philh

Someone else could have planted explosives, nothing to say they couldn't, it is quite obvious your counties security is, to put it politely, below par! The violent opposition to any hypothesi otehr than the weak one that has been presented, is more than enough to indicate who wan't the truth and whop doesn't. You powers of deduction are an embaressment to your profression. Why is that the NIST, and anyone else that is a denier, strictly refuse to debate this subject publicly with th3e AE911truth guys? Becasue you they know damned well that you are all kidding yourselves and the status quo is what you desire! Those of your ilk are the bane of humanity and you should all be ashamed of yourselves! You stoill are yet to show us hopw a building can clooapse through itself at freefall speed, you have said untold times that you have but can't show us? You could potentially do better than Bills bridge scanario. what a joke! Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould etc refuse to debate creationiists, so by your logic creationsist must have the truth, what the difference?

This Jenga collapse looks pretty symmetrical, the blocks seem to fall at free fall speed, i think this was the work of Illumaniti placing explosives: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4907395579933896095&ei=3pWRS7W-I9Ov-Ab47KG-Ag&q=jenga+collapse#

Hey rhys remember in MArch 2009 when you said this: The possibility of explosives being used was not even explored by them let alone acknowledged. Even though independent investigations have found otherwise, everyone says it is certain that there were no explosives? How does anyone know that if no one officially looked for them? The investigation to date is a farce that will unravel itself in the next year or two, GUARANTEED! The videos in the links are not what you have seen before, they are actual recent footage of NIST spokesmen making absolute fools of themselves, blatantly lying and ruining their professional reputations. will you eat your hat if I am right? Really I don't give a shit what you or anyone thinks, I was also right about the Iraq war (being a lie and a waste of time, money and life) and everyone here ridiculed me for that as well. (no they didnt) I just want to bring this up again in September when Obama talks about it, it will happen! ---------------------- Did it happen? No it didn't. Perhaps you need to look at your own thoughts here with a bit more skepticism.

What a joke, now you are saying that the booms that were herad were quite simply 'sonic booms'? for fucks sake! Perhaps you might submit your excellent critique of "for fucks sake" to a higher ranked academic journal, maybe Nature, Science or PNAS would consider it. Again we see all the signs of a psuedo science here.

So what you are saying is that the answer to my question is no you don't have any serious engineering journals that conclude as you do. I am not an engineer so I dont presume to assume that the WTC acts n the same way to a Jenga game. You clearly do. What i can say is that serious scientific claims are put through the fire of peer review. ITs a not a sufficient claim to truth but its a necessary one. The fact that that doens't bother puts you right in the same camp as the creationists, sorry mate.

Here is an example of what we are looking for: they conclude there is no evidence for controlled demolition, ouch: http://ascelibrary.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=JENMDT&smode=strresults&sort=rel&maxdisp=25&threshold=0&pjournals=ASCECP%2CIJGNAI%2CIJGNXX%2CJAEEEZ%2CJAEEXX%2CJAEIED%2CJAEIXX%2CJBENF2%2CJBENXX%2CJCCEE5%2CJCCEXX%2CJCCOF2%2CJCCOXX%2CJCEMD4%2CJCEMXX%2CJCRGEI%2CJCRGXX%2CJENMDT%2CJENMXX%2CJGGEFK%2CJGGEXX%2CJHEND8%2CJHENXX%2CJHYEFF%2CJHYEXX%2CJIDEDH%2CJIDEXX%2CJITSE4%2CJITSXX%2CJLADAH%2CJLADXX%2CJLEED9%2CJLEEXX%2CJMCEE7%2CJMCEXX%2CJMENEA%2CJMENXX%2CJOEEDU%2CJOEEXX%2CJPCFEV%2CJPCFXX%2CJPEPE3%2CJPEPXX%2CJSENDH%2CJSENXX%2CJSUED2%2CJSUEXX%2CJTPEDI%2CJTPEXX%2CJUPDDM%2CJUPDXX%2CJWPED5%2CJWPEXX%2CJWRMD5%2CJWRMXX%2CLMEEA2%2CLMEEXX%2CNHREFO%2CNHREXX%2CPPHMF8%2CPPHMXX%2CPPSCFX%2CPPSCXX%2CJPSEA2%2CJPSEXX&possible1=world+trade+centre&possible1zone=article&OUTLOG=NO&viewabs=JENMDT&key=DISPLAY&docID=8&page=0&chapter=0

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..". this excerpt from you debunking page is ludercrous considering the video evidence clearly shows symmetrical collapse straight down and it is filmed from the undamaged side of the building. Just another example of how the 'debunkers' use photgrahic evidence to skew your memory of what actually happened. If the damage to the bulging and the fires caused the collapse we wouldhave witnessed an 'asymmetrical' collapse through the path of least resistance. It would have fallen over, not down! Are there any serious peer reviewed journals that draw the same conclusion or are you lie a creationist who avoids those or sets up their own review of creation research?

I care about the evidence, Bin Ladin was named only hours after the attack, bin laden was blamed as the mastermind for years. the facts wre denied, and you went and attacked Iraq anyway. Now that countr is destroyed and countless people dead, you continue in afghanistan for what? more lies. i want to know the truth, you should too, a criminal investigation into 9/11 is what is needed to discover the truth, there is plenty of evidence there, all ready to go. If it can be proven that Bin Ladin was responsable then so be it, but until a bonafide investigation happens (there has never been one) then we will not know for sure. What we do know is that the US government has lied continuously to us, they have invaded countries and killed innocent civillians and the only people that are benifiting is the armes manufacturers and the other private companies contracted to do the work. your country has suffered, your country is broke, and you still defent the very people that put us all in this very sad position. My question for you is; If you are aware thet 'they' lied about WMD's and destroyed a country and killed it many of its civiliians, why would you not believe they are lying to you about this? Becuase there is evidence they lied about WMD's, there isnt evidence they lied about 9/11, not in a way that supports the sort of Alex Jones conspiracy nuts.

Another point I think the "troofers" should ask themselves is , why would the conspiracy not use planes on the Pentagon given that they clearly did use them on the twin towers? Or were they holograms?

It may or may not be a surprise to you but this aspect of the Bible is hard for me and most others of our culture to accept or understand. None the less it is there and I only have found two ways to deal with it. One way is to decommission God, tell Him He doesn't exist ,and furthermore never has existed because you just don't approve of His methods. The other choice is to let God work out His purpose as He deems fit. Realizing it is not our place to judge God. I trust in the attributes of God I understand, and believe once all is known, His methods will become clear. In the meantime, there is plenty about God I do understand and benefit from. I will add that it has taken alot of study and prayer for me to accept and understand this issue. ... Well I'm glad genocide made you pause for thought, shame you couldn't take it further than that. Does it not occur to you that a philosophy that allows you to not to condemn genocide, but instead have the attitude "I will blindly obey, " is a bit screwed up?

this was on tv the other night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR30IhksVVk i guess National geographic are in on the conspiracy too.

No Rhys you are missing the entire point of scientific enquiry which you claim to want to use here. Ideas have consequences, theories make predictions and we asses those ideas and theories by comparing the consequences and predictions of those theories with the data. If it doesn't match we throw it out. What you are doing is called anomaly hunting. This excellent article might help you. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=525 You are desperately trying to find something that doesn't fit what you think you should expect from a fully fueled plane crashing into a building at high speed. If it were simply a bizzare engineering anomaly you would not be on this forum debating it. Lets be honest here, few would really care if your idea didn't have the implication that 9/11 was inside job. The problem with that is,the idea that 9/11 was inside job doesn't fit what we actually observe happened on 9/11. Not only were there no Iraqis on the planes, there was no evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. The Bush government was known to pursue the theory the there was a link to Iraq and then had to give it up in the face of zero evidence. Witnesses have said that the Bush, Rumsfield etc were not very interested in attacking Afghanistan, but had their focus on Iraq. Moreover Bush looked unprepared for 9/11 as he sat in that classroom for an hour not knowing what to do , Rumsfield was inside the Pentagon when it was attacked. None of this is consistent with the idea that government had any hand in 9/11. You cant just ignore the implications of your points if you want people to take you seriously.If you study real physics you would know this. Take quantum gravity. String theorists think they have got a good theory of quantum gravity. One of the implication of this idea are that there are extra dimensions. There are tests we may to be able to carry out in the future to see if there really are hidden dimensions. String theory will not even begin to be accepted as a final theory if we don't find these hidden dimensions. This is how real science works. You examine the consequences of your ideas to test them out. Simply anomaly hunting without facing the implications of what you are suggesting is a sure sign of pseudo science.

Not to deflect your question, but in the evolution of spiritual consciousness, protocols that enabled mans relationship with God have changed over time. God's essence of Love and Truth remain the same and never changes. Dispensations is how it is depicted theologicaly. Whole sale military conquest was in play during the age of the Law when the tribes of Judah were taking the land allocated to them by God. In this current age of Grace, land and nation building is not an issue. The Kingdom of Heaven ,described by Christ, is not of this earth. Therefore any such command would not be from God. So no, I would not comply or ever condone genocide. We are all sinners and on equal footing before God. Our only hope is to find salvation through the Grace of Jesus Christ. ... Land and nation building is an issue right now, it may have escaped your notice but there's a bit of a quarrel over the very land you say was allocated by god to the tribes of Judah. The problem is some of the people who are of those tribes don't think they've currently got all the land that was promised to them. The other side of course think the same land is holy to them and there plenty of Christians who are looking for a big battle so they hurry along the end times. t seems to me you can't deny that god has commanded genocide in the past yet this was ok because it was a "time of law"? That seems a bizarre defence of genocide. God commanded in the past , how arrogant is it of you to know his mind and his will and be sure he wont command it in the future? Was god displaying his " essence of Love and Truth (which)remain the same and never changes. " when he was with Joshua who massacred the people of Jericho. What would you have done if you were there, would you have killed the little children? Not of all of gods sadistic commands are about military conquest. What about Abraham, god commanded him to kill his son, if you got the same order would you do the same? You might say it would not be consistent with gods plan or his character. But who are you to question his mysterious ways? I suspect the real reason you wouldn't do it as most people you pick and chose the its of the bible you like, in which case why do we need the bible in the first place?

What a ridiculous petition. Why do they think the opinion of vets, medical doctors and those with simply undergrad degrees in any science subject (pyschology, economics etc?) is relevant to climate science? science isn't done by petition, anyone that knew anything about science would know that. Hell, you could find petitions of scientists that back ID.

Ethics is a by-product. The purpose of the Good News is to provide a path for regeneration and reconciliation with God. Ethics is a by product. Ok so if god commanded you to commit genocide would you put your ethical by product a side and do it ? or would you refuse his command and separate yourself from god?

I am not sure of the exact exegetical or hermeneutical description you desire. But the koine greek "blapten" means to injure and "pheme" means reputation. This basically signifies, etymologically, gross irreverence and contempt toward the work of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully that answer is closer to what you were wanting. ... So given that, this "crime" is the one unforgivable sin in the NT. Murder is forgivable, torture is forgivable, slavery is not even a sin. and this is supposed to a be decent system of ethics?

Rhys every time I see one of your possts , Im going to re ask my question until I get a serious asnwer. If 9/11 was a inside job why didnt they plant some evdience of Iraq's invovlement?

any of those definition, actually in the bible? You only have one bible passage here and it doen't give a definition of blasphemy. Want to try again?

A quick look at Wikipedia might be helpful, here . Look up United States Federal Budget: You'll see its proposed by the President. You'll also see if you look at the cost of the Iraq war that the direct cost is $704bln. But it doesn't stop there. There are many more indirect costs, for example the rising price of oil is a cost to the US economy. According to Nobel prize Winning economist Jospeh Stiglitz the total cost of the war in Iraq when you add up all these indirect costs is $3 trillion. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece Could you tell what you think would happen to happen to the US economy if $3 trillion was taken from it and then burnt in a hole in the Middle East?

Nowhere here is a clear definition of blasphemy, so anything else is just your supposition.

and why is the principle any different? If we are going to accept Christian's "evidential testimony" that jesus has been in their lives why should we not also accept other peoples "evidential testimony" that they are the reincarnation of Napoleon? Whats the difference?

http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-is-a-religious-cult 2) The Old Testament provided the Law e.g., homosexuals should be put to death. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law with the once and for all sacrifice for sin. 3) The New Testament provides the teaching of God's Grace because of the atoning death of Jesus Christ. 4) Homosexuals can be forgiven of sin. 5) All sin is equal to God and it separates humans from Him. 6) Jesus is the bridge between humans and God because he paid the price and satisfied all legal requirements. 7) The Holy Spirit leads you to Jesus Christ and once He is accepted through the surrender of repentance the Holy Spirit resides in you. 8) Sin means missing the mark i.e., you shoot at the target but miss the bullseye. 9) Repentance means to change your mind i.e., make a 180 in your thinking. I apologize for butting in; I hope this helps. He was all man and all God. Therefore, He was able to be the PERFECT blood sacrifice for all sin for all time. The sin is lust of the flesh which takes the worship from the Creator and places it on the creation. Homosexuality is an abomination because it is unnatural. See above. Sin is not achieving the best that your Father in heaven has for you. I have a different take on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit than rynodigsmusic. The Holy Spirit leads you to Christ and once accepted dwells within the believer to strengthen the relationship. If you deny the Holy Spirit i.e., blaspheme, you cannot enter into relationship with your heavenly Father. Without that relationship you are condemned to spiritual death without hope. Without the Holy Spirit you cannot be pardoned. of course these are your own definiton, where in the bible does it give this definition?

Guess you haven't heard the term "double dip recession". Have you not noticed that every positive economic report comes with a caveat about poor underlying data? This crap economy isn't close to over, and we have this anti-American leftist president (lower-cae "p" intentional) to thank for it. Home sales hit a 17 year low in December. Unemployment is about to top the 11% mark and is well past 20% if you include the unemployed that are no longer on unemployment benefits and have literally given up looking for a job. Commercial REIT's are about to tank, and by the way, your numbers are actually crap once you adjust for inventory rebuilding levels. Did I mention Ford turned a $2+ billion profit for 2009? Yes, Ford. The only one of Detroit's big 3 that DIDN"T take stimulus money. Obama. Taking America from the frying pan to the fire, one guilty white man at a time. I think this is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. I work in financial markets and I remember all those years ago in 2007 when things started to turn sour and then in 2008 when they went from sour to disaster. As far as my memory serves me, Bush was the President when this occurred. To blame the subsequent mess on Obama is absurd in the extreme.

There are about a half dozen people in this forum attempting to provide you with evidential testimony to meet your criteria. and if I met a guy in the park who claimed to be the reincarnation of Napoleon would that be evidential testimony? Nope. and why not?

this is the prophesy of the complete destruction of evil for the new way of the spirit. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is when someone knows the Holy Spirit and speaks against him. Not when someone doesnt know him. This is clear in the Gospel. It is important you get this. Sorry to butt in. How is it clear? Why should speaking against something be worse than murder, torture or rape?