Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
Printable View
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
So how did the universe begin? Did it just begin, even the big bang theory relies on a pre existing giant world blowing up. Scientifically, NOTHING can simply exist, that is the basis of science. Therefore the begining of the universe is non-scientific. Non-scientific means that there was some supernatural element in the creation of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
My personal belief is that it is impossible to obtain the absolute truth, since all knowledge is based on perception.
What? In anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
I'm susprised not one person has talked about how this whole "war on terror" is a complete lie. If you have no idea what I'm talking about or think I'm crazy, I highly, highly suggest you take a look at this website:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
It is a thoroughly researched and well-articulated look into the events of 9/11. And the author is certainly not alone.
Here are a few of the questions he asks:
9. "Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.)
11. Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?
12. Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?
13. Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?
14. Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?
18. Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?
23. Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?
-----
As always, you have to ask yourself, who stands to benefit from an event? As Seneca said, "He who profits by a crime, commits it." Always ask questions and never accept what the mainstream media or the government tell you is the "truth."
Retarded conspiracy theories ahoy.
G. I. JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkal
My suggestion to you is either, A. Read the information, look at the pictures, and watch the movies before you reply, or B. Don't try to belittle something you haven't even examined. Or try answering some of those questions I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Those idiotic questions have been asked and answered millions of times. But I will humor you and say its all because of our Reptilian overlords who live underneath the Denver Airport and feed on babies for fuel.
Marx was speaking about the state's use of a higher power to justify their appointment to the post - monarchs routinely claimed to have been appointed by God because hey, how else could they get there? (Remind you of anyone, btw?) Heads of state were also often nominal heads of church, making any rebellion sacrilege. Western religion conventionally projects a person's hope's and dreams into the next life provided they are obedient in this one, promising eternal euphoria as long as you do what the organization demands of you.
Or maybe he thought people got high off those acoustic guitar songs with the hand-clapping actions.
Uhh...opium?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Anyway, Marx should not ignored out of hand - he (and Engels) were pretty much the fathers of postmodern political and religious analysis, and without their efforts more substantial philosophers such as Nietzche may never have been able to give voice to their views. No serious course on postmodern religious thought is taught without considering the Marxist point of view.
Don't link Marx invariably with communism - he may have influenced it, but he didn't invent it and was a hundred years dead by the time Trotsky was doing his thing.