting things in it) burned for a while, and then every support failed at once and the building collapsed (form fire) in seconds. At least it garners a mention, they skipped it in the first edition hoping no one noticed a third collapsing building.

Did you read the part where there was a huge chunk missing from its north side? How about when firefighters reported raging fires on multiple floors and decided to leave the building for FEAR OF COLLAPSE?

Well, that is a fact. The CT world is 80% disinformation. But that isn't a slight on the CT world. The truths that these people are rubbing up against are so important that resources need to be spent confusing and obfuscating it.

Are you insane? This isn't a rhetorical question. This sounds absolutely nuts.

Like the guy (I am running out of time to look up his name) who got charged for death threats again former congresswoman Cynthia McKinna. You know, that guy who had a minted Amero (that turned out to be not true). He said in court that he has been in the employ of the FBI for years, they pay him and tell him what to say. The judge laughed and said that is not a defense for threatening the life of a congresswoman, and his FBI handlers slowly shook their heads in rage. Does the gummint wasting money creating disinformation not tell you how much they don't want you to know what they are hiding?

Can you provide evidence to ANY CLAIMS that you've made about the government spreading false information about 9/11? Again, no hearsay or loose association. Things that would stand up in a court of law or a respected peer reviewed scientific journal.

Well let's look back. The Iraq war had never ended, GwB had fraudulently stolen 2 elections, but the Americans were too distracted to notice.

That's funny - the Iraq War and Bush's second term were years after the attacks. The original question was, how did you know what the truth was, the DAY OF, with no information?

PNAC had asked for a new pearl harbour (I read the before 9/11).

Evidence for this claim?

And, oh yeah, there is an influence in America that is evil.

Spare me with your righteous bullshit.

So day one, as everyone in school was yelling and I was worried about my family in Manhattan and if I was gonna be drafted, I knew.

Thanks,
-Pip

Yes, you knew that the government did this, because it wasn't possible that a band of determined terrorists planned and executed an attack on America using 4 commercial jet liners as missiles. It's obviously a lie.

...

I hope you never have to defend yourself in a court that honors your standards of evidence and guilt.

[Violet]

What in porn necessarily deals with morality?

The human element. If you take pictures of one human to show to other humans, hopefully for a profit, you have entered a very moral realm. Human interaction with self, environment, and especially other humans is by necessity where I find a moral value of porn and big macs.

I think photographic pornography is always bad. If you share intimacy beyond the boundaries of that intimacy, Isn't that what perversion is? ..taking it too far?

Not necessarily... but I agree for the most part. Perversion is simply doing things outside of the norm... if all of my friends wear black hats, and I chose one day to wear a white one instead: I am being perverted. That the word has since the late 19th century been used frequently to describe sexual abnormality does not detract from its original, more interesting meaning

It's my opinion that photographic pornography is usually bad... but I understand that I'm probably way off from the targeted audience In fact... it's my opinion that pornography is almost always less than mediocre... with little 'good' porn spaced between utter sludge... and 'excellent' pornography like a little gold mine that one is not guaranteed to find even over an entire night of looking for it. I find myself particularly drawn to people genuinely in pleasure... and I don't often see that, sadly.

@ the italic: It's specifically intimacy that I crave... as can be noted by my 'porn preferences' and my actions in life with others What would I do if intimacy weren't ever shown with the otherwise tasteless porn...? :S All I'd really have left would be 'sex stories'... and 80-90% of those are shit too :S

Porn actors do a bad job of hiding it too. It looks like they're trying so hard to protect their image for a partner or prospective partner. Even those that do seem very much into it and enjoy it, in my opinion are like anyone who fully embraces grossness. I don't believe any human being is that/ completely insensitive. Sex is great and pornography spoils it.

Most "porn actors" (and cameramen) don't keep the feelings 'intimate' (for me) at all... looking at the camera, being clearly lackluster/bored with the 'proceedings', taking close-ups of people's sexual organs, not enjoying themselves, etc...

Again, for the most part I agree... but there are likely exceptions of course.

---

How did America's defense system "fail"?

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.

Perhaps not an inability... but a lack of having considered that the hijacked planes were going to be used as weapons. If I were the government... I would have at the time assumed that the people in the hijacked planes were going to be used as hostages for negotiating purposes unknown to me at the time... and I likely would have had the military prepared to snipe every one of the captors and prepped emergency medics to help the assumed hostages as fast as possible.

Now that the attacks have happened... the government is amazed by the unprecedented attack (that being flying hijacked commercial jets into skyscrapers with the apparent tri-intent of sending a message, killing a number of people, and going to heaven)... and immediately does what it can to evacuate the buildings and the surrounding area (while also attempting to minimize the damage to the buildings (this being notably the fire).

I would not pin this on a necessarily inept government (not to suggest that it is or is not one)... but on an unprepared government (or rather a wrongly prepared one... much like the camper who goes camping in a drought hit with a flash flood).

For what purpose? The stupidity of such a notion is staggering.

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.

Corporate interests are human interests as well... that doesn't make them wrong/right, good/bad, or whatever inherently. Every merchant has an increased chance of prospering in wartime (And also an increased chance of failure)... wartime is both very profitable and very risky. It comes as no surprise to me that there were companies and nations that made out very well because of the wars (in particular companies and nations that manufacture wartime products and services). But does one only consider the profiteers from the wars, and not also those who nearly went bankrupt (such as the American banks and some automobile manufacturing companies)?

I don't think any of them should be overlooked... but neither should any of them be given special status over the others. Lockheed makes jets... modern warfare needs jets. Lockheed makes money. I don't see why there should be any sort of conspiracy behind it.

And dear Tav, thank you for replying.

It's not the issue of the reader to try to decipher what the author COULD have meant.

I'm actually asking you NOT to decipher what I could have meant. If I say Loose change did not make me a truther, I was one from day one. That is pretty clear. Day one is not the first day I saw the film, that would be a nonsensical sentence. It makes sense to me, but again I apologize if it did not in translation.

Of course... making sense to you doesn't mean it's logical, rational, true, or anything really Also, it not making sense to me does not necessarily mean you're wrong... but that's what I think of course

It functions as a wall as well as an ecosystem for microorganisms and sentient life.

Ummm... Is the driftwood an ecosystem, or the beach it washed up upon? As far as I know there are only one kind of sentient life on this planet, dolphins are a close second. And as far as I know, neither driftwood or a beach are a suitable ecosystem for humans. I passed over it because as an analogy it was terrible. I mean is the driftwood also a "wall"? Or is the beach the 'wall'? As a 'wall' neither of them are very functional...

Considering that I'm a fisherwoman who absolutely fucking hates it when driftwood gets caught in her nets (you would not believe how fucking terrible it is to get a log out of a net on the flats or even worse being the beach: HELL)... can I answer that driftwood was an invention of every dimensions' combined evil designed specifically to make life hell?

Yes... driftwood is an ecosystem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driftwood The beach it eventually washes up on is also an ecosystem. My body is an ecosystem. There are lots of ecosystems in lots of places

No exercise took away any of the 14 planes that are ready and fueled 24/7 to intercept aircraft that day. However, this was not something they had trained for.

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.

Again, as I explained above, the attack was unprecedented. That's the interesting thing about fighting with other people... you never can be prepared for when they do something really... stupid. They were hardly scratching their heads... it is likely indeed that they were preparing for a ransom demand (or the like) or other standard kidnapping procedures. Are you suggesting that they would have prepared for something that didn't even occur to their minds until it happened?

This is all in the 9/11 Commission Report. Have you read it in its entirety?

Yup. Did you get the new revised edition that mentions how building 7 (with a lot of very interesting things in it) burned for a while, and then every support failed at once and the building collapsed (form fire) in seconds. At least it garners a mention, they skipped it in the first edition hoping no one noticed a third collapsing building.

*flick*-->/|||||||||||||||| = __________ = *clumpclumpclumpclumpclumpclumpclmpclumpclumpclump* = rubble

^ Does that illustrate how "every support failed at once"? It really wasn't at the same time, but it would have been very fast with weakened supports. If you're going to blame something other than a massive plane probably moving in the excess of 1700 kmh colliding with supports (that were never designed for that type of punishment) spread about in a building little wider than the plane itself... and I'm somewhat amazed they didn't bring the building down instantly and more amazed still that it took several hours of fire eating away at what remained of the supports, further fueled by the winds at that altitude, to bring those buildings down.

Imagine if they had instead hit lower in the building... where the weight was even greater... and suppose instead of hitting the building dead-on they had chosen to eradicate the supports on a side.... it would have fallen much faster, and likely would have toppled upon other buildings. Why the fuck didn't they hit the buildings closer to the ground... is the question I ask. And I can answer that question with certainty: by being as dumb as the camel fuck between their ears.

[tavarish]

I agree with all of your points, but the last point was directed towards WTC building 7, a 47-story building that fell hours after the Twin towers due to fires and damage from the North tower's collapse.

It's a common conspiracy theory that WTC7 was a planned demolition, despite eyewitness testimony of firefighters, video, photographs, and the laws of physics contradicting that theory.

A popular theory goes: There were small fires on 2 or 3 floors and the building was generally fine. The building was demolished as a means to give Larry Silverstein extra insurance money.

The reality is: There were large fires on multiple floors and massive damage done to the North wall from the collapse of the North Tower, and the firefighters pulled out for fear of collapse. The owner, Larry Silverstein, gave the order to pull the firefighters from the building about an hour and a half before the penthouse collapsed, weakening the columns enough that the whole thing came down. No one perished in that building that day. Larry, on the other hand, lost millions from the building's collapse, as he had to rebuild, essentially out of pocket.

[Thor]

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.

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.

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.

Pretty much.

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

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

[fr0d0]

I think photographic pornography is always bad. If you share intimacy beyond the boundaries of that intimacy, Isn't that what perversion is? ..taking it too far?

Not necessarily... but I agree for the most part. Perversion is simply doing things outside of the norm...

Seems you're right on that meaning.

It's my opinion that photographic pornography is usually bad... <snip> In fact... it's my opinion that pornography is almost always less than mediocre... with little 'good' porn spaced between utter sludge... and 'excellent' pornography like a little gold mine that one is not guaranteed to find even over an entire night of looking for it. I find myself particularly drawn to people genuinely in pleasure... and I don't often see that, sadly.

I guess I must be unlucky in that all the pornography I've seen is less than mediocre. & I've never seen genuine pleasure by participants in porn.

[Violet]

It's my opinion that photographic pornography is usually bad... <snip> In fact... it's my opinion that pornography is almost always less than mediocre... with little 'good' porn spaced between utter sludge... and 'excellent' pornography like a little gold mine that one is not guaranteed to find even over an entire night of looking for it. I find myself particularly drawn to people genuinely in pleasure... and I don't often see that, sadly.

I guess I must be unlucky in that all the pornography I've seen is less than mediocre. & I've never seen genuine pleasure by participants in porn.

Try 'amateur'... you are much more likely to find that there Granted... that doesn't mean one is likely to find it... but the chances are more in your favor.