Interesting article

[England Expects]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html


Discuss...........

[General Septem]

Well what do you expect? It's the Times. They're the ones that knew Bush was taping our calls for two years before they said anything about it.

[MrBirdy]

That doesn't surprise me...
The Times is pretty honest, and lets face it, im athiest, and i see my classmates and co-workers who believ in god, cheat, lie and steal, i have never cheated, or stolen anything, and as for lies, i admit to that, but i am more honest than these people who believe in the ten comandments and the "angry hand of god-ah"

[ajk]

If you want to call honest, bias propragenda, then yeah they're honest alright:rolleyes:

[MrBirdy]

Nobody likes you AJK, but keep in mind that the only honesty you can recieve now a days is the most biast from both sides, unfortunetaly, i have seen these religiouse folk lie, cheat and steal a great deal more than me...

That is the reason i agree with this article

[ajk]

Well then you only see the ones that give people such as myself a bad name.

[MrBirdy]

Well then you only see the ones that give people such as myself a bad name. Know that not all are like that, and there are good ones out there.

I really dont recall saying "all religiouse people are bad" but maybe if i did, you can pint it out...

[General Septem]

The Times is pretty honest

The Times is a propaganda machine serving only the purpose of forming your little minds into what the government wants them to be.

[ajk]

I really dont recall saying "all religiouse people are bad" but maybe if i did, you can pint it out...

You're right you didn't say that, and I apologize for taking it as such and the post has been edited to reflect it.

[England Expects]

I'm not sure if you're thinking this is an American website, but the Times is a well respected British newspaper.

I've read the article and I see nothing to suggest any kind of propaganda. They're just factually reporting the findings of an american study.

I'd rather hear an arguament against the findings rather than just "It's the Times, its crap" but I suspect the religious amongst you cant provide one.

[General Septem]

I've read the article and I see nothing to suggest any kind of propaganda.

Apparently you missed the whole "LOL RELIGION SUX" part. I mean it's no secret that every shady and corrupt government out there would love to abolish religion. Just look at this flyer for the "Joint Terrorism Task Force":

http://www.n3t.net/humor/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

It's posted in the humor section, but it's no laughing matter. It's a very real flyer sent by a very real corrupt government organization.

[who897]

If they really thougth religion sucked then why is there that whole god thing on all my damn money. When ever the president takes an oath there is that damn god thing. I'd be nice if they got rid of that bunch of rubbish.

[General Septem]

If they really thougth religion sucked then why is there that whole god thing on all my damn money. When ever the president takes an oath there is that damn god thing. I'd be nice if they got rid of that bunch of rubbish.

They're sending us a double message. See, through the news and media they're reporting all the bullshit priest rape and abortion doctor killers, but conveniently forgetting to mention that the rate of sexual perversion is higher among non-clergy than clergy, and that the Oklahoma City bombing was not just one alleged "Catholic extremist" with a Ryder truck filled with explosives.

But seeing as how most of the country is or professes to be Christian, they have to keep up appearances until they manage to make enough of the sheeple think that religious people really are all extremists. The government is going to blow up more and more buildings and frame more and more religious groups, until finally they can make us look so bad they can just exterminate Christians en masse.

Does this sound familiar? If not, perhaps you should read about the Holocaust and how Adolf fucking Hitler set fire to some building so he could get away with exterminating all the Jews. Or how Caesar Nero set fire to Rome and blamed it on the Christians. Does it sound familiar now? Except instead of a one-nutted screwball having control over a country smaller than New York State, it's the entire fucking UN. And if people would just realize this bullshit, they could stop it.

[who897]

Someone watch that movie with Mel Gibson way too many times, conspiricy theory.

[General Septem]

Someone watch that movie with Mel Gibson way too many times, conspiricy theory.

And someone drinks too much kool-aid.

[who897]

Captain Morgan and Coke, it's a beatifull relationship really, I help keep people in peurto rico employed and they keep me drunk.

[England Expects]

At no point does it say religion sucks.

I have no idea who the "joint terrorism task force" are or why they are relevent to the article.

I was hoping for a reasoned, articulate sensible debate and a structured arguament as to why you think the article is wrong/misleading/misinformed.

What I get is basically a paranoid rant about how all governments are anti-religion because the Romans tried to pin some shit on Christians.

You really are a moron.

[Ausinus]

It is biased, but we need a media that is free to help us retain our free dom of speech. Ever read Farenheit 451?

[General Septem]

It is biased, but we need a media that is free to help us retain our free dom of speech.

What does that have to do with it?

[Ausinus]

Freedom of the Press is one of the things which allows the media to present current affairs to us, and the government from controlling the media. Even if it is biased, they at least tell us news without govt. interference.

Read the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[General Septem]

Freedom of the Press is one of the things which allows the media to present current affairs to us, and the government from controlling the media. Even if it is biased, they at least tell us news without govt. interference.

Without government interference? You honestly believe that? lol.

[Ausinus]

Let me edit that. Without MUCH govt. interference.

Well anyway, the internet is taking the role of the media now so, meh.

[General Septem]

Let me edit that. Without MUCH govt. interference.

How about without any government interference - because you don't exactly interfere with something that you already have complete control over.

[Ausinus]

The government does not control the media, or else why do you think people know about political mishaps? Surely, if the government had control over the media they would only let the media publish spotless articles about how good the government is doing.

[General Septem]

The government does not control the media, or else why do you think people know about political mishaps? Surely, if the government had control over the media they would only let the media publish spotless articles about how good the government is doing.

No, because then it'd be too obvious. Everyone knows the government is corrupt; they just don't know the extent. I honestly believe if you knew just how corrupt the government is, the media would seem to be making them out to be angels.

[Ausinus]

It is far less corrupt now that the democrats hold congress.

And how would you know how corrupt the government is? Unless you are a public servant or politician you cant make that statement.

[General Septem]

It is far less corrupt now that the democrats hold congress.

That's hillarious. You think there's a difference between the Democrats and Republicans? Because there's not. It's all the same bullshit.


And how would you know how corrupt the government is? Unless you are a public servant or politician you cant make that statement.

How about this:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc.1.blowup.concrete.full.jpg

[Ausinus]

-_-? How about "your a conspiracy theorist"

[General Septem]

-_-? How about "your a conspiracy theorist"

A theory is an idea which fits a situation but is not yet backed up by facts. I'm someone with questions, including but not limited to: why the hell did they fall in the first place?

[Ausinus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

[General Septem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
Oh, ok. Since Wikipedia says it was because of the planes I guess that's what happened then. Allah Ackbar. (Oh, and by the way, that's not what Muslims are supposed to say when they're about to die.)

[Ausinus]

Oh, ok. Since Wikipedia says it was because of the planes I guess that's what happened then. Allah Ackbar. (Oh, and by the way, that's not what Muslims are supposed to say when they're about to die.)

I am offering you my view of what happened.

And i didnt know that.

[General Septem]

I am offering you my view of what happened.

And i didnt know that.

And I'm offering you mine but you're calling me a conspiracy theorist.

Yes, Muslims are required to say "There is but one Allah, and Mohammed was his prophet" just before they die. Not "God is great". Why the Muslim hijackers chose to say "God is great" is beyond me... if they were really muslims and really hijacking the plane that is.

[Ausinus]

I'm sorry for calling you a conspiracy theorist.

So do we actually know who was on the planes then?

[General Septem]

I'm sorry for calling you a conspiracy theorist.

So do we actually know who was on the planes then?

Perhaps not. Many of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive, which is very interesting given they were supposed to have flown planes into buildings. This may just be a result of possible identity theft, but it's still interesting to note.

The best argument I've heard against the planes being remote controlled is that "Boeing 767s are designed so that they cannot be flown from anywhere but the cockpit". This however does not in any way exclude the possibility of them having been modified.

The impacts themselves would not have made an appreciable compromise to the structural integrity of the buildings; even the official reports say that the primary cause of the collapse was due to fires. The heat from these fires would supposedly have caused the floors to sag and pull away from their outside support.

The problem with this theory is that first of all, the floor panels were supported almost entirely by the core in the center of the building; the outside support did little to hold the weight of the building, but its purpose was rather to hold the building together in heavy wind. Even if the floors sagged and became detached from the outer support mesh, it would've only happened in the section of floor above the fires, not the whole floor, and they would not have fallen away from the center core.

Second, even if they had fallen away from the central core and caused a pancake collapse, this first of all would have taken much longer than 10-15 seconds, and also would have left the core completely intact. But from what we saw in the collapse of the north tower, the core was actually the first to begin to fall - note the communications tower on top falling into the building before the floors began to fall.

The fires were said to have reached 2000 degrees fahrenheit, however the maximum temperature of a dirty burn is only around 1750. This is not hot enough to melt steel, and while it is enough to weaken it, the steel structure would have to absorb all that heat in order to weaken, and that doesn't happen in this kind of a fire, especially in the time allotted. Steel forgers have to use completely or at least heavily controlled burning environments specially designed to transfer the heat most efficiently to the material to get it to bend or melt. In addition, the steel was fireproofed, and regardless of what the official story says it's highly unlikely for the foam to have been blown away.

Again, not a conspiracy theory, just a few facts that make the whole collapse story very unlikely. The investigation was an example of anti-science, where a conclusion was drawn before the investigation took place, and the purpose of the investigation was to prove the conclusion that'd already been drawn. I hope this helps.

[Ausinus]

Hmm, interesting. It does merit further investigaton.

BUSH IS A TARD!:D