Youtube comments of Mark H (@markh1011).
-
81
-
68
-
40
-
34
-
31
-
27
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Evolution isn't science in the strict sense as it is neither observable nor testable."
It has been observed and it has been tested.
"How did life originate?"
We don't know. However abiogenesis is different to evolution.
" How did the Dna code originate?"
We don't know. However abiogenesis is different to evolution.
"How could mutations, random copying errors, create the huge volumes of new information needed for upward, microbe to man, evolution?"
Passing them on...the successful ones survives....over millions of years...
"How can natural selection, taught as evolution, explain the diversity of life? "
That's exactly what it does explain. Your question is odd. Are you trying to claim that evolution wouldn't allow diversity? There are multiple ways than an animal can survive...
"Living things look like they were designed"
We used to think that about the earth, the stars and the sun.... ancient people probably thought that about the mountains and rivers... but we know there are natural processes to create these things... the "appearance" of design isn't a very strong argument.
"Where are the countless millions of missing transitional fossils? "
Many are in museums.
"If evolution means gradual change over time how come we have so many "living fossils". "
Animals don't evolve quickly.
"If evolution is so important that our kids must be taught it to be good scientists, where are the supposed scientific breakthroughs that derive from it?"
Evolution is the cornerstone of biology, paleontology and many other scientific fields...... they have breakthroughs all the time.
Your questions are a sign of your ignorance.
"Why is evolution, not observable and testable science, but a belief system, taught in science classes? "
Simple. You're wrong, it is a science.
"Why are these problems of evolution theory not taught to our university students? "
Your 'problems' are due to your lack of understanding.
" Why does the observable and testable evidence point to a young earth, a global flood, and an intelligent Designer?"
a. it doesn't.
b. it doesn't. ..and
c. it doesn't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
”The problem is, that of the the 19 suspects, several have been reported to be alive and well after the attacks. FBI has even conceded as much. And yet - AMAZINGLY - the official account of the alleged hijackers still stand!!”
This all came from a BBC article about mistaken identity. In early attempts to identify the hijackers the FBI made errors… within days they had the right people.
It was never a story about the actual hijackers being alive… it was a story about mistaking identify with people who were alive.
”So the question maybe isn't whether they boarded or not - but rather how they managed to survive the impacts..”
They didn’t.
”The NIST report itself claims that the office fires in the Twin Towers would have burnt at temperatures of around 600 degrees - data collected from samples of steel.”
No NIST estimated temperatures up at around 1000C.
”Physicist Robert Podolsky, Physicist/Engineer - AE for 911 Truth - has made estimations of the likely burning temperature of the kerosene and subsequent office fire under the conditions found in the building, and found that they would reach 750 degrees at most.”
Then that guy is an idiot. Lets look at the temperatures reached in fire tests.
BHP William street fire tests
- Atmospheric temperature 1254Cs and 1228C for the tests with the sprinklers off.
BHP Collins st fire tests
- Atmospheric temp max 1163C
Stuttgart-Vaihingen University
- Temps exceeded 1000C
Cardington tests ALL exceeded 1000C including the one fuelled only by office materials.
”His assertion is that those actual temperatures do NOTHING to the steel and is no way near enough to cause it to buckle or sag.”
Lets stick to Celsius…
Building fires regularly exceed 600C. As we see above they can even exceed 1000C.
Steel is down to half it’s strength at a mere 600C.
That there was buckling and sagging is no surprise.
We can even see it happening. You can see the columns bowing inwards..and gradual sagging was also photographed.
Bowing and sagging -
WTC 1 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-24 and 2-25, and NCSTAR 1-5A Figure 8-108.
WTC 2 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-37 and NCSTAR1-5A Figures 9-46, 9-59, 9-80, 9-82, and 9-83.
Floor sag NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-40
”There are many, many examples of steel-framed buildings burning for much longer than both the Twin Towers and building 7, yet not collapsing, or even toppling over.”
You dismiss the differences in the grenfel tower so quickly… but you point to other buildings that also had architectural differences.
”As for the Plasco building in Iran - which was the first steel building to collapse since 911 - it had no fire protection, which is quite relevant.”
What is also relevant is that the WTC buildings relied on SFRM which only provide protection for a short time… the idea being that the fire fighters get water on the fire within a reasonable time – never happened at WTC7 for various reasons. It burned freely for 7 hours.
”failed to enforce some 22 building regulations prior to collapse”
Sure but WTC7 would fail many regulations by today’s standard as well.
”In the case of the WTC buildings, they still remain the only fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings to have ever collapsed due to fire”
1. They aren’t the only steel framed buildings to collapse due fire. For example the Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida.
2. They don’t build skyscrapers like that any more…because of the WTC collapses.. More concrete is used.
3. The towers didn’t collapse due to just fire.
4. Had the only event on 9/11 been a fire at WTC7 then the FDNY would have driven up and put it out…
”The NIST computer simulation of the collapse has been disavowed by serious, peer-reviewed investigations,”
That’s a complete exaggeration.
The conspiracy theorists have yet to produce analysis that match the NIST one… there has been a recent attempt but numerous errors have been pointed out with that.
”The building came down in the matter of seconds, barely giving a scrape-mark on any of the surrounding buildings.”
The building next to it, Fitterman hall I think it was called, was destroyed by the collapse.
”The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) made a detailed four-year analysis dismissing the NIST finding - along with other omprehensive investigations, I should add.”
Lets be honest.. that is the only analysis that is a genuine attempt to challenge the NIST one… and Mick West has pointed out numerous problems with it.
”here are literally hundreds of witness accounts of explosions being heard, felt and seen at the site of the WTC.”
Planes smash into buildings… jet fuel explosions…infernos everywhere…buildings collapsing..
Nearby people describe explosions – the conspiracy theorist assume bombs.
It’s such an unintelligent argument. I’m sure you’re smart enough to step back and see this?
It’s so bad that I don’t need to refute anything beyond this – there are many videos of the towers… show me the videos where I can hear the explosions going off… particularly before the collapse.
Your failure to produce this will confirm that it’s all just witness testimony taken out of context.
”You may want to consider what causes the pyroclastic flow and clouds seen as the buildings come down. T”
Oh god… please look up what a the pyroclastic flow is before you use the term…
Dust clouds from a collapsing building… and a pyroclastic flow are very different things.
It’s another utterly stupid claim. I’m not trying to be rude to you… you’re probably a very smart person… it annoys me that very smart people repeat the arguments of dumb conspiracy theorists.
” Even parts of computer and other office material turned into fine powder.”
Gravity is an amazing force. This is what happens when two buildings, among the tallest in the world….smash themselves from the top down…..starting 1300 feet up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidkettelle403
"So it’s worse. "
Hardly
"You say the fuel started burning the office furnishings, walls, carpet, etc. Then that fire melted the steel? "
No... the fires weakened the steel.
" That just doesn’t happen- anywhere. And it didn’t happen on 911. "
Wrong. ..and wrong. Fire has caused steel to collapse before.. such as the Plasco building... and it did on 9/11...
"You are living in an alternative universe and you need to put your thumb back in your mouth- and leave it in."
Padding out your clumsy arguments with comments like that isn't helping you.
I recommend that you focus on your arguments a little more and less on hollow bluster like that.
"Fire never brought down skyscrapers, ever. "
Fire caused the collapse of the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building
and Plasco Building
"You say it brought down 4 in one day."
You're very confused.
The towers were brought down by plane impacts and fires... other buildings around the WTC complex collapsed or partially collapsed due to fires and the damage from the debris.
So you get everything wrong.
" Go back to sleep."
rudimentary
"?? First you say it’s fire above, now your saying the aluminum planes knocked over the steel buildings?"
Wow... you are a mess.
1. Let me educate you... the towers collapsed due to a combination of the impacts...and the fires started with jet fuel..
2. I am not claiming the planes knocked over the buildings.. I have never said anything the sort.. as that didn't happen...we can see that didn't happen... I can't believe I need to explain this to you....you sound rather loopy...
"You must be off your meds"
Humorous irony.
"Free fall speed happens to professionally demolished buildings, when all resistance has suddenly been removed and then they blow the building and it comes down."
blah blah... I'm skimming for relevant statements now...
"ven if towers had bent steel, there would still be resistance below holding up the structure or opposing it as it can down"
The collapsed was slower than free fall so where was some resistance... you just debunked yourself.
" There would have been a LOT more wreckage, not 3 % of steel and dust on the ground."
Where did you get this percentage from? Show me your working.
" Go back to your PlayStation, you can’t play coherently with adults.
"
...and once again... your arguments are being torn to shreds here... you should be focusing on them.... not this schoolyard bluster... it isn't helping you. If anything it makes you look more desperate to distract from the topic which isn't going well for you.
"The building structure was designed with very thick steel beams towards the bottom. The thickness tapers off as you go up, so how did lighter “pancake” heavier??"
....sigh...now you''re showing that you fail to understand the progressive collapse...
Sure ...I'll explain it to you like you're a child...as you seem to need it.
The upper block fell onto the (weakened) floor below ... starting a total collapse where each floor was destroyed by the upper block ...and the materials from that floor fell onto the floor below.. so the amount of material increased with each floor.... each second.. Halfway through the collapse how many floors are smashing down on those below? Is it 20-30? No. It was much more by that point.... with each floor being destroyed as the upper block hits it...and joining the collapse... the amount of force being applied to the the floors below also increased. It's like a hammer that keeps getting bigger.... so by the time you get down to the floors with thicker columns (you meant columns not beams).. you've got half the building coming down.... so the thickness of the columns is inconsequential.
"YOU are like so many others, you don’t really know how the tower was built in the first place. "
More desperate schoolyard bluster.
I know about the construction. I just schooled you on why it made no difference to the collapse.
"You need to stop making a damn fool of yourself. "
someone
End of lesson 1.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nahshon9998
"When you can make a statement to reply to I will be happy to."
Perhaps you could respond this? ....you know... the post you've evaded several times now....
"Evolution isn't science in the strict sense as it is neither observable nor testable."
It has been observed and it has been tested.
"How did life originate?"
We don't know. However abiogenesis is different to evolution.
" How did the Dna code originate?"
We don't know. However abiogenesis is different to evolution.
"How could mutations, random copying errors, create the huge volumes of new information needed for upward, microbe to man, evolution?"
Passing them on...the successful ones survives....over millions of years...
"How can natural selection, taught as evolution, explain the diversity of life? "
That's exactly what it does explain. Your question is odd. Are you trying to claim that evolution wouldn't allow diversity? There are multiple ways than an animal can survive...
"Living things look like they were designed"
We used to think that about the earth, the stars and the sun.... ancient people probably thought that about the mountains and rivers... but we know there are natural processes to create these things... the "appearance" of design isn't a very strong argument.
"Where are the countless millions of missing transitional fossils? "
Many are in museums.
"If evolution means gradual change over time how come we have so many "living fossils". "
Animals don't evolve quickly.
"If evolution is so important that our kids must be taught it to be good scientists, where are the supposed scientific breakthroughs that derive from it?"
Evolution is the cornerstone of biology, paleontology and many other scientific fields...... they have breakthroughs all the time.
Your questions are a sign of your ignorance.
"Why is evolution, not observable and testable science, but a belief system, taught in science classes? "
Simple. You're wrong, it is a science.
"Why are these problems of evolution theory not taught to our university students? "
Your 'problems' are due to your lack of understanding.
" Why does the observable and testable evidence point to a young earth, a global flood, and an intelligent Designer?"
a. it doesn't.
b. it doesn't. ..and
c. it doesn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WinstonNewYork
"My Marxist friend, 80,000 dead people who voted for Biden in one state, do not lie."
Are you talking to me? I'm no Marxist nor am I your friend.
" 80,000 dead people who voted for Biden in one state, do not lie. 140,000 fraudulent votes for Biden"
Pure fantasy..... no one can back up these claims.... because they are nonsense.
"The use of electronic voting systems, connected to the internet, as designed, owned and funded by Communist China. "
haha ... some people are so gullible... did you get that from crackpot Sidney Powell?
". Every indication of a landslide by Trump"
Except for the fact that there is no indication that he did... Trump lost. It stings you but you're going to have to deal with that.
"Thousands of affidavits, on pain of perjury, of outright fraud in Democratic"
None of which had any useful information that supported the claims of widespread fraud...
". And 19 states which saw the fraud, with the honest eyes "
...More fantasy.... they had months to substantiate these claims and they failed spectacularly.
The rest of your post was insane ranting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@happyriches
". Your allegations are a projection of your need to believe in something, yourself."
I believe in myself... I don't believe in any magic men in the clouds....
"But there is also much misinformation that is provided by authority figures or institutions that call themselves authorities that, it appears, you are willing to swallow."
You have no idea what I believe ...
" What you appear no to realize is that there is a difference between philosophy and reality. "
You're again quite confused here.
"You know the score, produce something in real time. Nobody does. Just smoke and mirrors. Ever wonder why Don Pettit said that no one has been back to the moon because the technology has been lost?"
Ah so you don't think America went to the moon?
That would fit... a gullible conspiracy sheep... that fits you... you saw something on the internet and believed it...
Anti vaxxer as well? flat earther?
" Or Dawkins would admit that he believes in the aliens"
You've been caught out lying about this... why continue the lie? ..because you're a person with no integrity that's why.
You don't care about facts...
"Man-made religion is about control. So is politics. So is the central bank. So is big government. So is the education system. People just feel the need to control other people and sucker others into doing their dirty work. The only thing I deny is the evil that would endeavor to consume my soul, warp my thinking and cause me to be suicidal. "
...just to let you know.. I'm not reading.. I'm just skimming by now...
"Do your own research and let the real evidence prove itself,"
hahah...this from the guy who did no research about evolution but tried to debate it...
Doing research isn't your thing.
You just believe whatever the internet and cult members tell you...
I can't respect someone who repeatedly and willingly lies like you do..
" Once you understand what the word "chance" means, then you will understand that an Earth spinning at 1040 mph, with a planetary body encircling it at 2288 mph, as it hurtles around its source of light at 70,000 mph, every 365.24 days"
Isn't the universe amazing... it doesn't seem to require a magical man in the clouds... one who likes animal sacrifice an thinks slavery is ok....
Just because it seems impressive to you doesn't mean a magic man had to do it... humans have been applying that stupid argument for a long time and keep finding out they are wrong... it's time to grow up a little.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thehonesttruth415
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143
"Man, you are clearly a waste of time. "
Tranlsation: You lost and you know it. You're trying to pretend my response isn't valid because you don't like it and it shows I'm right.
"My fault that i debunked the website with 1 comment"
You didn't debunk anything
The website has passages from the Quran and the Hadith that prove my point...and reinforce the arguments of the video above.
"The first claim in the website you linked is that women get half inheritance in Islam. "
The Quran says that buddy
They are just quoting the quran,,,,
You're squirming and stammering excuses ....
" The women doesn't have to, the women can go out, have fun, buy clothes, jeweleris."
haha you are only reinforcing what I said about misogyny. You're shooting yourself in the foot.
It's quite funny.
You asked about the testimony. I showed I was right... I showed the author of the video was right...you tried to deny it and now you've diverted to other point...
you're on the run and it's entertaining.
"Also, as i said, women inherit less than men only in 4 cases. "
I've already addressed this. Even if that's were true... it's a case where modern values have coerced people to ignore their own religion.
Your texts have some absurd, dated, violent, immoral and sexist passages. It's good that you try to ignore them. But you refuse to even acknowledge that you're doing it because it undermines the authority of the fantasy religion.
"So remind me again how Islam is sexist ?"
See here.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/women-worth-less.aspx
"Lets make it easy and fruitful, lets start with one claim at a time."
haha you tried talk with the claim about testimony and that went so badly for you that you want a do over.
Mate you're not very good at this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BrianSEPT11
From godlessmath
Here it is again, Brian.
The video of the terrorists at Dulles is time-stamped:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLEqjpHVPhM
Here is the way in which it is time stamped, see page 13:
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/253703/1/video-report.pdf
Loronix, another company that provides digital surveillance equipment, has developed a digital video surveillance system linked to cash register transactions in Dayton Hudson retail stores, and Washington Dulles International Airport. This system captures digital video which is stored on Sony DAT tapes housed in a "jukebox". The recording system is in line with an atomic clock synchronization system that Dayton Hudson uses on its registers, so the time stamp on the video is accurate to within 500 milliseconds. Each recorded event also stores other important information, such as register, number, receipt, etc. Software to search and locate specific events is provided, saving time and effort. Loronix’s system tries to ensure that the images captured are tamper-proof by encoding a "fingerprint" into them:
"Each video clip is fingerprinted through a mathematical algorithm during the video capture process. The fingerprint becomes part of the clip and is used by the playback software to verify the video has not been altered.""
So why does the Dulles video that we see not have a time-stamp displayed? Because the video can be exported so that no time-stamp is displayed, that way we can see the entire video without any details missing. But in the system, the video is fingerprinted with a time-stamp. This time-stamp would have been verified by David Brent, the security expert who found the Dulles video:
https://www.securityinfowatch.com/video-surveillance/article/10489184/boschs-david-brent-looks-at-how-tv-shows-like-criminal-minds-and-csi-crime-scene-investigation-have-changed-expectations-on-video-surveillance-and-then-explains-todays-reality-for-cctv
Misconceptions create problems when you are dealing with large systems and looking for the needle in the haystack. In 2001, I worked for a manufacturer that at the time had its CCTV system in the Washington Dulles International Airport and the Pentagon. After the 9/11 attacks, I was part of a team that had the laborious task of reviewing all the video from the airport with several federal agents looking over our shoulders. Did you notice I said all the video? That's every frame from over 300 cameras with 30 days of retention time. The task took three weeks of 15-hour days."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@allaboutbuckets
"First off , hitler was raised religiously, but he merely used those views to fool those that supported him "
That excuse simply doesn't cut it.
We have a lifetime of quotes from Hitler making it clear he was religious.
Error 1
Oh and you tried to refer to mein kampf to support your position... but that completely backfired.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. "
Error 2.
But back to the point... you're stuck making excuses... you're stuck in a corner ... Hitler makes it very clear that he's religious.... following the Christian god... and that is even motivating him.
So you need to invent excuses.. " oh he was just pretending"
1. That's a pathetic excuse.
2. You could never prove it. It would require psychic powers.
3. The evidence shows you wrong.
You're stuck there.
"His ideals were very evolutionist based with his claims that blue eyes and blonde hair was the pinnacle "
WRONG. Again.
Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of eugenics.... that's more like playing god... intelligent design...the opposite of nature... AND even if he was doing that it doesn't in any way change how wrong you are about his undeniable religiosity.
"lazy thinkers like yourself believe in natural selection which pretty much makes any sense of morality relative since you can justify the killing of the inept, the old, disabled"
You're quite confused.
Error 3.
Evolution by natural selection is not a moral framework. It's not a philosophy. It's a scientific theory. It's a theory and a fact.
"Where does your morality come from besides “just being a good person”?"
It comes from the same place yours does, although you may not notice.
We have an innate morality. Most of us anyway. We like helping people. We have empathy. We know what it feels like when bad things happen to us so we can sense what it's like when bad things happen to other people. We like being part of a community. It's even advantageous for us to do so. We know that a community that works together will be more prosperous than the opposite.
You follow all of this as well but you probably don't want to admit it.
Is the only reason you're not killing your neighbor, their children and taking their things because it says not to in an old book? I seriously doubt it.
"You can cherry pick from a book you’ve probably only read a few pages of all you want, but it just shows how ignorant you are to the context of the things being discussed in said book. "
That's another pathetic excuse. The old "context" line to try and rationalise the horrors and absurdities of ancient religious texts. This has nothing to do with ignorance.
The religious texts are about what you would expect if written by philosophers from those times. There is intolerance, misogyny, flat out batshit crazy statements...
You're stuck making excuses again...and hoping that throwing in an insult will distract from your massive problem. Nope.
"All your knowledge is likely from those who misinterpreted, or those who bashed the Bible."
1. You have no idea how much I know about the bible.
2. You're trying to attack me to take away from the bible's many failings
3. The passages are there. ... the interpretations accepted by their followers... your attempts to deny with with vague statements about "misinterpreted" just fall flat.
" If you actually read what I wrote instead of CHERRY PICKING as usual 🙄"
Cherry picking? I've only responded to a couple of your posts before. Are you confusing me with someone else?
"You probably won’t read all this, but considering your limited understanding of reality combined with foolish pride,"
You know nothing about me.... but have decided to start attacking my "foolish pride" and supposedly limited understanding.
It's funny because anyone reading this post will see you getting schooled.
Perhaps you should spend more time thinking about your arguments instead of how to attack the other person.
You've made many errors in your post and I have pointed them out. Focus on that instead of complaining about me and you might do a little better next time.
1
-
@allaboutbuckets
"Try again friend "
As we'll see..that comment..coming from you ... can only be taken is humorous considering how badly you did..
"You must’ve thought you did something there"
*I dismantled your arguments pretty easily yes*.
Lets see what response you have to my post. ....
"Give me scriptures that you can use that prove the points you made about its failings.."
What?! That's absurdly vague and why do I need to point to scripture?
That's a terrible attempt to divert from your failings...
Oh and there is a reference to scripture in a post down below. You'll no doubt offer up some excuses about context or interpretation... haha..
I really hope for your sake that your post gets better.
"Also, you literally said that the theory of evolution is a theory and a fact... it can’t be both."
WRONG. It can.
Theories can be facts.
I'll try to educate you.
There is a theory of gravity.
Gravity is a fact.
See how that works?
"Contradiction"
The problem here is that you fail to understand some basic concepts of science.
Not going well for you so far...
"I KNOW you don’t know the Bible because it doesn’t contradict itself,"
The bible doesn't contradict itself? oh dear... it seems I know more about the bible than you do.
Here, let me help continue your education.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html
"Now back to Hitler, idk if you’re aware of how controlled opposition "
All you did with that paragraph was continue to spout the pitiful rationalisations you tried in the last post.
We have a lifetime of religious talk from the man who said he was doing gods work.
You're stuck.
You can offer these excuses until the cows come home but it's not going to get you out of that corner.
"what you offered was a joke of an explanation"
So refute it.
That isn't a response.
Mate I tore you to shreds in the last post
You're not refuting what I said. You're offering vague, evasive dismissals...
Tell me... is the only think stopping you from killing your neighbors and their children... and taking their stuff... the teaching in an old book? Is the only thing stopping you from becoming a mass murderer... the teaching in an old text...? Provide a legitimate answer to these questions.
"Furthermore, if I wanted to say eugenics"
Hold on... again you're not responding to what I posted.
You got your claims about Hitler totally wrong (on more than one thing). I pointed out that you don't understand the evolution is a scientific theory and not a philosophy. I pointed out that choosing people and traits is the opposite of evolution by natural selection.
You've not responded to the points that you failed on.
You just waffled a little more about Hitler.
I'm more than halfway through your post and you've offered nothing as a response.
I feel I'm going to have to repost my entire last post and try to get you to find the courage to address it.
"which wouldn’t have came to be without the foundation of evolutionism."
Even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact of evolution. It's like saying that throwing people off a roof wouldn't work without the foundation of gravity. So gravity is to blame.
They are both scientific theories.
But what we have here is a religious who tried to wipe out another religious sect and also play god...
We can see that religion is at the core of this problem... not science or secularism.
"So again, you contradicted yourself in your own argument bro, "
What?! Nowhere did you demonstrate a contradiction. This is quite funny. Go back and tell me where you think you found a contradiction. Be prepared to defend your claim.
"I was telling you the truth based off what you have shown in each of your responses. Your disposition is quite clear and simple to understand. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, it’s sad honestly, you were lied to quite a bit and you started listening to the words of those that made you feel better about the disposition that you have.""
blah blah I only skimmed this.
You're offering nothing as a response to your last post where you got taken apart. As I advised you in the last one... the sort of blathering you're offering here isn't helping you or distracting from your failed arguments. You should spend time on constructing your arguments instead of half baked preaching like that.
"Now I could def be wrong but why does it seem that atheists are rarely if ever on the receiving end of any scapegoating or persecution"
In recent times Atheism has tended to rise in the more advanced countries where people have more freedom.
They are still persecuted in some countries.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html
.and that's it? That's your response?
So to summarise..
Your claims about Hitler were shown to be wrong and you had no response.
Your claims about evolution were shown to be wrong and you had no response.
You didn't understand what a scientific theory was and I have tried to help you.
You had no actual response to my statements about morality.
Amazingly you claim that there are no contradictions in the bible. Wrong.
You tried to use mein kampf to claim that Hitler wasn't religious. That backfired.
You're trying to distract from your failures with all sorts of vague assertions.
So are you going to try again? Perhaps I'll just post the last post that you couldn't address...just to make you squirm.
Want to try again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Werewolf Of Tasmania
" the government actually fears the people because of their second amendment. "
That's what a lot of gun supporters like to believe I'm sure. It's unlikely though as the US army is the most powerful in the world. They have tanks and missiles. You think life was bad during covid restrictions, imagine your life when there is no government support, no infrastructure at all. No food, no basic services, nothing. It's a claim that makes people feel better about their guns but in reality they haven't thought it through.
Meanwhile, as I said, the US are supposed to have a solid democratic system. From the way gun supporters talk, they have one of the worst in the world.
"and fight a tyrannical government who attempts to take these rights away from them."
That's simply comical. People who think they are going to gather their buddies from the town and fight the army and police are simply ignorant and deluded.
"This is why they can't do it. make them harder to get, for sure"
I don't think that's the reason why. I mentioned previously some of the reasons I see.
The legislative process would require a large amount of support that seems unlikely to ever happen. Americans think children being massacred is a perfectly fine price to pay for clutching onto their guns and continuing their fantasies about being a cowboy and killing a bad guy or defeating the US army....
"There's too much division in the US atm, most Yanks think the election was stolen, and then the Dems worked with big tech and the media to shut up anyone who complained, including Trump. "
I know. I follow it. The amount of Americans convinced that the election was stolen is insane. People seem to care more about aligning with their group than aligning with the truth.
" In the meantime, having armed guards at schools is to only thing that will stop this insanity short term."
It won't stop it. ..and it will just push the US one step further down path of failure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegameseriesop1300
"It's not a matter of saying "we don't know" It's the matter of ignoring that which is obvious."
That's what ancestors would have said about the cause of the weather or diseases. They didn't know the answer ...so god. To them that might have seemed obvious because there were employing the same illogical god of the gaps approach that you endorse.
" In the same manner, Allah, God has created the Universe."
You're just making a claim. I've asked you about proofs and evidence. Repeating the claim over again isn't proof or evidence.
"Even if one single particle could have gone wrong, the universe wouldn't have been created"
Not exactly but there are some precise constants that are fundamental to our universe.
"should tell you that this is no coincidence,"
You're just making an assumption. Imagine a fish stating that it's no coincidence that it happened to be born in the sea. It happened purely naturally without any intervention. But you would call it coincidence because it seems too lucky that the fish was born there instead of on top of a mountain.
"but the work of God. "
Again you're just making an assertion. You have offered no proofs or evidence.
". There is no other possibility."
Incorrect. There are many possibilities. The universe could have been created by aliens. The constants could only be that way. There could be multiple universes. Some are good and some are bad. There could be multiple dimensions and we got a good one. We could be in a simulation created by aliens.... I could go on. AND even if we wanted to pretend that a god was involved you can't actually demonstrate that it would be your god and not one of the thousand other ones that man has invented.
"Well the proof of Allah is that, in the Quran, Allah mentions many things which Science has discovered recently."
Oh does he talk of the internet? Quantum mechanics? Dark energy? The internet?
No? Yeah didn't think so.
"llah mentions in the Quran that he will preserve Pharaohs Body and later it was discovered that after the the death of Pharoah, some of his priests, hid his body and then it later it's was brought to the Museum and Allah had said this before it happened. "
What is scientific about this pointless story?
"Then Allah says in the Quran, that mountains have pegs which hold it, and later science discovered this."
What?
"And then Allah says in the Quran 1400 years ago, that the Light of the moon is not it's own light but reflected light and science discovered this in the 18th or 19th century. "
It doesn't actually say that. It doesn't use the Arabic word in`ikaas. That appears to be a modern interpretation.
"hen Allah mentions in the Quran, that there are 2 seas which don't mix which was proved later. "
What?
"So my question to you is, how can anyone predict not just 1 thing, not just 2 things, but how can anyone"
These are vague and meaningless predictions that anyone could come up with.
"but how can anyone predict everything correctly before even science was invented"
But that hasn't happened. You've offered some fairly vague predictions that don't show any divine knowledge at all.
" We don't assume. We examine and we believe in the true proofs and evidences."
Your evidence is not convincing.
So I asked for some proofs and what you provided was poor. That may be enough for you, but I assume some of that is due to the way you were programmed when you were raised.
So you haven't offered any compelling evidence or proofs and you haven't refuted anything in the video so far.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@josegerrits3927
" as I have shown you those ACARS messages will be send from a groundstation which is determined by a router,"
Which is debateable and the document YOU REFERENCED refutes it.
Over and over you reference evidence that debunks your own claims
"ou haven´t explained the missing jolt, you ramble about multiple small jolts, "
WRONG. Actually I did explain it. You couldn't refute what I said. so YOU rambled about NIST and Bazant....
"So eventhough YOU made up some explanation, the official story remains unchanged. "
I refuted it. You couldn't address it what I said.. It's consistent with NISTs explanation. You're confused. As usual.
"The phonecalls have not been explained or refuted by you, you "
WRONG. They have been well and truly explained. You lost the argument...so you moved on.
" but no test results"
I mentioned examples where it has worked. WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH?
"nobody has been able to refute the testresults "
I pointed out several problems with his test. WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH?
"You have not refuted the opportunity the FBI had in Shanksville "
WRONG. We went through that at length... and your position was shown to be WRONG. You kept making claims that I showed to be false.
" A few witnesses mentioned seeing bodyparts, but a lot of other witnesses saw nothing"
The first half of the sentence proves you are wrong.... the second half shows that you can't understand basic logic. We're back to this idiotic argument - "Oh sure a lot of witnesses did see my client kill the vitcim, but a lot of witnesses didn't!" Imagine a lawyer saying that. That's how hopeless your argument is.
Body parts were found over a large radius, even in the trees (according to your witness). The FBI did not seal off the entire area....people saw body parts...there were numerous organisations there.... your idea that the body parts were planted is completely implausible and just ridiculous.
"The available footage from the first hour after the crash does not show any bodyparts. "
That footage is from far away...the witnesses say the body parts were small. Your argument fails.
"You have not explained how the plane could go inside the building without breaking up at least partially"
They probably did break up .... they would have been torn to shreds from the impacts....that's why they exploded.
"But how was it able to destroy core columns when in the other crash, where the fuselage did not hit the core, it did not destroy the perimeter columns and shoot right through the building"
You sound so confused. Perimeter columns (on one side) were destroyed in both the impacts. Your comment here is nonsensical.
"ou have not refuted the fact that not one single piece of planewreckage has been identified through protocol. "
Wrong. I have addressed that passenger personal items and dna makes it undeniable that it was the correct plane.
What's really stupid here is that you don't accept the many body parts of the passengers as evidence....you claim that the FBI somehow planted that in front of people...but you are under the impression that it would be impossible for them to switch a part with a serial number.... Your claims not only are refuted....they aren't even consistent or well thought out.
" You have not explained why we only get to see the transcripts of the cvr and the call made by Felt."
I've never seen you mention that. More intellectual dishonesty on your part I assume....
"So you might think you did, but in fact, you didn´t."
I've taken apart your claims over and over....as each one is dismantled you just move on to something else.....then when it's pointed out to you what you're doing....you just cling to denials.... "oh no no no you never refuted that...I just really wanted to talk about something else "
Your denials are hardly surprising through considering the deep fanatical faith you have in the conspiracy. You could lose every argument..... every piece of evidence refuted (basically what's happened so far lol) and you would still believe no matter what. Your mind is closed. It's all about faith.
You don't care if you're 0 out of 55. Maybe the next claim! ..that'll be the one!
1
-
@josegerrits3927
" So again, what is your motive and what are your credentials?"
So again, it doesn't look good for you that you want to turn attention to me. Why not stick with evidence? ... oh that's right because the evidence isn't on your side.
"How can this be debatable?"
It's entirely debateable whether that plane was where you said it was. How do we know? Your own witness doesn't think it was! The other people in the document don't think it was! ..the people in that document confirm the plane crashed and stop getting signals!
Your own references debunk you... AGAIN. You are wrong
You're clinging to denial.
" The transponder showing the plane at 8200 feet confirms this fact. "
NO. It was at 8200 feet just before it crashed.. that's what that document proves.. they lose contact a minute later... AND that document contradicts your claims on where the plane is from the previous paragraph.
Your own references debunk you... AGAIN. You are wrong
You're clinging to denial.
"YOU might have explained it"
That's right I refuted it.
You can't address what I said.
You lack the ability to do so. So what I say stands.
This is a problem for you so you invent these pathetic dismissals.
You're clinging to denial.
" the official story is still the rigid block slamming onto the lower part with tremendous force."
....and?! There WAS tremendous force...
"So much force it could be picked up on a seismometer according to Bazant."
The collapses WERE picked up on seismographs.
"Since this remains the official story, there SHOULD BE a jolt"
WRONG. You're a mess here. You're obviously well out of your depth of understanding with this one.
There was tremendous force.
The collapses were noted on seismographs.
There was not a single neat jolt because the collapse wasn't a CD. The upper block came down on an angle making for numerous smaller impacts... the structural elements did not meet their counterparts directly below. It was a messy collapse on an angle... lots of impacts... not a single neat impact.
This has been explained to you. You can't refute it.
Not only are you not refuting it, you're responding with confusion.
So you are WRONG.
You're clinging to denial.
"The phonecalls were not explained"
Most of the calls WERE NOT from cell phones.
" And some of the calls lasted for several minutes. "
So now you're conceding that they have happened... AND you're conceding that most of the calls were from airfones... but now you've backtracked to time limits? Ok then, you tell me which cell phone call you're talking about now. Are you going to try talk about airfone calls AGAIN.... or calls
"The objections against the Dewdney experiment, such as his location, were not refuted by testing it in a rural environment "
You're clinging to denial. I have pointed out problems with his test and WHY it is not a good representation. He did a few laps around London, Ontario. ..around base stations that have less power.
I've also given you examples that show it can happen.
I've given you experts saying it can happen.
You've really got nowhere to go here.
"There is not one expert cited that says, those phonecalls at those altitudes flying at that speed were possible, you would have a strong signal for minutes on end without losing contact."
No one is talking about never losing contact.
You're resorting to straw men now...
''The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight,'' said Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. '
"Yes, there were many agencies working the site, but after the FBI finished its research."
You're clinging to denial.
The fire department were there before the FBI and saw remains.
Other people saw remains.
The coroner was there the whole time and saw remains... he even identified some of them himself.
There were remains well beyond the crash site. The FBI only took control of the crash site.
There were remains even in trees.
"King said the Red Cross has been on the scene from the beginning, providing food and water to more than 600 exhausted workers from local fire departments, FBI, ATF, NTSB, FEMA, state police and coroners' offices from around Pennsylvania. "I've seen the Red Cross at the command center, down with the media crews, and around the perimeter," King said. "They're doing a great job. They've definitely got their ducks in a row in a pretty hectic situation.""
http://archive.li/3avfM#selection-401.1-401.354
It was not just the FBI.
Your theory that the FBI somehow spread body parts out is not only i implausible, it's idiotic and doesn't fit the evidence at all.
You're clinging to denial.
"but after the FBI finished its research."
Not according to witness testimony. Not according to the red cross
You are WRONG
" The dispatcher that took the call was not allowed to hear the copy, according to him, the transcript is incomplete.
"
....and? Could you clutch at those straws any harder?
"You have not taken apart my claims"
They have been dismantled, refuted and stomped into the dirt. You're stuck. Your current position is to ignore all the evidence that proves you wrong - some of this evidence you referenced lol - and to just deny that your arguments haven't been refuted... no matter how many times they are... and how much information works against you.
Your behavior is that of a religious fanatic. No amount of evidence or reason will make you question your conspiracy fantasy.
"next is because you simply refuse to even consider an alternative explanation on whatever"
I've considered it but you see I care about evidence, logic, reason. You don't. You just want to believe.
You have faith.... no amount of evidence will crack your faith...
1
-
1
-
@josegerrits3927
" all of these calls were reported as being cellphonecalls,"
Some initially were. But they weren't from cell phones.
"Dewdney debunked "
That's simply nonsense. They worked out that they weren't cell phone calls....his flawed experiment has nothing to do with that. His flawed experiment (4 laps around a city) didn't actually debunk anything.
"Verizon the airphone company is also used by the military."
so now the airphone company is in on it too? According to you ...thousands of people were needed to pull of your ridiculous charade...
"They never showed creditcard bills to prove they were airphone calls"
So you have no evidence....you have nothing...but you want to make that their fault?
", some of the calls could not even be assigned to a row. So no, they were NOT airphone calls."
Again basic logic fails you. if they don't provide evidence to your level of expectation that doesn't prove you are right. It only proves they didn't have all the evidence. A gap of evidence doesn't prove a conspiracy. Even more absurd is that you don't accept the evidence they do provide....according to you ...all that is fake.
Your logic:
Clear evidence = fake = conspiracy!
Evidence undetermined = conspiracy!
Everything = conspiracy in your brainwashed mind.
"How did my witnesses prove me wrong about Shanksville? They did not and you know that."
WRONG. You repeatedly made claims about no one seeing body parts...no one seeing plane wreckage...no one going near the crater... etc ...all shown to be wrong OVER and OVER.
"He was there the first hour, and he saw a piece of bone, not a single drop of blood, how does a bone get there without any blood or flesh"
Plane crash...explosion...
Use your brain occasionally.... it's sitting right there dormant...
Miller also said " The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'"
You're referencing someone who answers the question...but you ignore that part...because you reaaaaaaaallllly need there to be some mystery somewhere.
Once again you're referencing someone who debunks you....
"Was it even human?"
The coroner personally identified a dozen victims.... so...yeah... it was.
" You again, have read this over and over, but refuse to believe a coroner had no business there when the FBI was processing the site. "
You're not making sense again.... you're denying he was there seeing remains...even though he tells us the opposite!
"Because I gave you mine, told you my motive, and am trying my best to show you something is wrong with 9-11. "
I don't remember your background. Your motive is that you desperately want to believe in this conspiracy and are working backwards from a conclusion to try and find something to support it...
"You keep saying you debunked things, which you didn't, you only denied it or twisted the evidence to match your story."
I've never seen someone describe their own actions so perfectly.
I do keep debunking things....that's why you drop the topics and move on to something else.
"Why do you think you know everything, even things that are not in the report."
Do you think reality is limited to a report? ...a report which you basically claim is entirely false? Odd.
"Why would I even take you serious?"
I don't care if you do. Address my arguments...address the evidence... or instead choose to live in a fantasy. either way.
1
-
@josegerrits3927
" All that is left is look at the statements the witnesses gave and how those statements were reported by the FBI."
Looking at witness statements is the LAST THING you want to do.... you keep waving them away or making terrible excuses for all the many witnesses that debunk your fantasy.
"What makes you think their later report is correct? "
It's consistent with all the evidence.... you see...evidence..and being consistent with evidence matters....
The fantasies and speculation you produce doesn't....not to me anyway.
"I specifically said there were people near the crater in the first hour after impact. Those people saw nothing"
..except for plane parts...body parts.... yeah nothing..
You just deny reality because you prefer conspiracy fantasies...
", no identifiable plane parts, no human remains, nothing. "
Why do you lie so much? Do think lies are acceptable if they support your faith? You only end up looking not only deluded, but dishonest .....and a little pathetic.
"The only one with a little credibility would be the coroner,"
You mean one of the many people who debunked you a long time ago...
" But he also said that he never ever during the whole search saw one drop of blood. So I asked you, how could a piece of vertebrae end up on the ground without any blood or flesh attached to it?"
I've answered this... he even answered this.
Stop wasting my time with stupid questions you got answers to the first time.
This is a game you contiually play...
You: "ah but explain this!!!"
Me: "ok...blah blah"
You: "erm... um... but you still need to explain this!!" (again)
Me: "??
Ignoring answers you can't deal with isn't a rebuttal. It's desperation.
" it is clear that they worked outside the premises until the FBI turned the site over."
1. You have not done so.
2. We've established that other organisations were there WITH the FBI - FEMA etc.
3. We've established that people NOT from the FBI such as fire fighters say body parts and plane parts instantly..
4. We've established that the coroner saw body parts... and even identified some of them himself...
5. We've established that video and photos were taken of the site while the FBI were in control of the crater.... so no they weren't faking a crash with body parts somehow magically prepared for them..
6. We've established that there were body parts well beyond the crash area... even if 1-5 didn't destroy your argument several times over... the FBI couldn't have planted all this evidence (it's so stupid) everywhere....
"AGAIN why would any of those agencies be at the crime scene during an investigation?"
That's their job... and we have confirmation that they were there on the scene...AND saw body parts..
So AGAIN you’re hiding from evidence, logic ….all because you prefer to cling to a nonsensical fantasy that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…
”His mind came up with a somewhat logical explanation”
….and as we know… logic has no place in your fantasy world.
If you can prove the explanation wrong feel free to try…. I have a suspicion you won’t do a good job of it.
”Your assumption that the vertebrae must have burned clean after the fireball is not based on anything solid, so your belittling demeanor just shows your insecurity.”
Now that’s some interesting projecting.
Not based on anything solid? A fireball burning flesh and blood?! Are you so unaware that you don’t realise that explosions burn things?
Just step back and look at your desperate, incompetent deniual here.
You can’t refute it… so you just declare its false…just because… and therefore… it’s an anomaly… therefore it’s a conspiracy?! ..and all the other evidence goes away..
Oh dear…. What a mess of nonsense, self-delusion and non-sequiturs.
”I told you my motive, but you are so stuck in your belief that EVERY TRUTHER wants to believe a conspiracy,”
I never claimed that… but hey you’re happy to just make shit up as you go. You have no interest in the truth…
”, that you deliberately twist it so it makes sense to you.”
LOL….. ahem…irony….
”you flatout deny even my testimony about myself, without any proof.”
I deny your claim that you’re after the truth. You’re not. You want the conspiracy to be true…and you’re applying common cognitive biases to get there…. You’ve given me all the evidence I need. You wave away mountains of evidence merely because it debunks your claim. You don’t care about evidence unless you think you can use it… otherwise it’s discarded…
”well, how would you describe your own actions?”
Making a conclusion from the evidence… not the other way around.
You see, no matter what evidence is put in front of you… you will always invent an excuse…”oh that was planted”…”oh they were faked”… ect.
”Isn't it true that you are working backwards from the official story as being the ABSOLUTE truth?”
Nope. The other way.
”But the fact is, you defend everything in the report, you don't even question their witnesses, you only question the account of witnesses that were ignored in the report,”
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
You're wrong most of the time...
”but when you come up with explanations that were NOT in the report,”
…and you’re confused quite a lot. My explanation of the failure of Szamboti matches NISTs explanation of the collapse.
So it IS in the report… it’s THEIR collapse sequence… I’ve explained this to you… but you’re not interested in anything that doesn’t lead to mysterious conspiracies…4
”, what evidence would you need to question even a little thing in the official story?”
I’ve already done that… I’ve already questioned…. I’ve looked at the conspiracy claims….. that should have become apparently to you by now… guess what? – they are bullshit.
1
-
@josegerrits3927
" I am talking about the witnesses who claimed the phonecalls were cellphone calls,"
What witnesses? Burnett? She wasn't sure how many calls she received. She may certainly have been called once by a mobile but we KNOW the others were from airfones... you're clutching at straws.... permanently it seems.
" WHAT is the EVIDENCE those were airphonecalls? "
People actually said they were using airfones...
Do you not see how pathetically desperate your situation here is?
You have tried to made a series of claims.
They all failed.
So now you're trying to recover by demanding that I prove everything else to you.
We KNOW that people were using airfones on 9/11... deal with that.
"We have NOT established there were other organizations working with the FBI,"
Yeah we have.
"We have NOT established there were other organizations working with the FBI, "
We've established that numerous other organisations were at the crash site.
8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines
Volunteer first responders.... there on 9/11....
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.
..you know.. the people who saw body parts.. ..the testimony you refuse to accept...
" they were at the crash site AFTER the FBI left. "
NO. That list is organisations who were there on 9/11...on that day...
"The coroner did not even SEE the blast of fire, so how COULD he know that was what vaporized everything"
Oh come one... do you see how ridiculous you sound? you don't need to see the blast to know that there would be one! A plane loaded with fuel crashed into the ground! He saw what it looked like afterwards... people on the scene smelled the jet fuel.
"If the fireball was that hot, how could the bandana and the passport survive? "
That's what happens in all crashes... you get some items that survive.... blood is a liquid inside the circulatory system.. it's not an item easily ejected by the force of an explosion... remember that a ticket survived the hindenburg crash.
"This defies all logic and you know it."
Nope. It all fits... and since when do you care about logic?
If we wanted to see real defiance of logic all we need to do is start thinking about alternative explanations.... hrm..
"I have a question for you, what would create white smoke?"
Lots of things can create white smoke.
"Another one, why are you so sure it was NOT controlled demolition?"
That has been explained to you in my posts.
"Was there ever some detail that made you doubt the official story, and if so, what was that?"
Do you want me to do your work for you now?
I don't think you like/respect me enough (admittedly haven't I given you reason to) to actually be interested in my thoughts on this.
1
-
@josegerrits3927
"The calls made by Britton, Hanson, Bradshaw, Wainio, Glick, Sweeney were also reported as being cellphone calls"
So you've moved on to all the other flights now? ...sigh..can you prove they were cell phone calls?.. you're not going to get anywhere here... the evidence that it was those planes undeniable... but you're trying... you're just ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your worldview and inventing completely implausible and utterly absurd fantasies about planting evidence and faking crashes...
"The Fire departments were there, but again, after the FBI closed off the scene, it changed."
Did you even read that quote?! He is saying that they were allowed on the site but without their equipment.....
...and another of your witnesses shows you are wrong.
"About that white smoke, have you seen the footage from the wtc, "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTXFnAIP6A0
"I am interested actually, because i cannot understand why you don't have doubts."
I cannot understand why you reject reality in the face of evidence, logic and reason.
1
-
@josegerrits3927
"No I cannot prove they were cellphone calls"
Noted. You've got nothing to work with here... Just a deep desire to believe in conspiracy fantasies.
"The FBI reported those calls as being cell phone calls."
..except they worked out that they weren't...
"Disregarding the witness reports. "
Bullshit. We went through the Burnett example... one may have been...but not all were. In her retelling she wasn't even clear how many times he was called.
To say you're clutching at straws .... for an argument that doesn't make sense... and is contradictory to a mountain of evidence...would be kind on my part...
" They told the FBI they were surprised to see their number on caller ID. "
You're being vague here...we went through this with Burnett... one call may certainly have been through the cell phone...the others weren't..
How fucking hard is it to understand that they tried the cell phone... it didn't work...it cut out... so they used the airfones?
What about that confuses you?
What part of that is sooooooo complicated that your head just spins trying to compute it?
"there are numerous people even reporters, reporting live that state that there was nothing "
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to this. This is the dumbest argument I've heard a conspiracy theorist make in a while... and I've had discussions with flat earthers...
Once again...you're backpedaling to this stupidity.....
Lawyer: "But your honor!.. Sure a lot of people saw my client kill the victim!.... But a lot of people didn't see my client kill the victim!! "
Please don't waste my time with such stupid line of reasoning. You're embarrassing yourself.
" because 2 witnesses said they did see human remains"
It's more than 2.... but you have no interest in the facts... all you're interested in ..is ways to skirt around them or wave them away...
"According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, when former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' "
Oh look there's another. He must have been a secret FBI agent! yeah!
So I force you to concede that you are WRONG and people DID see remains INCLUDING someone YOU referenced... and your response is ..."yeah only 2"..
Once again, you're only making a fool of yourself with these denials... no matter what evidence is rammed down your throat you will just make terrible excuses...
"One of those also saw a piece of the landing gear, although this was never mentioned in any other witness account, "
?! It's baffling that you think this is some sort of point... you're actively debunking your own pitiful fantasy here....
Wreckage was found.
Body parts were found.
Passenger personal effects were found.
Your theory doesn't work..
"The coroner saw bone without any human tissue attached to it"
No. Tissue was found. A lot of tissue apparently... see the quote above for confirmation.... he made a comment about blood.
Interesting comment from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/2002/05/12/hallowed-ground/0c7b4753-ecca-48bd-8267-f11d2fc43a4f/?utm_term=.d51d83e7a3ae
"Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total"
Searchers... no doubt after the FBI opened up the area.. found remains.. but it was all over the place... .. in the woods..
I've referenced this point before... it's damning to your theory... remains were found in a very wide area...beyond what the FBI controlled... (this is of course ignoring all the other evidence that already refuted your theory).
"Have you ever had a BBQ?"
You think a plane crash is like a little bbq? Oh god you sound ridiculous sometimes... come on...try harder you're smarter than this.
"Only 8% of all the humans on board was found, how did they get ripped up in so many pieces when 95%"
Not as durable as metal I guess... maybe one day when we become cyborgs...
You're not actually making a point here... you're clutching at at straws harder than anyone I've ever seen.... it's actually a little sad..
"what evidence shows the planes being there?"
dna, passenger items, FDR, radar, witness testimony, the calls...etc etc.. the list goes on.
You don't give a damn about evidence though.... all you care about is ways to avoid the evidence that refutes your conspiracy fantasy while you cling to anything you hope seems like an anomaly...
1
-
@josegerrits3927
" But the others were not, more proof the calls were cellphone calls.
"
You're still going nowhere here... some calls were cellphone calls...they weren't reliable... the airfones were.
"What evidence do you have to prove they were airphone calls? "
You're just trying to shift the burden now...we know that aifones were used...this has been established...
One of the many problems you have here is that you don't have evidence of anything.. you can't back up your strange (illogical, nonsensical debunked) theories.
Your attempt to shift the burden just highlights your total failure.
" showed you numerous reports, you showed *nothing*. "
You've shown nothing that supports your claims or refutes the official story.
Merely pointing to a report doesn't mean you've proven anything...in fact over and over your reference material that contradicts your claims...
"The human remains were all found in the 70 acre surrounding the crash point"
..that's right...70 acres....well beyond what the FBI could control...and somehow plant body parts ...that were seen within an hour...and none of the following noticed...
8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines
So you're claiming the FBI maintained a perimeter of 70 acres...?
Ah but according to you they were all somehow kept away while the FBI faked a crash scene!?
""King said the Red Cross has been on the scene from the beginning, providing food and water to more than 600 exhausted workers from local fire departments, FBI, ATF, NTSB, FEMA, state police and coroners' offices from around Pennsylvania. "I've seen the Red Cross at the command center, down with the media crews, and around the perimeter,"
Oh look EVEN THE RED CROSS would have been able to see what they were doing.... if they red cross were that close those other orgnaisations were...
..and we already know that first responders saw body parts....
You're living in a fantasy.
"Again, you are the one in denial."
For you to use those words is just humorous.
You think that the planes were flown somewhere else... no one noticed this...or kept it quiet... you think the passengers were murdered...then the body parts burned..crushed...passenger items collected...then somehow these were transported with the FBI (who got there after first responders who saw body parts but hey we'll move on) ...and you think the FBI planted those body parts... in a day...over 70 acres...in front of thousands of first responders...and the coroner...even in the trees... why would they do that?! Not only is it debunked...it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That's just the tip of the iceberg as far as your moronic conspiracy goes...it gets worse if you actually think about it.. - something you will never do...
All the evidence proves that idiotic conspiracy is wrong.... but you dodge..dance...divert...deny... and cling to such a stupid idea.
"Even the departure time in the official report is wrong, when you look at RITA and search for flight 93 you'll see the wheels off time was 8.28 not 8.41 as was written in the report. There are also 2 different gates for the same flight, 26 and 32."
Wow that means it was a conspiracy! lol
" The coordinates were 39.51, -78.46 "
So you've failed at this type of claim 5 times already.....each time theorising a different location...contradicting your previous half baked attempt...
What are you saying right/wrong this time?
I previously asked how many times you need to be wrong before you wake up.... the answer is infinity....you don't care show bad your arguments are...how many fail (a lot) you have such faith that you move onto the next claim without a second of critical thinking....
"Nice comment trying to make me look pretty stupid, y"
To be fair you do most of the work there.
"And you actually believe that?"
Yeah who would have thought a plane crash and jet fuel would be explosive and destructive.... that's so mysterious! Oh but what a bbq.......sigh...
"the grass near the crater is untouched, not even scorched, but apparently it burned so hot it vaporized human beings instantly? "
The crash area was burnt...parts around it werent.
Your inability to understand things ...and your refusal to accept reality...isn't an argument.
1
-
1
-
@josegerrits3927
"Why not try and debunk some of the proof I gave you."
I've been doing that for weeks.... you've accidentally done it yourself a few times as well.
"Not only were they not reliable, at 35.000 feet at 500 mph they were impossible."
You've not proven that any of the calls in question were made at 35, 000 feet..or claimed to have been made then.
" How was it established and by whom?"
We've already been through this...one of the passengers last conversation was with an airfone operator...passengers apparently mentioned being on the airfones.. to deny that passengers in the plane would use the phones...that are right there...during a hijacking is bizarre...you just deny everything and don't care how insane you appear.
" The creditcard bills? "
You're the one making the claims about cellphones...you cant support them...so you try and shift the burden to others to prove you wrong..
That's just sheer desperation...
"I have showed you the 302's by the FBI, showed you the RITA logs, the ACARS logs, project Achilles, witness statements that nothing was found, witness statements that the FBI treated it as a crime scene, coordinates on radar that show the plane had already passed the crash site and was at 8200 feet after it crashed. "
All of which has been clarified for you...refuted...debunked...not only that...in all of those claims you often debunked yourself... as those records confirm the plane crashed! You refer to claims that confirm the crash...confirm the loss of contact... and you try to use that to mean the plane didn't crash....AND your claims contradict each other....you never notice how foolish you look.
Not only are you debunked by my evidence....you are debunked by your own..
Fail.
"Showed you nobody has seen the wreckage and it is still in FBI possession. "
But you were wrong...people DID see wreckage.
Fail.
"Showed you that simulations were ongoing, showed you the white smoke from below before the towers collapsed, showed you witness testimonies that report secondary explosions in the buildings. "
Simulations? There is an explanation for the white smoke...there were burning cars nearby... the witness testimony supports the official story...you just need to read it properly in full...without quote mining and distorting..
Fail.
"Pointed out to you that protocol was not followed a"
Yet when protocol is followed (the FBI at the crash site) you claim that's a conspiracy.
Regarding the identification of the plane.... the passenger items and body parts (among other evidence) make that claim rather stupid. You've got undeniable physical evidence at the scene.
You think the FBI can actually somehow get body parts ..looking burnt and crushed..at the scene...but you don't think they can get a couple of switched plane parts? Your logic is full of more holes than swiss cheese.
Fail.
"Pointed out the lack of contamination at Shanksville."
There was no "lack"..it just didn't exceed a dangerous level...the fuel burnt in the crash....
Fail.
"Pointed out the color of the smoke at Shanksville, showed you how it was supposed to look."
You've done no such thing...
You've not established the smoke being wrong at all. It's odd that you think you have.
Fail.
"Pointed out lack of proof concerning the boarding of the hijackers. "
It's true there is limited evidence of this...but with all the other mountains of evidence there is hardly a reason to doubt it.
I'll be nice and wont give you a fail on that one.
"The list goes on and on..."
Yes the list of your failures and lost arguments goes on as far as they eye can see.
"You have tried your best to make me look foolish although I have been open and honest about my reasons, you refuse to give your motive or credentials. "
I haven't been trying to make you look foolish. I have been addressing your evidence. However I do lose patience with people who live in denial and cling to fantasies regardless of how bad the evidence is.. it wouldn't matter how many times your claims are refuted you would still have faith...your behavior is like that of a religious fanatic. Your mind is closed. You only want validation that the conspiracy is real. you refuse to accept anything else. The chemtrail people are the same.
My motive is that I'm a very argumentative skeptic.
My credentials, you don't need to know. I don't know yours.
"So I am gonna stop debating you, it leads to nothing,"
.You've not presented evidence that stands up to scrutiny no.
1
-
@josegerrits3927 You're still trying? how many desperate, bad claims do you need to make before you wake up from your deam?
So now you've got a reporter, we don't know when he got there...we don't know where he looked... we know he wasn't allowed near the crash site because you keep claiming that..
So is it now your claim that all the reporters had a good view of what was happening?
That completely undermines your debunked, implausible fantasy about the FBI planting burnt, crushed body parts and passenger items....
Your theories have more holes that swiss cheese...
What else did Konicki say?
------------
FOX News reporter: It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.
Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that's right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn't much left.
Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?
Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.
Reporter: Smoke? Fire?
Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces..."
-------------------
So you've got him saying that there WERE pieces...AND that the NTSB were looking at them.
Oops your witness refutes you again.
1
-
@josegerrits3927
"o he said it looked like part of the NTSB."
So you're quoting a witness and at the same time you're refusing to accept what he saw. haha... this is just comical. You keep trying to use testimony that debunks you.
So once again, you're referencing witnesses watching the investigation...your witness contradicts your other claims...but also this shows that people could see what was happening which makes your weird fantasy about planting evidence simply impossible. Your theory fails on every level.
"Don't twist his words!"
What?! By listening to his description I'm twisting his words?! ...again..just comical.
"Jim Parsons"
His testimony is entirely consistent with the official story...it's odd that you're posting it...
" real evidence as in identified plane parts. "
...aaaaaaaaand you're back to this terrible argument... in your twisted imagination the FBI were able to walk in with prepared body parts and passenger items and plant them...(utterly absurd and debunked) you also try to claim that the FBI personally recovered one of the engines... but you think it's significant that they didn't ID the plane parts... You're so deluded that if they did, you wouldn't accept it. You would just say they planted it... can you not see how insane you sound?
"I am still waiting for your evidence on that flight crashing there, "
So you've got testimony, dna, photo, video, physical evidence, passenger personal effects, FDR etc...the list goes on and on.
You ignore all the evidence you don't like.
It would not matter what evidence was given to you, you would invent some absurd reason to ignore it... There is no evidence that can be given to you that you won't imagine a excuse for .. you will always just declare that it was planted by the evil government...
1
-
1
-
@josegerrits3927
”You keep trying to twist my words don't you? Trying to ridicule my comments by cherry picking them and misquoting, I might be delusional, you are dishonest.”
Show where I have done that or retract it. I will keep asking.
”Because I DO accept what that witness said.”
So you believe the NTSB were there looking at plane parts.
In one sentence there he debunks two points you refuse to accept. It wasn’t just the FBI at the scene and there were plane parts.
This is just embarrassing for you.
”he apparently was NOT SURE about what agency they were.”
Where does he say he wasn’t sure.
Post where he says those words.
Oh that’s right he never said he wasn’t sure. You’re just making things up.
YOU are dishonest.
You are delusional.
”He was however sure he DID NOT see any part that resembled a plane.”
He saw parts….they no longer resembled a plane….that’s a result of the impact. I cannot believe I need to explain that to you. That’s physics for you.
So you’ve got a witness who completely debunks your claims…you refuse to accept what he says…but because he said the plane was in small parts (as expected) you think you can somehow use that to support you? Just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
”So according to you he could not see human remains but he COULD see what those investigators were looking at”
He could see they were looking at plane parts apparently yes. He its your witness. Oh that’s right you refuse to accept what your own witnesses say……lol this is just bizarre.
”They might have been looking at pieces of a drone for all I care.”
Maybe they were pieces of the lost city of Atlantis! OR as supported by all the other evidence, they were pieces of the flight that crashed there.
”I have seen the footage by Jim Parsons,”
Post a link.
”He is NOT smelling jet fuel.”
He smelled burnt earth….
The people who were there first, the fire department DID smell jet fuel. They put the fires out…
They are outside…the jet fuel mostly burned in the crash… a reporter gets near the crash later and smells burnt earth (a result of the jet fuel) but says he can’t smell the jet fuel…..this is entirely to be expected… the witnesses who where there first DID smell jet fuel.
You’re back to this entirely illogical argument “ but your honour! Sure a lot of witnesses DID see my client kill the victim…but there were witnesses there later on that DIDN’T see my client kill the victim!”
It’s just a terrible argument.
”If it burned out there should have been a thick black cloud of smoke, this was not the case. It was a mushroom like plume of grey smoke. Completely inconsistent with a plane crash.”
You say so many stupid things.
There was a dark cloud of smoke when the crash happened…this is also hardly surprising.
It wasn’t an ongoing burn…it was an impact…
You say it’s “completely inconsistent” but all you need to do is go to google….type ‘plane crash smoke’ look at the images.. and you’ll see that many of them have grey smoke.
You’re not thinking. Your blind faith trips you up over and over.
”Jim Parsons was a witness who was there after the crash, so were a lot of other people, they said there were NO plane parts, NO human remains,”
Already addressed…people saw plane parts..people saw body parts..even Parson saw plane parts! LOL… You keep shooting yourself in the foot ….but you’re here again using the same argument as the lawyer…..it’s beyond clutching at straws…
”You choose to believe witnesses that are not refuting the official story and you choose to disregard any other witness. Something you ironically keep accusing me of.”
No. I’m being logical. You’re not. Some people saw the debris and body parts and some did not. It depends where they were…what they were there for ect…. But the fact that some didn’t doesn’t make the others go away… THAT is ignoring testimony merely because you don’t like it.
“ but your honour! Sure a lot of witnesses DID see my client kill the victim…but there were witnesses there later on that DIDN’T see my client kill the victim!”
You sound so desperate.
”Like I told you before, the dna evidence was provided by a military lab, the personal effects could have been placed by the FBI and although”
But according to you people could see the crash site… for all of that to be planted means all those people were in on it… as well as all these people…
8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines
That’s insane. Your fantasy about them faking the plane crash…killing the people somewhere else…making it look like they were burnt etc… then planting that somehow is not only stupid…it’s not only implausible….the evidence we have shows it cannot have happened…
”There is a lot of proof showing the plane was airborne after the time it supposedly crashed.”
You tried this and it failed miserably for you. The evidence you referenced from more than one source actually confirmed that the plane stopped responding… it confirmed that the plane crashed.
You shot yourself in the foot again.
”There are no plane parts,”
The witness testimony proves you wrong.
”{no serial numbers,”
Iv’e addressed this 9 times.
”the radar and ACARS logs are inconsistent”
They prove the plane crashed. They prove you are wrong. They use different methods to locate…so they don’t produce the same results…but we know for sure they prove the plane crashed.
”yet you claim I am the delusional”
That’s right…you keep presenting evidence that destroys your arguments….but you brush away hose little problems and keep going…. You aren’t rational… you just want to believe and your mind is closed. This is like a religion for you.
”something is wrong with this picture.”
Something is wrong but the problem is you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulchambers3279
You keep talking about America as if that's the only bad example of slavery. Owning people ..and being able to beat them.. is immoral regardless of whether it was the same as America's past or not.
How could people become slaves?
- War
- Born into slavery.
- Sold into slavery by their parents.
- Voluntary.
Lets look at a few examples of this.
Exodus 21:4
If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
Deuteronomy 20:10-15
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Exodus 21
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
"Here you are, saying that your ethics are objectively better than YHWH's while a few comments ago you stated that you see no evidence for an objective morality."
You've yet to show a problem. You've yet to show any irony.
"Finally, "
Finally? You've yet to make a single point.
" Is it objectively bad or it is just your personal opinion?"
Nether.
Personal - "belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else."
Our morality isn't decided by a single person. You are wrong.
I've challenged you about objective morality and you can't defend it.
" Some people like strawberry ice cream, some like vanilla."
I've addressed the ignorance of this example multiple times already.
Are you allowed to go around killing people? No? Oh look it's not like an ice cream decision. How do humans react to pain? Is it just like an ice cream decision? No it's not analogous at all. Every time you use that example you're wilfully showing how poorly you understand this topic.
"Some like genocide, others don't. "
Yahweh seems to.
" It's all just our personal beliefs. "
Wrong.... as I have repeatedly shown. Modern ethics are not based on personal beliefs. They are based on how decisions effect those concepts I raised such as human flourishing.
" Who gives a crap if humans flourish?"
Humans.
"That's just your personal opinion."
No it's what humans want. It's what is good for humans. When we talk about morality we are talking about human morality unfortunately. We are not talking about ant, bacteria or plant morality.
You don't seem to understand what the word "personal" means. It's a good thing I posted the definition for you.
You have so much basic stuff to learn about this topic.
"Try again. "
Try teaching you rudimentary stuff again? I've been schooling you since the start of the thread so you should be used to the uncomfortable lessons by now.
"You have done nothing to establish that atheism provides a sure footing for morality."
I've given you examples of the concepts underpinning our modern morality. You cannot refute them. You just assert that they are personal which is incorrect.
Try again.
The rest of your post was ignored.
You copy pasted something and made no argument. You cried about Sam Harris.
No one cares.
So you offered no real arguments here.
I had to educate you about the bible, I had to educate you about morality. You've offered to refutation on my post. You cannot even begin to support your claims of objective morality. Your position already fell apart like a house of cards.
Are your posts going to get better at some point? I doubt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143
...as if you weren't beaten enough....lets have a look at this just for fun..
"Ok, lets see, show me one scholar or interpretation which says that this verse is applied to any other cases."
Ok moron...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women%27s_testimony_in_Islam
In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[2] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[2] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.
In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[17] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.[citation needed]
In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity
Partial list of countries where a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man:
Bahrain (in Sharia courts)[20]
Egypt (in family courts)[21]
Iran (in most cases)[22]
Iraq (in some cases)[23]
Jordan (in Sharia courts)[24]
Kuwait (in family courts)[25]
Libya (in some cases)[26]
Morocco (in family cases)[27]
Palestine (in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody)[28]
Qatar (in family law matters)[29]
Saudi Arabia[30]
Syria (in Sharia courts)[31]
United Arab Emirates (in some civil matters)[32]
Yemen (not allowed to testify at all in cases of adultery and retribution)[33]
But ...once again...this is all beside the point...
You've been forced to concede that they are not equal....but you try to limit the damage to one type of inequality... (which fails)....not understanding that you're conceding that they are not equal....
You actually try to claim that not being equal means equal....
haha you're terrible at this.
Hey maybe repetition will help you? ..How about stomping your feet? haha
1
-
@chiefz1143
”You haven't shown me how the verse stands without the condition of debt being written.”
That makes no sense at all. It’s an illogical, irrelevant request.
Then again, you fail at english and logic....
”if there is no debt being written, then no testimonies are required.”
AGAIN, completely irrelevant to the arguments that refuted your idiotic claims.
”And also, if you any find me a verse which says women are half”
AGAIN, we are talking about THIS verse… you’re in a constant state of excuses, running and diversion…. More irrelevant babbling…
”Come one, if there is no debt then the verse wouldn't exist.”
AGAIN, completely irrelevant to the arguments that refuted your idiotic claims.
We know what the verse is about.
The verse proves they are not equal.
” You answered none of my question the other testimonies”
I have answered all your relevant questions. We are talking about this verse.
You just made about 5 attempts to divert away from your embarrassing failure and this verse… hahaha.,..
Keep squirming and running…it’s entertainment.
” I agree that some of them may don't give women rights but to say that that is in their law is stupid.”
Haha AND AGAIN you concede and I am right… and you are wrong…but instantly follow it up with feeble babbling…..
” Pfffttt, from wikipedia ?”
The sources are given…. Saying “pfft” isn’t a refutation…then again you wouldn’t know what a refutation is…you were obviously never educated.
” One of the country you mentioned was my country Pakistan.”
1. I didn’t mention Pakistan.
2. It wasn’t in the list.
3. BY POSTING THAT LINK YOU’RE PROVING I AM RIGHT!
Hahahaha this is hilarious….you’re conceding that they aren’t equal!
How can you be this stupid?!
Wow you are thick.
You keep destroying your own position…. And you’re too stupid to even realise it!
” Another of the country was bahrain:”
YOUR LINK DOESN’T PROVE YOUR CLAIM!
It says nothing about testimony.. haha you’re actually getting dumber!
Did you even read it?!
You were doing badly before but you found a way to do worse.
” I don't want to waste time on dismantling wikipedia claims.....”
Your first link proves that I AM RIGHT…and THEY ARE NOT EQUAL
.
Your second link said nothing about testimony…
You archived nothing….then again you haven’t achieved anything in this whole thread except showing how stupid you are…
My god you're inept.
” The verse is clear and you have yet to show me any scholar who agree”
READ THE LAST POST YOU DROOLING MORON..
From 2 hours ago....
Haha how can you be this dense?!
You aren’t right in the head….yours is a level of stupidity that probably requires a medical explanation.
” Ofcourse i will keep repeating such a simple thing”
Repeating simple things is all you can do.
It's your specialty....lol
When your simple arguments are demolished…you’re stuck…you don’t know what to do…so you repeat them….like a moron…
” Without the writing of the debt, there wouldn't be this verse in existent.”
Yes yes you already made that irrelevant statement…. That doesn’t address any of my arguments…
You can’t address my arguments.
You lack the intellect.
You're more about repeating simple things...
..failing at logic...not understanding english...
”I have already told you, EQUAL but not SAME.”
If their testimony is half that of a man they they are not equal.
I can’t believe that you’re so utterly stupid that you can’t understand that.
Your logic: Testimony worth half that of a man makes you equal to a man
God you’re blathering moron…just an uneducated, brainwashed retard…
Oh you’re from Pakistan…ahhh now it makes sense. That’s always near the top in lists of worst countries for women…
It’s horrible country for women to live in.
But you’ve probably never seen the world, so you don’t realise how bad it is for women there.
You’re naïve and brainwashed by your religion…
Pakistan… must be a hellhole for women…
Other countries are so much better…
So to summarise.
1. It doesn't say that the verse that being worth less is limited to financial transactions.
2. Even if, for arguments sake, we say that it was limited to finance..that's STILL INEQUALITY! It still proves my point
It still proves they are not equal
It still proves the video at the top is correct
Your claim that the guy in the video lied is WRONG
YOU are wrong.
You a misogynist Pakistani male…. People like you are why it’s one of the worst countries for women.
It all makes sense. T
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143
"When the verse is talking about the debt requirements and its conditions. You have yet to respond to this claim."
You're now just reduced to lying...
it's what vile people do when they lose their arguments.
I have addressed that about 20 times...
The verse is about debt....but when it says that a womans testimony is less than a mans it doesn't say that this is only in the case of debt which is supported by scholars and countries.
You've got no response to that.
You just pretend I haven't made you read it about 5 times... how pathetic.
This is how pitiful you are....I refute your claims ...you're dumbfounded... so you repeat them and pretend it never happened...
"Wtf lol ?."
Yes life can be confusing for very stupid people....
"After all this, you still have the capacity to surprise me with your stupidity. "
I need a minute to deal with the irony there.
"You showed me one text in which women are regarded as half and that too in case of debt."
Oh you mean the Quran?
Are you selecting to ignore the Quran?
Do you think you know better than your magical space god?
I find it hilarious that you try to invent these reasons for ignoring your own idiotic texts...
"How on earth can you deny that ? "
you're the one denying the commands of your magical space god idiot...
"From wikipedia ? Wtf man, are you serious ?"
The references are there...
I'm still waiting for you to respond.
You're really going to have to do better than "...but but ...erm....wikipedia?!!?!?!"
"Again, culture has nothing to do with religion."
From YOUR OWN LINK
"1) The competence of a person to testify, and the number of witnesses required in any case shall be determined in accordance with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah."
Nothing to do with religion huh?
Once again you've managed to make yourself look even more stupid..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women%27s_testimony_in_Islam
"where the fk did you mention any scholar ?"
I POSTED FROM HERE..
HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO KEEP REPEATING THE SAME POSTS?!
This is like training a chimp....
_" Can you quote me that place where i admitted that ?"-
YOU ADMITTED THAT YOUR LAWS STATES WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL....
...sigh... it's hard work speaking with morons...
"I am beaten or are you the one who is struggling the evidence "
You were beaten a long time ago.... I've been making sport of you.... but it's getting boring.....you're not even intelligent enough to put up any defence...
"Clinging to a single verse,"
LOL... so AGAIN you are trying to make the argument that verses in the Quran don't count unless they are repeated?!
Wow you're an idiot.
"I also proved that in most cases,men and women have equal testimony."
You haven't proven that at all...but the very sentence aligns to your embarrassing admission of defeat that they are not equal in all situations...
"Yes, i did demonstrate how stupid a human could be,"
Oh you've certainly demonstrated that.... perfectly.
""Let me rephrase, this law proves men and women don't have equality in Islam, "
Game oer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143
”As i said, now you can't differentiate between sarcasm ?”
Yes I already responded to this.
You obviously don’t know what the word means.
…which is no surprise as you struggle with English all the time.
Here, I’ll try to help you.
sarcasm
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
You’re still going to pretend your begging was sarcasm?
That doesn’t work… just like your use of equity doesn’t work.
You’re making a fool of yourself. Well, a bigger one.
”Equity is giving men more testimony power in financial issues, giving more testimony power to women in women related issues, giving men and women equal testimony power in common cases such as assaults, .....”
Except that’s not what equity means.
equity
noun
1.
the quality of being fair and impartial.
"equity of treatment"
synonyms: fairness, fair-mindedness, justness, justice, equitableness, fair play; More
2.
the value of the shares issued by a company.
"he owns 62% of the group's equity"
synonyms: value, worth, valuation; More
That’s the third or fourth time I’ve shown you the definition.
That you STILL don’t get it shows how fucking retarded you are….
”If you could show me how equality is better then go ahead,”
Equal rights is a fundamental requirement for a fair society
It shocks me that you don’t know this.
Then again – you’re a Pakistani man. You’re a pig. Your attitude just highlights why women are treated so badly in your country.
Your society is hundreds of years behind many 1st world countries.
It’s like talking to someone from the middle ages.
”I showed you my country, which completely shot down your claims”
Haha… no retard… you posted a link that SUPPORTED ME.
Your link showed that men and women do not have equal rights.
You shot yourself in the foot.
Lie 1
”Arrogance and ignorance at its best.”
Projecting.
”You are yet to show me a country which agrees with you.”
I’ve given you the link over A DOZEN TIMES.
You even responded regarding the list… so you DID SEE IT.
SO YOU ARE LYING
Why do you lie so much?
Lie 3
Caught out lying again.
You’re such a slimy coward.
”The wikipedia site you cited doesn't mention any gender inequality in the islamic text”
Actually it did. It listed the countries where women are not equal as well as referencing scholars…
Lie 4.
The funny thing is you’re so desperately trying to argue against the status of inequality...when you already admitted they are not equal!
You’re a mess… hahaha… just a confused mess. You try so hard but you just tie yourself in knots…
”The wikipedia source you mentioned claims that the 4 muslim schools believe such and such, yet they give no reference.”
There are MULTIPLE REFERENCES…from ancient scholars to modern ones…to Book 6 Hadith 301..There is one dead link.
You’re again lying.
Lie 5.
Your reliance on lies shows what a slimy piece of shit you are.
”You have yet to show me a scholar who agrees with you. Y”
See the link.
Lie 6.
”You have yet to show me a law from muslim country which agrees with you.”
I’ve given you the list. You just let on that you have seen it,
Lie 7.
This is very bad for you.
Not only do you lose all your arguments in an embarrassing manner….you actually make it worse by trying to lie about it.
Not only are you terrible at debating this topic… you are a dishonest person with no integrity…
” The amount of stupid games you play is amazing.”
Truly ironic.
” This the site you mentioned”
Oh god it’s hard work speaking to someone so stupid.
I WAS REFERRING TO THIS LINK.
https://quran.com/2/282
I JUST REFERENCED THAT. YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT IT
THAT’S WHAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING FROM
YOU’RE DENYING ISLAMIC WEBSITES NOW.
It’s like trying to teach math to turtle… no wait.. a pig. That’s more appropriate.
There appears no be no limit to your stupidity… every single little point is too difficult for you to handle.
” You think every muslim scholar, muslim website, muslim countries got it wrong, BUT, somehow your wikipedia site got it right.”
You’re projecting your own problem here.
YOU think all countries have it wrong.
YOU think the scholars have it wrong.
YOU think the Quran is wrong.
YOU think the Hadith is wrong.
This is an awkward position for you to be in…. so what do you do? You just lie about it…. and claim I’m doing it…
Haha you’re so lame… you’re pathetic… a clown.. you’re a joke to me.
There were three more lies there.
Lie 10.
” Why on earth would equity require ownership ?”
Oh my god you’re a moron…
You’re dumber than a brick…
I’m not saying it does…
I’m saying you’re not using the word correctly…
” Says that guy who claims that equality and equity are different concepts.”
They are different concepts. There might be similarities but they don’t mean the same thing.
I can’t believe you don’t get it….
I’m can’t believe I’m still being surprised by how dense you are.
I’m amazed you can use a computer… because you’re one of the dumbest people I’ve ever come across in my life.
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143
lol why are you still trying when you’ve been defeated so comprehensively?
”Now i am seriously doubting if you are a native english.”
Yes you’ve tried that lame line many times now… it was lame the first time and it hasn’t gotten better.
” When i said, "Please don't humiliate me in public", is that sarcasm or begging ?”
In the context of your many requests to stop debating you publicly because you kept losing.. it was begging.
You don’t understand context.
You don’t understand what words mean.
You obviously never received an education.
”If you can't get this right then how on earth would you comprehend other stuff.”
You’re the confused one here princess… I’m the teacher trying to help the dumbest kid in class.
You struggle with the most basic of concepts.
”You just pasted a definition which proved my point.”
Lie 1.
The definition backed up what I’m saying.
You’re simply too stupid to understand English.
”Don't you see that this is the definition i am using ?”
THEY ARE NOT BEING TREATED FAIRLY YOU DROOLING MORON.
They treated as half a man
Fucking hell you’re thick.
”Lol, again diverging.”
That’s a pathetic response.
I’m responding to your point. I think you panic all the time and just blurt “diverging” because you don’t know what to do…
You sound confused and desperate every time you spout it.
”Calling me a pig doesn't make sense.”
Oh it absolutely makes sense. You’re a vile, dirty, dishonest coward. You don’t like it… too bad.
Actually… now that you mention it… maybe I’m being unfair to pigs…
”You dress like pigs, behave like pigs......”
You’ve already shown you’re the piggy here… by your behaviour. It’s too late to try and project your failings on to others.
”That's why non muslim countries have more domestic violence than pakistan ?”
They don’t.
WRONG.
Pakistan is terrible for domestic violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Pakistan
Lie 1 (I think there’s been more but we’ll start here)
Pakistan is one of the worst countries in the world for women to live in.
You will of course deny this… the way you deny all the parts of reality you don’t like.
”You people are responsible for the most pedophilia ...”
You’re the ones still performing child marriages…
Lie 2.
”As i said again, equity is better than equality”
You can say it. But you sound like a halfwit when you do.
Equality is key.
It is fundamental to a fair society.
You don’t understand this because you’re a Pakistani man. You’re a pig.
You don’t get it. You’re brainwashed to treat women unfairly.
…and your pathetic attempts to justify it only fail miserably make you look more vile.
”and you can't do anything to respond to that”
I just did.
It wasn’t even hard.
”t showed that only in case of writing of debt, women have less authority in testimony.”
There you go.
It supported me. It showed their testimony is less than that of a mans.
I win.
You lose.
”You have yet to show me a country law which agrees with you. W”
Lie 3.
I gave you a list of countries.
You saw the list.
Now you’re lying and pretending there is no list.
Hahahaha…
Why are you such a coward?
”Why so scared ?”
Nice projecting coward.
”Why can't you show me a country's law which says that women are inferior to men ?”
We’re talking about testimony being worth less.
I’ve given you a list.
You’re pretending it doesn’t exist.
Your request here is a straw man.
Lies….evasions…fallacies…
Oh dear.
You’re terrible at this.
”Exposed 3.”
Oh kid you’re really going to have to try harder than that.
The only one getting exposed here is you.
”The site you mentioned referenced scholars ?”
Yes.
”it stated scholars but didn't give the source.”
Already addressed, cowardly sheep.
It mentioned several scholars… modern and historical…
The references are there.
You’re too scared.
Poor cowardly sheep.
”I am not showing you the equality, i am showing something far better, which is equity.”
Nothing is better than equality.
You don’t get that because you’re a cowardly Pakistani pig…. You were brainwashed…and you’re too stupid to understand simple concepts.
”You claimed that women are half in islam,”
We were talking about testimony… I said women were not equal…and guess what? YOU WERE FORCED TO AGREE.
I win again.
Sucks to be you.
”No scholarly view is cited”
Lie 4? I’ve lost count… you lie so much.
Scholars are referenced…. You’re too scared … you’re a cowardly Pakistani pig… that’s all I expect from you now.
”Even your divine site contradicts you.”
Oh god you’re dumb. In the article they talk about opposing opinions.
So you HAVE seen the article.
You can’t pretend you haven’t.
Exposed again
”you believe javed ghamdi now”
It’s not a matter of belief… these are YOUR Islamic scholars moron.
”Go read it, it is from your wikipedia site, it completely dismantles your claims.”
WRONG. IT COMPLETELY SUPPORTS MY CLAIMS.
You’re too stupid to understand what you’re reading.
The page presents opposing views.
You can’t seem to understand this.
Some scholars have said one thing… some say another… I can’t make this any simpler for your tiny brain, sheep.
”read before you cite.”
I did which is why I not only destroyed you again… but laughed while you made an arse of yourself not reading the page properly.
It’s funny just how desperately you dodged that page…lying… hiding from it..then eventually I ridicule you so much you look at it… and make a fool of yourself.
”And i told you, it has nothing to do with the topic. I want a muslim country law which says that women are half a man in every case.”
Straw man argument.
My point was about testimony being less than that of a man.
Fallacies and lies everywhere.
You’re such mess.
”Give ma a country which agrees with you,”
The list is right there.
I win.
You lose.
You must hate getting smacked around by an atheist … on the topic of Islam!
”:, how gullible can you become.”
You’re drowning here sheep… little comments like that aren’t going to save you.
”Keep doing that and you will become a pig one day.”
Too little too late pig. You’ve shown you’re the Pakistani pig here.
Lying… scared…
”You people don't even clean your ass after shitting.”
??? What planet do you live on?
It’s odd that a Pakistani pig would say that when you’re way behind many first world countries in so many aspects.
”And yet you couldn't show me one country which said that women are half a man in every case.”
Straw man
Already addressed.
”yet you couldn't show me any scholar who said that women are half a man in every case.”
Straw man. We were talking about testimony beyond debt cases and I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT.
So also a lie.
”Yet you couldn't show me where quran said that.”
I have reference the verse from the quran.
First you tried to claim I posted the wrong verse…
Then when laughed at you you’re now just denying I’ve posted it.
Lie 324535 (I really have lost count)
”Yet you couldn't show me how the hadith talks about all cases,”
Straw man. The argument is whether they are treated unequally and their testimony is worth less.
Talk about desperation ….
You’re doing a little dance and tryting to change the arguments you lost.
It’s funny.
Try harder.
Dance harder.
”When did i say that they are the same ?”
YOU SAID THIS
“Says that guy who claims that equality and equity are different concepts.”
Now you’re denying it?
You don’t seem to know what you’re saying pig. You’re a mess.
You need someone to help you.
”Stop acting stupid and start using your brain.”
Hahaha how ironic.
You’re such a confused moron…
It’s what I expect from a pig like yourself….
”Go read a book, pakistanis are more intelligent than you people.”
Pakistan is a shit country… in the world freedom index you’re 142! No one wants to live in Pakistan. No one wants to go there.
It’s one of the worst countries for women.
I feel like I’m trying to educate someone from the dark ages…
You’re a third world country. I’m surprised you even have electricity.
It certainly appears that Pakistani men are pigs... you're only reinforcing this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WinstonNewYork
"No, Mark, me suspect you a fascist, because you drank the Kool-Aid of the Marxist Media"
Wrong. I don't think you're a fascist.
I suspect someone has drunk some kool aid here and it isn't me.
"But as the Marxists of today have made bedfellows with the Billionaire class, and as you legitimize yourselves by your hatred by all things white, male, hetero, patriotic, successful and Christian,"
Wrong. I don't hate any of those things. I am those things....except Christian.
Just a little hint... ..someone pointing out that Trump lost legitimately isn't really your opening to start making idiotic assumptions and whining about the left. You just end up looking foolish.
I'm not a lefty...I'm not a marxist. You need to get some new material. Your post has been comically bad so far.
"Hence you find yourself so easily dismissing the mountain of evidence against a safe election"
hah... there was about 60 court cases... all failures except for one irrelevant one. It's not simply me dismissing it...
Even most of the republicans accepted the reality of his loss.... but yeah they must be crazy leftists marxists in your simplistic black and white world.
When you grow up you'll learn that life is a little more complicated than that.
"because you love the Leftist end, of global, socialist totalitarian government. "
Wrong. I don't love any of those.... and I oppose much of what the left does.
". In short, if you sound like a fascist, and defend fascist ends, based on fascist absurdity, you may be a fascist"
So you started by accusing me...of accusing you... of being a fascist... which was absurd... and now you're ending a string of absurd accusations... by accusing me...of being a fascist.....you clearly aren't right in the head.
"As we are to love even our enemies,"
You obviously don't. You don't seem to show much Christian qualities at all.
So overall that post was one of the dumbest things I have read in a while.
Have a nice day. ...don't forget to take your medication.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
m sharp
"The economy he inherited from was weak and stagnant."
You've been fed some Trump propaganda there. Obama inherited the worst financial situation in decades... turned it around... handed Trump an economy that had been surging for 7 years straight.
Any claim about Trump rescuing it is pure fantasy.
" That was completely expected as he is a business man."
Not a great one apparently.... but either way Obama created far more jobs than he did (even comparing equal time frames) and led to more economic growth than he did.
"Tell me, is prison reform a good thing? "
What prison reform did Trump bring in?
"Let m get uba complete list"
I could do the same with Obama and it will dwarf Trumps... trust me I have a list ready.
But hey lets look at the list you referenced.
"His handling of COVID-19 will go down as one of the worst disasters in US history, with over 237,000 dead and millions unemployed."
"As for covid-19. Despite everyone looking for someone to blame, he's didn't do sl bad."
Yes he did. His handling of it was terrible... even your own source said "*"His handling of COVID-19 will go down as one of the worst disasters in US history, with over 237,000 dead and millions unemployed.*"
"First, he is not a king. Everything he wants to do must be supported by senate, and the supreme ct."
We could use the same excuses for other presidents...
"Two days after the first confirmed US case, he tried to issue a travel ban, and was blocked by the democratic party."
No and no..and no... it wasn't 2 days.. and it wasn't a travel ban.. it was implementing some restrictions and the democrats didn't block it.
You're again showing that you get your information from unreliable sources.
"Two months later he was allowed to act. By this tim the virus was so wide-spread that extreme measures had to be taken."
This is all wrong... Trump took too long to do anything... when he finally did it wasn't enough... its on him... no one blocked him... he even attacked anyone trying to get him to do something about covid and called it their latest hoax.
"And he rose to the occasion and shut the economy down in order to slow the spread,knowing it may hurt his campaign."
He resisted doing this for a long time... it was from pressure form outside sources that he did this... and in April he kept telling states to reopen!
He didn't rise to the occasion... he botched it every step of the way... his administration dismantled the pandemic response team... they ignored the procedures that this team documented... Trump spend January playing golf instead of listening to experts...
"He then started operation warp speed which is completely responsible for the vaccines"
Eventually... but Trump has almost nothing to do with those.. Pfizer opted out of operation warp speed! This is scientists doing their job... the same scientists that Trump attacks...
"The only thing trump could have done differently is be less transparent"
Trump could have done 100 things different and a lot better. You're kidding yourself.
Look at Jacinda Arden in NZ. She's left alinged so you're probably hate her. But the point is that she was a good leader during covid. She did everything right. Trump did everything wrong She recently won her election in a landslide... Trump lost in a landslide.
People will remember how Trump failed with covid. You're trying to paint a picture that doesn't look so bad for Trump but it's not an accurate one.
" Fauci kept Flip flopping on a course of action, mask"
Trump igored whatever Fauci told him. If Trump had listend... a lot less people would have died.
As for flip flopping.. this is again not accurate.. Fauci said it wasn't needed in the very early days... then when more information came in.. said that it was advisable.
" Because of that fauci himself has blood on his hands."
As with a few things here.. you have your facts wrong.
If Fouci has blood on his hands... then Trump is swimming in a sea of blood.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DeverHB
" but obviously they're only able to cover a small portion."
You're making an assessment of all their fire fighting efforts from a few seconds of footage? This is a classic case of your confirmation bias.
" There's a ton of areas in the building where they can't reach with the water,"
So they went to another position... people can move you know. Your assessment of the overall firefighting efforts is rather comical.
"Due to the fears of floors collapsing, firefighters were pulled out and the fire basically burned "
That's what I told you.
Did you really just repeat back to me ...the thing that i told you?
YOU CLAIMED " nobody at the scene ANTICIPATED the collapse."
I showed you otherwise... and you just repeated it back.
Is there something wrong with you?
"You can read all this on the Wiki:"
I posted directly from that page when I educated you
"But two things about that. One, they actually didn't collapse. "
You're backpedaling and moving goal posts. You claimed that no one would have expected it.
"econd, fire-affected floors collapsing is COMPLETELY different than the entire building coming straight dow"
You're showing a poor understanding of collapses... it's the collapse of the fire affected floors that may trigger an entire building collapse... just as we saw with the WTC buildings.... as with the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building and the Plasco Building.
" Also, this would mean thousands of steel buildings would have to be deemed unsafe for firefighters to attempt to save"
1. Not all buildings were built like the WTC buildings.
2. There were numerous code changes as a result of the collapses and buildings after 9/11 were different.
"You can try, but it's sort of like doing an autopsy without ever examining the dead body. "
Not quite. There are whole fields of science (e.g. astronomy) that rely heavily on observation and applying physics. The short answer is that there is no reason you can't work out what happened with all the evidence at hand.
To your example... if we had video of the person being shot... but no body... we could still comfortably say what happened.
"According to the NIST FAQ, it was the first steel building to ever collapse due to fire."
Wrong. It was the first skyscraper. Not the first steel building. Steel and fire doesn't change when the building gets taller.
" few hours is enough to bring down steel buildings, look at this"
Ah the Cardington fire tests. I know them quite well actually.
Let me educate you about this as well.
They built a structure to perform a series of test.
They limited the fuel to certain sections... why? Because they DID NOT want the structure to collapse. That was not the point of the test.
Imagine you had 6 tests to run and the large structure (you just built) collapsed on the first one.
In fact in one of the early tests they noted columns weakening when the temps reached about 700C (from memory I can look it up I have the report) and they made a point of shielding all columns after that - why? .because they wanted to ensure it wouldn't collapse.
Do I need to go any further?
"Like, they mixed it up with other steel garbage and could no longer tell where it's all from lmao. "
Some steel they could... as it is itemised in the reports. But you're missing the context. When the clean up started it was a rescue mission. They removed everything as quickly as they could and some people were found caught in rubble. Any comparisons with a crime scene that you've seen on TV is showing a lack of awareness of history.
" A giant steel building was brought down by fire for the first time in history, and nobody bothered to make sure any steel from it was preserved for forensic examination? "
Except that they did. Engineers like Dr Astaneh, Barnett and Biederman (who contributed to the FEMA report) spent months going through the rubble. These samples are shown in NCSTAR1-3C.
"Completely absurd."
The problem here is that you don't know much about this topic and you've got all your information from conspiracy theorists who either don't know the facts or don't want them. You're no different to a flat earth who gets all their information from flat earth videos.
" I would LOVE it if NIST did an actual, physical experiment on a similar building "
Let me educate you once again. NIST did perform their own experiments.. .they performed burn tests to confirm raw data for modeling and their overall analysis. These tests produced consistent results with the Cardington tests and other fire tests I can cite....but you don't really care.
You see, testing the theory doesn't necessarily involve building a whole building to collapse it. In this century we know enough about architecture and engineering to know the results of collapsing floors.
"but as far as I know, they haven't."
As far as you know. That's part of the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DeverHB
". If they thought the building was going to collapse, they should've evacuated the whole area like they did with WTC 7. They didn't"
With WTC7 they weren't even trying to put the fire out. With the Meridian Plaza they were.
"Really, a tall structure was brought down by fire (supposedly) for the first time in history, during the most heinous crime in history, and there was no interest? "
You're still missing many facts.
1. Buildings had collapsed due to fire. The fact that it was a taller building doesn't represent some shocking surprise no one could understand.
2. The other WTC buildings all collapsed or partially collapsed due to fire.
3. The WTC buildings were the focus... not all the collateral damage.
4. I doubt it was the "most heinous crime in history". ... people WERE interested in the crime. Very interested. They were just not interested in all the buildings that were collateral damage.... from what was obviously a result of fire and damage.
" nothing of interest to see here. "
Your argument was full of omissions distortion and confusion.
" but the FAQ says nothing about this. "
FEMA is referenced.
"The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had launched its Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it announced in August 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site."
...and referenced in the report. So you are wrong again.
" Would be interesting to know what the FEMA report was about if you have that information. "
FEMA released reports on the collapses which included information about the steel. They also had report on the pentagon from memory. I could probably find something on it.
" Jupiter, my good friend, is 588 million kilometres away. If you could pick up samples of Jupiter's gas from the middle of Manhattan, I'm sure astronomers would do that. "
Yep... and the steel isn't available... all piled up in mountains...neatly grouped by the WTC building either. So other methods of analyses are utilised. Science works from observation and experimentation all the time. ..just like with astronomy.
"Look out, the dastardly ISIS are going to ignite regular office fires in skyscrapers to make them collapse! Oh, the humanity!"
Flippant comments aren't compensating for your inability to present an argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@poli2730
”Who decide that?”
It’s the facts. I’ve looked at the list. If you can prove me wrong go ahead.
Oh that’s right you can’t prove anything and prefer to offer pitiful excuses.
”. Prove it”
Look at the list.
Show me who has experience building high rise.
You’re asking me to prove a negative because your can’t ever prove anything.
”Thanks for a useless not working link...”
Oh I have plenty of links…but I posted the shortest one…lets see if these get through.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/peer-reviewedpapersaboutthewtcimpacts,fi
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=75&MMN_position=207:207
”So the answer at ur lame and out of context question is: at least ONE”
You spell ‘your’ as ‘ur’….. ?! Are you 10 years old? Just a little special?
Your response there was a mess.
I made a point about how many cameras you point at a plane old wall…. You admit 2…you admit at least 1…. We have 2… they caught the impact…
You have no argument.
”This shows all ur capabilities to reason, its so funny.”
Just a little hint kid… your arguments are falling apart… you appear to be as gullible as a flat earther… trying to pad out your terrible responses with quips like that isn’t compensating for your failures. Spend more time on your arguments and less time trying to dress them up with schoolyard comments like that.
”U really think was that probable to hit it from the side?”
He obviously thought so…. You’re clutching at straws here… it’s hardly surprising that at least 1 member of the military personnel made a guess about a likely attack on the pentagon… AND suggested that it would hit the most outer ring…. This is entirely plausible…anticipating attacks like that is what they do for a living…
”he answer is yes u re just a waste of time...”
It may seem that way to you because I’m not a gullible flat earther like you are.
You think the military… fire department… police department… everyone was involves…. This is retarded…
”Why there was just a hole?”
There wasn’t.
”Why were the wings were supposed to hit there still glass not even damaged...”
I’ve already responded to this stupidity.
The wings hit the walls next to the impact hole… the walls there were knocked in… some glass nearby was intact because it had been upgraded with blast resistant glass.
You don’t seem capable of computing this.
”Ur response is bullshit and dont consider the fact that the man who wared knew the attack was an inside job.”
Pathetic. Simply pathetic.
I have responded to this over and over showing you that you are clutching at straws…like all conspiracy clowns like to do.
”That s what i m asking, but u really want to avoid the reality”
The irony of it all….
Because I don’t fall for the absurd conspiracy… like a gullible sheep… I must be avoiding reality…
”There has been a man who confirmed was just an inside job and not a random attack from people coming from caves.”
No one has confirmed that…. You’re just a gullible fool who believes whatever the internet says.
”This guy said we are next, stay away from the outher ring and u just want me to believe it was probable”
The pentagon being attacked when US locations are attacked… probable? Fuck yes. You’re as thick as they come if you can’t understand this.
”. U really guillable...”
Says the guy who thinks the fire department and police were involved…even though their friends and colleagues were killed …. Yeah they just keep quiet about it…. the internet said so…
Idiot.,
”sure thing, donkey flys dont they?”
Do responses like this work for you on the playground?
Stop.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
”Continue to pretend to not understand,”
LOL.. I called you out on your bullshit claim… and this is your response…
This is that moment when you realise you’re arguing with a child … who can’t speak English….
”U dont really know how difficult is to fly with such a big plane and aim to a wall hight 15m with a 14m object”
You don’t know if that’s where he was even aiming…
The pentagon was one of the largest buildings in the world by office space…he hit one part of it… you’re assuming that’s where he wanted to hit.
This is like going up to a wall with an arrow on it and drawing a bulls eye around it.
You don’t even realise how foolish you sound.
”U didn’t”
I did but you lack the intellect or courage to respond.
”Never, u just started to confusing things to not get into the topic”
Bahahahah… oh you’re confused I’m sure… it doesn’t take a lot to confuse you.
I’ll try keep this simple because you’re thicker than two planks…
The witness you reference …doesn’t support the conspiracy ..and thinks that a plane hit the pentagon… I gave you a link that shows him talking about this.
DO YOU AGREE WITH HIM?
Do you agree with YOUR OWN WITNESS?!
You have dodged this many times now
Don’t you get embarrassed looking like such a snivelling coward?!
”Alway pushing on what i may have said..”
Yeah don’t ya just hate it when people notice what you actually say?
”If u had watch the link i showed u u would know his name was Kevin MacPadden.”
That’s him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lhwCM_dicc
His testimony is an utter joke… (now you have ambulance staff involved…yeah right)… lordy you are gullible.
”But u dont care about proves that go against u, dont u?”
I care about facts… I’m not stupid enough to believe whatever the internet says… you clearly are sport.
”Really? Prove it. Anyway why should him change what he said?”
See his changing story in the video dumbass….
You twits will cling to the dumbest stories.
”Collapse not blowing up”
They said it was going to blow….Perhaps they thought it was going to blow due to gas explosions…there were fuel tanks in WTC7…. Regardless of the language they used..it’s consistent with the official story… they thought it would collapse and got far way…your video only confirms this.
If you’re again going to try the story that the police ..the military…the EMTs…the fire department were all involved…. And no one says anything…even though their colleagues died…then you’re just going to make yourself loom more stupid than you already have….
”ts difficult to state who was really involved,”
Blah blah this is you trying to squirm around how completely retarded your theory is.
By your theory… thousands must have been involved… and/or have first hand knowledge… of the conspiracy… all stay quiet.… no deathbed confessions… no change of heart…nothing…
It’s just stupid.
This is the escape of reality that flat earthers and chem trail nuts cling to.
”The New York Firemen realized there was something strang”
No. The FDNY does not support the conspiracy.
So…once again.. every single one of your arguments falls apart…
You have…nothing… just a deep desire to believe in internet conspiracies…and a clear preference to stay ignorant..... oh and a coward.. I almost forgot that.. you've dodged a question so many times that you can only be a coward.
1
-
@poli2730
”U stated something u have to prove it”
When you’re asking people to prove negatives it’s usually a bad sign…
Look at the list of people who have signed…hardly any of them have any high rise experience…
Look at the list.
All I need to do is point to the list …to prove it.
If you think you can prove me wrong… go ahead.
” and explain how having few experience means automatically be wrong.”
Automatically be wrong?
I never said those words.
When you’re resorting to straw men arguments…. It’s usually a bad sign…
” For real u dont want to discuss u just want to fight and polluting arguments..”
Translation into adult speak: I point out how bad your arguments are and you don’t like it.
” I said, those two cameras were for the gate purposes SOOOOO this concludes they have no camera recording the wall”
?? Those cameras picked up the wall being hit….
What are you talking about?
” if not there would be a tapes of the accident taken by the camera with the purpose to control the face of the building. T”
This is just gibberish.
Try again and this time try to make sense.
” Here he is, the same usual coward move from someone who cannot discuss, shaming the opponents”
Blah blah…. I am discussing… and I’m showing how poor your arguments are.
Quit whining about it… you sound pathetic.
” tv said anyone who has theory against the governmant believe the earth FlaTh.”
I never made any such claim…You talk so much bullshit….
..but the point remains ….you have a lot on common with them.
They think it’s a bit government conspiracy involving NASA and all the other space agencies…
You think it’s a big government conspiracy involving the police, the fire departments, the military, even the EMTs…oh and it goes on and on…
Only a fool would entertain such nonsense.
It was on the internet so I guess it must be true!
“ its not really, this is just made up from u to make ur unstable theory work”
It’s your theory… not mine…. I haven’t made the theory up.
Your comments are so weak.
” If its obvious to be the next target u just leave the building, for sure u dont say "lets stay in the insider part cause they will hit from the side".”
You should try thinking some time… .it won’t hurt you.
It may not have been obvious to everyone that it was going to be next… it may have been a guess by one person… out of the thousands…and it was remembered because he got it right.
So the pentagon was NOT cleared… so that would show they DIDN’T know about it… right?
You’re not even thinking about your dumbass theories.
” . U believe in unicorns.”
From the nutcase conspiracy theorist….. lol….
” they do it for living and they let all the USA with almost no fighting planes!”
They didn’t leave them with no fighting planes…
But again you’re presenting contradictory arguments…
When they appeared to be caught off guard… it’s a conspiracy..
When they appeared to not be caught off guard…it’s a conspiracy…
This shows that logic has no place in your thinking.
You have a deep blind faith in something and are just looking for ways to validate it.
” I start to think u re the unicorn....”
Your arguments are idiotic… If you’re trying to use humour to make them look less pitiful…. I assure you it isn’t working.
” Who said that? Not me for sure, they just have orders from above,”
Do you read the contradictory bullshit you spout?!
You referenced claims of the fire fighters..police… military and even EMTs being involved or knowing about the conspiracy…
Their friends and colleagues died that day.
To say that they would keep qwuiet about this …it’s nonsense. …simply implausible.
Even someone as deluded as you starts to feel it’s a bit unlikeky…
So how do you try to backtrack? You mumble this excuse “they just have orders from above,”
That doesn’t get you out of the problem you twit.
It doesn’t change anything.
It still means that they were all involved…or knew about it….thousands of people… and they are all fine with it.
THIS IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS
Saying “they had their orders” doesn’t stop it being ridiculous…. Not one little bit.
” 10000 times better than believng the tv proven hundred times to say bullshits”
Statements like this just show how ignorant you are…it’s not about believing the tv…it’s about the evidence…. . the evidence doesn’t come from the TV.
You’re spouting these simplistic lines that are in page 1 of the conspiracy theorist handbook.
” aid by who thinks planes disappear underground and cover themself till 25m deep were the black box was found”
It didn’t disappear… it went into the ground… you know… physics… what am I saying you never had an education of course you don’t know.
” u dont chose the hardest way risking to miss the target”
I have already addressed this. You obviously didn’t understand.
You don’t know that he was trying to do that… for all you know he was trying to hit somewhere else… he hit somewhere… and you’re assuming that’s what he wanted to him…hence the bulls eye analogy…which you didn’t get.
” but after they collapsed 3 building with 2 plane that was the day of the miracles..”
Actually all the WTC buildings (1234567) collapsed or partially collapsed that day…and it’s fairly well understood why…
…you set the bar pretty low for miracles…
” OH! exactly how the man inside predicted.”
What?! Now you’re talking about building collapses? Can you actually try to make an intelligent argument? Have you ever tried to do that?
” U tell me he do not believe in the conspiracy... What u think genius?”
You’re answering questions with questions…
You’re squirming and tap dancing.
” Obviosly this has nothing to do with what he first said,”
It has everything to do with 9/11…and whether a plane hit the pentagon…
So you weren’t even man enough to answer… but expecting you to show some integrity would be too much.
You don’t believe him.
YOUR OWN WITNESS…WHO WAS THERE…disagrees with you.
YOUR OWN WITNESS debunks you.
” So its all a bullshit cause he changed a grain of what he had said? Y
Oh please you’re embarrassing yourself…(further)….
In the initial story he really had no details… he had a vibe… and thought he heard something sounding like a pulsing noise over a radio…in the second story he claims the person FROM THE RED CROSS (!!!!) speaks clearly about blowing things up… then claims he heard the countdown…then claims the explosions….
There are no key details in the first version…and by the second he’s added so much more in.
That you buy this story and even defend him shows how gullible you are.
” What about the video i sent u? What about the rescue team claiming the heard explosions?”
There were explosions that day… planes hitting buildings… jet fuel exploding… buildings collapsing… lots of exploding noises.
A reasonable person would realise this.
The conspiracy theorist…”oh look he said explosions!!! It’s a conspiracy!!!!”
<shakes head>
” Why didnt u answer about all the things FBI tried to cover like avery piece of the supposed plane that hitted the pentagon right after the accident?”
What are you talking about?
What did they cover up?
” Why didnt they allowed nobody to ivesigate,”
They didn’t allow civilians off the street to walk over the crash sites… to investigate… that would be expected. How is it that you can’t understand things like this? Are you a child?
You certainly seem rather naive.
1
-
1
-
@poli2730
"pentagon has just two cameras not even on the building just on the gate"
You are lying
They had many cameras... about 80... but they don't point many cameras at a blank section of wall.
"a man who wasnt able to fly hitted a target 15m with a 14m object"
Already addressed.
He was able to fly. He had a commercial pilots license. He trained in the US specifically for this mission for months.
You are lying
As for hitting that target... that pentagon was one of the largest buildings in the world... your dimensions there are wrong.
You are lying
"the man who predictect when, where and how they would have been hit was so sure about his statment"
What? All he said was that they would be next... and to stay away from the outer wall.... it was one of the largest buildings in the world...that's a large outer wall...
So to call this 'when, where and how' is simply a lie.
You are lying
"And later, the other guy, totally casually state that there s no inside job, what a surprise"
It's not a surprise at all. Because that guy knows it makes sense AND he was there and saw what the plane did.
"This is how u want to confuse things and polluting argumentes"
No. I'm showing you how illogical your arguments are.
"U really a child"
Getting a little worked up huh?
"HE knew about the attack"
He knew that the towers had been attacked and that the pentagon was a likely target.
"HE should have leave not the others"
Either the military knew or they didn't.
If they knew... then they would have abandoned the pentagon.
It appears that they didn't.
If you're going to claim that some knew... you're back to the same implausible claims about the fire fighters lettiung their friends die.
It's simply stupid.
"HE could have just leave without the entire building being cleared"
..and let his friends and colleagues die? ..and never say anything?.... just like the police, army, FBI, FDNY, EMTs, Red Cross... etc... it just gets more and more ridiculous.
"u speak about physisc and u belive a plane crashing into the the ground can dig and reach 25m deep"
That's right... that's physics.
"hard full object like a wall? It simply smash and squeeze becaming a flat tortilla"
Flat tortilla? <shakes head> ... (this guy isn't very sharp)..
No. You're thinking of a cartoon... no a plane doesn't turn into a pancake you twit.
"it doesnt go anywhere"
Oh god how can you be this dense.... I'll try keep it simple for the moron...
That plane did not penetrate the wall... it broke into little pieces... soil is not the same as thick concrete...
Here is a test for you dumbass... punch the ground as hard as you can.... then punch a concrete wall as hard as you can.
Is it the same?
Does that help what you have for a brain compute it?
"at the pentagon right after the accident fbi picked with bare hands most of the rests of the plane because yes, just normal procedures"
According to you... it would be normal procedure to let citizens just wander around the crash site... this was a military instillation attacked..a terrorist attack...and you think
the public should haven able to wander in and pick at the bodies .... AND you think it's weird that they weren't....
What can anyone say to set someone as stupid as you straight?
You're too far gone into fantasy land.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theTavis01
"That's why NIST is guilty of fraud for skipping these STANDARD tests, as clearly outlined in the NPFA921"
You're conflating different things.
NIST were not on side to test claims of molten steel.
The NPFA921 recommendations are there to see if a fire is suspicious, intentional.... we know this one was intentional.
There was no point testing for an accelerant.... we know there was one...jet fuel.
" You can try to misconstrue FEMA's findings all you want,"
You are the one trying to do so. ....not me.
"like a bitch"
hah... the irony. You're quite little butthurt bitter little whiner aren't you?
" I already quoted FEMA stating that the one surviving piece of steel from WTC7 was LIQUEFIED"
No. It was minor erosion. The whole piece wasn't liquid. If you actually bothered to read the report you would see that they assumed that the addition of sulfur and temps around 1000C were responsible for that.
"the rest of the building had already been criminally disposed of)"
Utter nonsense. Criminal? You sound like a total nutcase.
". Not only did NIST completely ignore this piece of steel, not only did NIST completely ignore the call for further research, but they did their ENTIRE Building 7 report without looking at a single piece of physical evidence!"
Oh god you have no clue at all.
NIST did not ignore it. It's addressed in their repirt.
They address the other pieces that had signs of erosion in their report from the towers and, as I said, they were almost certainly affected after the collapses.
They had looked at the samples before they did their report on WTC7.
You made so many basic errors. Do you care? Most conspiracy theorists don't.
" Their ONLY evidence to back their ridiculous claims is a convoluted chain of computer simulations, which they used to claim to have demonstrated a brand new engineering phenomenon, which TO THIS DAY has NEVER been demonstrated empirically."
Steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire is not unique.... no mysterious....
"But when a research team at the University of Alaska did their own computer simulation"
Riddled with errors.....
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.9056/
Deal with it.
"would not continue to glow brightly as it descended through the cool morning air. "
The steel stopped glowing brightly the instant is descended as well.
" That is NOT in the RJ Lee report. "
Actually it is.
You can use bold. You can use italics...you can use upper case.... you can stomp your feet and shake your fist but it doesn't change how wrong you are.
"The characteristics of the dust are a result of the collapse of the WTC
Towers and the subsequent fires at the WTC site which collectively were unique events that produced unique dust.:"
That is from the R J Lee report on the towers dust. They did at least two by the way.
"Should I start quoting all the unpublished opinions of Steven Jones?????"
What would be the point of quoting a moron?
" large quantity of steel was melted into tiny liquid droplets DURING collapse due to very high temperatures"
I don't recall those words...but lets say that they did say that.... it doesn't support your claims of magical bombs....
It doesn't fix all the problems of theorising explosives ...when there are no explosives on the videos...
It doesn't fix all the problems of theorising fast burning incendiaries when fires burn for a long time - a contradictory argument. ...
"he actual RJ Lee report was NOT concerned with determining the cause of collapse, they did NOT consider the use of explosives"
You're trying to deflect from the facts that refute you.
You're using a reference that doesn''t agree with you on any level.
"he highest temperatures estimated by the fraudulent team at nist CANNOT account for this physical evidence."
You've not presented any physical evidence that can't be accounted for....and even the people you reference don't agree with you.
I suggest you read the reports that you're referencing.
1
-
@theTavis01
"There are several videos of it continuing to glow in the daylight as it fell, and not a single video of the glow fading out."
Of course if fucking fades. It cools as it falls. It doesn't glow forever.
You can see it fading as it falls in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2pGBEUx9SE
This video is also interesting because it shows the perimeter columns bowing inwards more and more until the collapse initiates.
Bombs don't do that... gradually weakening metal does that.
"BULLSHIT! "
You can cry and squeal like a child but it's not going to compensate for your arguments falling apart.
"forcibly ejecting debris from specific locations "
Nope. They aren't explosions. They don't move like an explosion.... the debris moves about the speed of the falling building...there is no exploding noise...AND they happen as the building is collapsing. You cause collapses with explosives....not the other way around. So that fails completely.
So if you think there are videos where we can hear explosives going off at the towers.... post them then.
Go on.
"NIST's highest temperature estimates CANNOT account for the physical evidence documented by the RJ Lee Group."
Except that they can....and R J Lee even say this.
"tiny droplets of molten steel:"
...and as R J Lee know...there are various explanations for this which aren't suspicious. Friction, melting point depression, eutectic, the clean up, the construction even.
R J Lee make it clear that what is seen in the dust is EXPECTED.
"Tell me Mark, at what temperature does lead vaporize?"
Let me continue your education.
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/home-safety/21014874/what-you-need-to-know-about-lead
"Heat has long been used to soften old paint so it can be easily scraped off. The problem is that lead starts to vaporize when heated over 752 degrees F, and you can end up breathing in the poisonous fumes."
There ya go.
" Is this temperature above or below NIST's maximum estimates? By how much?"
Well below.
"This is true REGARDLESS of HOW the buildings collapsed, which again they were NOT concerned with in their study. "
Irrelevant. They make it clear that they think the conspiracy is wrong.
https://s941.photobucket.com/user/snow__crash/media/rjlee.jpg.html
You're trying to reference someone while at the same time they debunk you...and you refuse to accept what they say lol...
"The people who studied HOW the buildings collapsed, NIST, were not able to account for this physical evidence"
It's entirely consistent with their own analysis.
So no...it doesn't invalidate it at all.
""metabunk" LMAO!!!! Only a pathetic duhbunker forum supports your lies!! LOLOLOL. If you can cite metabunk, I'm gonna cite the loosechange forums!! LMAO!!!"
hah you sound so desperate....you're scrambling and trying to cover it up with lols like a child.
Point out where he is wrong....go on. Give me something better than nervous, forced laughter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Goran Vukovic
"Geez, Louise, you are a log. An educated log, which demands respect, precisely the kind of I was talking about."
So you fall apart and cry when someone challenges you to back up a statement?
Not surprised. You're fragile.
_"Even if I am a white supremacist, nazi and racist, why would that be a bad thing? _
You'd would be a moral monster.... a terrible person... that the world is better off without...
"They have conditioned you to hate your own race "
You're confused. I don't hate my own race. You're showing how dense you are.
You see the world as either being a Nazi or hating your own race.... it''s a false dichotomy. Only someone incredibly ignorant would see the world this way. you.
"Now look yourself in the mirror and tell me why you or any regular liberal garbage deserves to be viewed as exceptional? "
You're confused. I don't.
"If that is really so, why are you attacking me?
I'm merely responding to your attacks.
I suggest in future you don't resort to the "you sound like a lefty!!" argument so quickly.
" But, of course, you are an exception, a person above the regular left-right fray"
You're confused. I don't think I am above anything. I am just not looking at the world in black and white terms like you do.
"In the past four years, Trump has earned my respect"
He hasn't been a great president.
" I am not aware of a single positive achievement Biden has in his political life. "
He won the 2020 presidential election.
"What is about to happen? At $27 trillion national debt,"
Thank Trumpy for adding to that.
I remember Trump saying he was the "King of debt" and declared he would have that debt gone in 8 years. After 4 years he increased it more than anyone.
" no country has ever taxed its way to prosperity"
Another simplistic generalisation. Taxes are a fact of life. Biden isn't going to raise them in any dramatic way...
". I asked why you, personally, believe Biden is a better choice"
I don't think Biden is a good candidate at all. I think it's damning that the democrats had 4 years and he was the best they could do. To me that's embarrassing. I don't think Trump was a good president. I don't know if Biden will be better.
But he won.
"Do not try to be too clever with me, you are not succeeding."
Your attempts at bluster only provide me with amusement. I will respond how I like... I don't care if you don't like it sport.
"Do I believe in democracy? Is this democracy? "
Yes. The 2020 election was democracy.
You're just complaining because it didn't work out for you. That's too bad.
1
-
Goran Vukovic
" so typical for the left."
This is basically your answer to everything. You blame all the evils of the world on "the left"....and when someone says something you don't like... you accuse them of sounding like the left...even if it is someone who isn't from the left. Morality isn't owned by the left. It may seem that way to you if you are dense, uneducated and a right wing sheep. ..which seems to fit you perfectly.
"ho can falsely present himself as a greater personality, isn't it? "
That's exactly what you are doing.... you spend your time virtue signaling and complaining about the evil left... then accuse everyone else to acting in a similar manner... you're a joke.
"here are five billion people on this planet living in relative poverty. They cheat, steal, smash heads, cut throats just to survive. They are all good people but have no choice but to do what they do. On the other side of the planet, a complacent piece of garbage throws a dime into the Salvation Army money bucket and kisses his own image afterward for being such a generous person."
What has this got to do with my point!? You're a rambling mess.
"People like you are worthless and contribute practically nothing to society, although they vehemently claim and believe otherwise"
Again... you're just projecting your own problems.... in the middle of a tear filled rant.
" how much has that contributed to the GDP"
He's not even president yet.... You seem to have no idea what's going on. I thought you were a kid..because you're so ignorant and naïve... now I think you might be a senile old man.....
" But I know that means a lot to you because you are all about worthless symbolism and empty gestures"
Again... you're just projecting your own problems.... in the middle of a tear filled rant.
You're having a meltdown ...because you got schooled... and you know it.
"Nearly half of it was the Wuhan Virus "
He's added 3 trillion on before that. ...and when it comes to covid... Trump's own incompetence made that worse for the US. He's so pathetic that he never takes responsibility for anything...
"65% of the tax revenue is spent on social outlays, keeping the worthless, lazy, stupid, ungrateful, endlessly complaining human garbage "
Your country is pretty fucked then.... don't blame Biden for that... he isn't even president yet. That happens in a couple of months.
" but there isn't any value in your comments."
...and yet you seem desperate to respond to them.
"You speak mostly about yourself .... as expected"
No I'm providing you with an education. You need it.
"very far from it with this level of interference from people who own 90% of the country, "
It's been a month and there still isn't evidence of widespread fraud.
It's a fantasy.... straight from the mind of the big orange baby who can't handle losing.
..and his followers are so fragile and pathetic that they go along with it because they can't deal with it either......
"When he talks about the election being stolen from him, I listen"
In 2016. He accused Ted Cruz of trying to steal that election.
No evidence was ever presented.
in 2016 he claimed he really won the popular vote and they only gave it to Hilary because of millions of illegal votes.
No evidence was ever presented.
Now in 2020 he's doing the same thing. He is a deluded narcissist who can't handle losing. He does this every election.
Trump's lawyers have had over 30 failed court cases since the election. They fail because ...again... he doesn't have evidence for his claim.
...and here you are taking his word for it....still. Wake up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143 Yes lets talk about women and Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women%27s_testimony_in_Islam
Partial list of (predominantly Islamic) countries where a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man:
Bahrain (in Sharia courts)[20]
Egypt (in family courts)[21]
Iran (in most cases)[22]
Iraq (in some cases)[23]
Jordan (in Sharia courts)[24]
Kuwait (in family courts)[25]
Libya (in some cases)[26]
Morocco (in family cases)[27]
Palestine (in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody)[28]
Qatar (in family law matters)[29]
Saudi Arabia[30]
Syria (in Sharia courts)[31]
United Arab Emirates (in some civil matters)[32]
Yemen (not allowed to testify at all in cases of adultery and retribution)[33]
A well known Islamic scholar.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women
With regard to the witness of two women being equal to the testimony of one man. Allaah has mentioned the wisdom behind specifying the number of two as being that a woman may forget or get confused, so the other woman can remind her, as He said:
“…And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her…”
[al-Baqarah 2:282 – interpretation of the meaning]
With regard to the phrase, “that if one of them (two women) errs”, Ibn Katheer said: “This means, the two women, if one of them forgets the testimony, then ‘the other can remind her’, i.e., she can remind her about the matter concerning which testimony is being given.” (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, part 1, p. 724)
Allaah has commanded the testimony of two women so as to be sure that they remember, because the mind and memory of two women takes the place of the mind and memory of one man. (See I’laam al-Muwaqqa’een, part 1, p. 75).
This does not mean that a woman does not understand or that she cannot remember things, but she is weaker than man in these aspects – usually. Scientific and specialized studies have shown that men’s minds are more perfect than those of women, and reality and experience bear witness to that. The books of knowledge are the best witness to that; the knowledge which has been transmitted by men and the ahaadeeth which have been memorized by men far outnumber those which have come via women.
This has to do with gender, i.e., the gender of men is more perfect than the gender of women. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allaah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allaah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity and their husband’s property)”
The Hadith.
Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
The Quran -
Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143
You've evaded this with excuses and straw men.
You've evaded numerous.....
Here is the first post again.
The link is there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women%27s_testimony_in_Islam
The references are in the link.
You're out of excuses cowardly pig
Yes lets talk about women and Islam
Partial list of (predominantly Islamic) countries where a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man:
Bahrain (in Sharia courts)[20]
Egypt (in family courts)[21]
Iran (in most cases)[22]
Iraq (in some cases)[23]
Jordan (in Sharia courts)[24]
Kuwait (in family courts)[25]
Libya (in some cases)[26]
Morocco (in family cases)[27]
Palestine (in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody)[28]
Qatar (in family law matters)[29]
Saudi Arabia[30]
Syria (in Sharia courts)[31]
United Arab Emirates (in some civil matters)[32]
Yemen (not allowed to testify at all in cases of adultery and retribution)[33]
A well known Islamic scholar.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women
With regard to the witness of two women being equal to the testimony of one man. Allaah has mentioned the wisdom behind specifying the number of two as being that a woman may forget or get confused, so the other woman can remind her, as He said:
“…And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her…”
[al-Baqarah 2:282 – interpretation of the meaning]
With regard to the phrase, “that if one of them (two women) errs”, Ibn Katheer said: “This means, the two women, if one of them forgets the testimony, then ‘the other can remind her’, i.e., she can remind her about the matter concerning which testimony is being given.” (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, part 1, p. 724)
Allaah has commanded the testimony of two women so as to be sure that they remember, because the mind and memory of two women takes the place of the mind and memory of one man. (See I’laam al-Muwaqqa’een, part 1, p. 75).
This does not mean that a woman does not understand or that she cannot remember things, but she is weaker than man in these aspects – usually. Scientific and specialized studies have shown that men’s minds are more perfect than those of women, and reality and experience bear witness to that. The books of knowledge are the best witness to that; the knowledge which has been transmitted by men and the ahaadeeth which have been memorized by men far outnumber those which have come via women.
This has to do with gender, i.e., the gender of men is more perfect than the gender of women. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allaah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allaah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity and their husband’s property)”
The Hadith.
Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
The Quran -
Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiefz1143
THIRD TIME FOR THE GUTLESS PIG
Here is the first post again.
The link is there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women%27s_testimony_in_Islam
The references are in the link.
You're out of excuses cowardly pig
Yes lets talk about women and Islam
Partial list of (predominantly Islamic) countries where a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man:
Bahrain (in Sharia courts)[20]
Egypt (in family courts)[21]
Iran (in most cases)[22]
Iraq (in some cases)[23]
Jordan (in Sharia courts)[24]
Kuwait (in family courts)[25]
Libya (in some cases)[26]
Morocco (in family cases)[27]
Palestine (in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody)[28]
Qatar (in family law matters)[29]
Saudi Arabia[30]
Syria (in Sharia courts)[31]
United Arab Emirates (in some civil matters)[32]
Yemen (not allowed to testify at all in cases of adultery and retribution)[33]
A well known Islamic scholar.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women
With regard to the witness of two women being equal to the testimony of one man. Allaah has mentioned the wisdom behind specifying the number of two as being that a woman may forget or get confused, so the other woman can remind her, as He said:
“…And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her…”
[al-Baqarah 2:282 – interpretation of the meaning]
With regard to the phrase, “that if one of them (two women) errs”, Ibn Katheer said: “This means, the two women, if one of them forgets the testimony, then ‘the other can remind her’, i.e., she can remind her about the matter concerning which testimony is being given.” (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, part 1, p. 724)
Allaah has commanded the testimony of two women so as to be sure that they remember, because the mind and memory of two women takes the place of the mind and memory of one man. (See I’laam al-Muwaqqa’een, part 1, p. 75).
This does not mean that a woman does not understand or that she cannot remember things, but she is weaker than man in these aspects – usually. Scientific and specialized studies have shown that men’s minds are more perfect than those of women, and reality and experience bear witness to that. The books of knowledge are the best witness to that; the knowledge which has been transmitted by men and the ahaadeeth which have been memorized by men far outnumber those which have come via women.
This has to do with gender, i.e., the gender of men is more perfect than the gender of women. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allaah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allaah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity and their husband’s property)”
The Hadith.
Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mazen1010
"Many people mix up between who is God, and the presence of an originator and creator. "
..don't you have the position that's all the same thing?
"We know God's existence and some properties form his effects, "
That's a meaningless statement. You stating you "know" gods existence is irrelevant. That's the same thing all the other religious people said about different gods.
"For example, we observe the effect of gravity but we don't know exactly what is causing it."
You're still confused here. Gravity caused by mass warping space time.
Gravity exists.
It's a fact.
It's a theory.
But you don't want to accept this... so you propose that something else is needed to explain gravity... although you can provide no valid reasoning for this.
What you're doing here is suggesting that no matter what scientific explanation you're given, you'll just ask "yeah but what caused that?" You're trying to slip god into every answer.
We know a lot about gravity... you obviously don't and that's port of your problem.
"Now, if people made many wrong imaginative assumptions about gravity, this doesn't make the effect of gravity disappear. "
The only person I see getting anything wrong about gravity wrong is you.
"Any child can explain anything, the issue is to demonstrate that we got the actual know-how. "
But no matter what answer you're given... you'll still just say the answer is god.... even though you cant explain why.
"We can't control or predict the nucleation of a storm, we can only guess its trail given the measurements of the surrounding air, water and land masse"
...and?
" Also, we have no idea how the stars are formed out of gaseous nebulae,"
WRONG. We know a lot about how stars form in nebulae.
YOU don't seem to know anything about it.
Your ignorance isn't an argument for anything.
But your comment there was again, completely irrelevant to the point...
"The ancient Greeks had the same divisions that we have today (atheists, agnostics, sophists and theists), and they all feel that they have enough evidence to support their claims.
"
Another response that has nothing to do with the point you're responding to.
You seem to be a very confused person.
"We don't know what else can pull the galaxies back together."
1. We could invent theoretical ways to do it.
2. So what?
You've made the effort to respond but so much of your post is entirely irrelevant..
"Such decay means that the present laws of physics are not the same as the laws of physics at the time of formation of the universe, as the formation needs different set of physical laws. "
It's believed that the current laws of physics were valid an instant after the initial expansion of the universe.
1. This has been researched fairly heavily.
2. So what?
You've made the effort to respond but so much of your post is entirely irrelevant..
"Therefore, we need an external originator to supply these two different sets of laws and control them. "
Wrong.
You've shown once again that your argument is the very old.. "i don't know so god did it"... argument that has failed so many times before...
All you seem to have is the god of the gaps argument...
1
-
1
-
@mazen1010
" For example, our galaxy the milky way is being pulled by an unseen force called "the great attractor". "
You're again contradicting yourself. In that case there is an effect that can be measured.
You declared that god can't be measured. Then you keep giving examples of things than can be measured.
You're just highlighting the lack of evidence for your god.
"So, what is causing gravity that is coming from the atom?"
I told you. Mass bends space time. There is a direct relationship between mass and space-time.
"Again, please check"
Again - irrelevant.
You seem to be just posting links for fun. Try to make them relevant.
"You can imagine the possibility of anything, but for the possibility to be rational, we must have some reasonable or measurable indication for such thing to occur. "
That's more short sighted nonsense.
A thousand years ago, do you think there was a measurable indication that the internet would happen? No. It was still rational.
You're ruling out future discoveries merely because you can't picture them.
"All the observable elements of the universe lack the free will and the capability to change the physical laws, so since the change has happened, then there is a necessity for a capable free-will to switch the universe from the initial state (before the birth of the universe), to the birth and subsequent growth and decay."
Again - you demonstrate no evidence or reason here. You just make an assertion. ..and even then it doesn't make sense. All the observable elements lack free will? People aren't observable? You're making up strange rules as you go.
"Then we should allow any "I am feeling smart" child, to perform medical surgeries on people."
No you didn't get the point. They don't have the knowledge. You're making a strange argument that we can have knowledge but still lack the know-how. They are interchangeable words... they mean almost the same thing. Your argument isn't valid. Talking about kids performing surgery is skirting around the problem.
" Controlled thermonuclear fusion"
Again. Irrelevant.
It certainly seems that when you can't respond to a point, you just reference a link or an article hoping that will suffice as a response.
I pointed out how your response wasn't relevant to the point and as a response you just repeated another irrelevant copy paste reference.
Try to make your responses relevant
" Therefore, it is irrational to think of such singularity as a minor divination from the curve, and to think of the gap in our knowledge as missing one letter in a word."
What the hell is a "minor divination from the curve" ? Whatever you think that is, it's not how cosmologists and theoretical physicists treat the big bang.
So again whatever point you thought you were making is irrelevant.
"There is no primitive and advanced God,"
No. I'm saying your argument is primitive. It's simplistic. If you can find something we don't know, you'll say - 'there! god must have done that because we don't know'.
You write a lot but seem to address very little.
1
-
@mazen1010
_" Similarly, the effects of God in his creation can be measured"_\
You're all over the place. You're at one point making excuses for the fact that your god can't be measured....then you're trying to explain why it should be measured ,....or something.... you're in a constant state if excuses and diversion. You do this because you can't support you position for 2 minutes...
Now you're trying to tell em that god can be measured.... ok then ..lets put aside your constant contradictions for 20 seconds.,... how can he be measured?
"At the atomic level things are different "
Yes...and...once again...irreverent.
To be honest... I think at least 3/4 of what you say is irrelevant babbling...
"Audio and visual exchange of signals was known for thousands of years,"
The ancient Greeks didn't' have radio ...or walkie talkies... wow you're ignorant...
Over and over its clear that your position is based on a lack of education..
"You claim that people had any input in the making of the universe??!!!
"
What?! I've never made that claim. You're a mess.... Your responses rarely make sense.
". So, claiming to know how the stars and planets formed without an actual demonstration "
Once again your ignorance is the problem here. Our understanding on how stars are formed is not based on some sideshow demonstration....it's based on years of evidence, all consistent with observations and theories going back to Einstein.
Once again - your lack of understanding is not an argument,
"is like a child claiming to have full know how of a surgery."
Sorry but that's just the statement of an idiot.
We have physicists and cosmologists who understand it very well.
We also have surgeons who understand their particular field.
You're all confused about this because you're uneducated.... ignorant.....not much beyond a caveman really...so you don'tr understand.
It's like trying to explain chess to a goldfish.
You're the goldfish....helpless....naive....
" So, the current state of our knowledge is not sufficient to know how the stars are formed."
Total ignorance on display again.
We know how stars are formed.
This ruins whatever argument you thought you had,......eventually you''ll find something with nuclear fusion we haven't been able to do yet... but that has no bearing on the facts about stars and gravity that we know to be true.
"I was responding to your claim that I try to infuse the idea of God, whenever there is a gap in knowledge or a singularity point (e.g. dividing by zero)."
I never made any reference to divining d by zero..
"that the creation of the universe is not something minor so to resemble it to a minor gap in knowledge "
No one.. is claiming that the creation of the universe is a minor thing.....
Look. You're doing very badly here. You should really try to put together some arguments that are actually relevant because you're drowning at the moment,.
"Before any human has ever walked the earth, the universe was created along with trillions of biological organisms. So, other than claiming that the dinosaurs or earlier biological forms where so smart and capable to create such things, the default answer is God who is infinite and all capable, who exists before time and outside the space and matter."
These two statements are just a mess. Logic isn't really your thing. You out out there that the universe is very old... Then you say put the dinosaurs as some sort of answer.. or some other organism.....and then discard them for god. ...for no logical.
You got called out on your simplistic, primitive , god of the gaps argument... and you followed it up with irrelevant gibberish.
That's not good.
You need to think about your arguments an little bit more.
1
-
@mazen1010
"No, you claimed that the theory of special relativity explains gravity."
Well actually I never posted those words. I think you mean to refer to general relativity.
" but doesn't identify the real source of gravity."
That may be true...but once again...so what? This isn't addressing anything.
"The bases of internet is to code, transmit, receive and decode signals, which are the same steps made by ancient people to communicate. "
You're trying to imply the internet is pretty much the same as signalling someone?
The underlying technology and concepts that give us the internet have little to do with waving a flag.
But either way this is again totally irrelevant to the point.
"Without actual demonstrations, no one can claim that he/she has acquired the know-how"
You're again confused.
We know how stars form. We can observe it happening.
https://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-observe-the-birth-of-a-massive-star-in-the-milky-way/
We know that gravity causes this.
Gravity has been demonstrated.
"I provided you that until now, we can't make a stable thermonuclear fusion reaction (which supposedly occurs in the stars)."
Again your lack of understanding trips you up.
Nuclear fusion in stars is uncontrolled... we understand that. That we have yet to be able to make stable controlled fusion is irrelevant.
Almost none of your responses address anything.
"So, we can't claim full knowledge of how the stars formed."
The first point here is that you're mistaken in your understanding. But your mistakes aside, there is no rating of "full understanding". There will always be something we need to determine...about anything...by your logic that means we can never know anything...which is obviously absurd.
We can understand something to a confident degree. We know how stars and planets form. It's not from any magical gods.
"Now, your claim of full knowledge falls "
You are...still... confused. There is no point of "full knowledge".
"Dividing by zero is one way to have a mathematical singularity."
Yet another irrelevant statement
"This was my response to you because you keep on using the word primitive with reference to God"
..sigh.. I have explained to you that the argument is primitive... the god of the gaps argument is primitive...it's simplistic... its flawed...are you getting this?
" So, I was telling you that God is before time and he made all these creatures, "
Yes yes more statements you can't back up with logic, evidence or reasoning.
" So, either these older creatures created everything, or God who is before time is the one who made them. "
A clumsy false dichotomy.
1
-
@mazen1010
" So, the example of measuring the effect of gravity, without being able to measure the actual source of gravity.
"
That has no relevance to god in any way.
Once again you have something we don't know... so you assume god. You keep resorting to the primitive 'god of the gaps argument'
"You claimed that in the future we can model the free-will,"
Actually no. I said in regards to science "At the moment... no... but maybe in the future it can..."
"I provided you with the basic steps used in the internet that were used thousands of years ago, "
Your steps have nothing to do with how the internet works... nor to they address my point about someone imagining the internet many hundreds of years ago.
You're failing on two levels here.
" I asked you to provide the steps for modeling the free-will that can create the world."
What? Rephrase that in a way that makes sense.
"You are making two mistakes here: the first is claiming to obtain the know-how from just observing, "
Nope. You're the one making a mistake. Observation is a key part of science. The effects of gravity are fairly well understood and over and over again predictions are made using our understanding and are shown to be right.
We send spacecraft out of the solar system.... we put robots on mars... we put people on the moon ..people live in orbit for long times... we have photographed a black hole and it matched the modeling..
So you try and reduce our understanding of stars, fusion, gravity ect to just observation is another example of your lack of understanding.
" and the second is claiming that you know that gravity is causing it "
We do that gravity causes it...
Again the problem here is that you seem to be lacking a basic education.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/how-are-stars-formed.htm
"As some stars will ignite and then shut down and then re-ignite, and then perhaps increase and decrease rapidly."
Eventually all stars will die... I'm guessing you didn't know this.
"If a child watched a brain surgery, and then got this "I'm sure that I am very smart", so we must approve such claim?"
? That ridiculous sentence has no connection with anything I've said.
It's so stupid I'm not going to bother responding to it.
"Atheism is a faith "
Wrong. You don't even know what atheism is...
Your whole position seems to be due to ignorance and naivete.
" irrational claim of owning the capability and knowledge that others attribute to God"
Nope. That's not atheism.
You're simply making things up.
Really, your ignorance is quite staggering.
1
-
1
-
@mazen1010
"These are your impressions and assertions. A"
So I point out that you're only making assertions ...and you respond by saying it's an assertion....sigh...
"So, the universe is a machine running under strict physical laws. "
A machine presupposes someone made it for a purpose.
You can't prove that.
You can only claim it....over and over...
"For anything to be built and composed, there must be some kind of motion to assemble the parts together."
So who built your god?
" You and your fellow atheists claim that nature itself has built all these living things. "
Actually that's not strictly what atheists claim...but you still don't understand atheism and seem incapable of learning.
As for nature building everything... we don't know... everything we've learnt so far points to nature and not god.
Again..we used to think that god caused storms..created the sun...the planet... etc. We learnt that isn't the case....your god is a place holder for what we don't know...until we learn the real answer.
"However, the experiment failed to create any living creature or even a living thing."
1. They created the building blocks of life.
2. So what?! You keep blurting out statements like this but make no point. I don't think you're aware of how confused your arguments sound. You're all over the place.
" So, you and your fellow atheists clinging to this failed attempt is a sign of blind "
No. That's your confusion again. The only one clinging is you. The experiments are not evidence of how life is created...they are evidence of how one step may have happened... that's all. You don't understand that people are trying to find answers....while you prefer to stay ignorant and scoff at real research. You don't even understand what you're referring to..
Science - questions you can't answer.
Religion - answers you can't question.
"I wish that I was confused enough to believe everyone who says "we can't do it right now, but perhaps after very long time, we can"."
...and what's the alternative? YOUR POSITION: We will never learn anything new. We have never progressed. We will never progress. Whatever we know now is all we will ever know.
That's what you're proposing? Not only are you ignorant and illogical, you're quite deluded....
"You failed to bring the alternative steps for communication, and failed to find another description for the internet other than it is a method of communication. So, who is babbling?"
YOU ARE. You did it again just then. You still can't see the point. How dumb are you that you still don't get it?!
Alternative steps for communication are irrelevant to the point.
Another description for the internet is irrelevant to the point. The point was whether they could conceive the internet thousands of years ago...
Not only are you losing this argument very badly.... I don't know you you're even paying attention enough to actually still even be in the argument... you're so lost.
"You keep on repeating this every time you lose an argument. "
Baahahaha...now that's funny.
No.
What's happening is that you're getting destroyed here. You're trying but your attempts are laughably clumsy due to your lack of education.
So you seem to be regularly trying to use straw men arguments.
You're summarising an argument you claim I'm making but not only have I never made that argument..not only is it not even close to anything I'm saying...it's often nonsensical.
There are so many reasons why you're failing in these posts....but when you get desperate and try straw men arguments repeatedly it looks very bad for you.
"This is your way of trying to evade a loss "
LOL.... no kid...you keep diverting to TOTALLY IRRELEVANT statements...when I call you on your desperate attempts and diversion you try to claim a loss? No. If you were actually doing ok you wouldn't need to resort to desperate misdirection.
You seem to have no debating skills at all....so I don't even know if you will understand that.
"Bring your paper that says that it was possible to manufacture a tiny star out of a gas"
A tiny star? what tiny star? What are you talking about? You spout so much nonsense....but sure I'll post links in the next post.
"Reverting to the irrelevant tactic."
Actually sport that's what you did.
You keep doing it. You keep diverting to different points because you're incapable of responding to the one being discussed.
It's cowardice.
"which means you got cornered"
Again comments like that are just funny considering how badly you've been beaten here.
Someone finding something they didn't know about stars doesn't change that we know with great certainty how they are formed.
It's not a magical spell.
It's gravity and matter.
YOU LOSE
"So, the sun switches off at night!!!"
What? Again you're spouting confused nonsense... The formation of stars has many differences to the controlled fusion in the those tests.
You're simply too dense to understand this.
You lack the intellect to even maintain the pretense of an argument. lol...
You're drowning here buddy...
You've lost on every point...so you've tried to squirm and dodge to new claims....you still don't even understand the point of my internet reference! haha...wow.
You actually try to argue that it's foolish to think we will learn new things! Amazing.
You try to deny that scientists know how stars are formed! sheer ignorance.
You're trying so hard but just digging yourself into an embarrassing hole.
1
-
Mazen Ba-abbad
"That is your presupposition, any system with moving parts is a machine."
More of your equivocation fallacies. You're inventing definitions and using terms too broadly. You're making the definition so vague that you can declare nearly anything as a machine. ..atom..gene...stars... merely having movement doesn't make something a machine in the sense of created by something for a purpose.
"For any generalization to be rational, it must apply to similar entities. Otherwise, it becomes irrational generalization. For example, we can't say "So, who peeled the sun?""
You're babbling at the start and then give an irrelevant analogy at the end.
You're evading the question.
Who built your god?
"If you said that you don't know, then at least you are making an honest statement."
..and that's a key difference between us. I can make that honest answer. You pretend you have all the answers...and the answer is always God.
" However, if the atheist/nature worshiping temple taught you to point to nature as the creator, then we should discuss such irrational claim."
1. That's not atheism. But you're so uneducated I expect confusion from you at every point now.
2. Atheism makes no claims about a creator
3. Any talk of atheism temples is nonsensical
4. So you're arguing against a claim that isn't even strictly atheism...but even then you've had every opportunity to show that its irrational and all you've managed to do is show how ignorant and illogical you are.
"God is the one who designed the universe to run according to stable physical laws"
Here you go again...you're making a claim you can never back up.
Baseless, often nonsensical, assertions is about all you have.
"For example, the Zoologist head priest is telling you to worship the double helix DNA"
This is total gibberish from an ignoramus.
No one worships DNA.
You're not connected to reality....but perhaps that helps you maintain your religious myths.
_". Later on (after making a wealth from such nonsensical book), he said, sex is for pleasure!!!
Such an education :)))"_
What on earth are you babbling about? Can you occasionally try to make a coherent statement?
"It is funny how much cheating was done to hide all the other adverse by-products!!"
What cheating? More vague, baseless assertions.
You're terrible at debating this subject..lol..
"If any of your claims were true, then we must find an earth-wide layer (similar to oil) that is rich in amino-acids"
1. What claims specifically? You only ever seem to resort to straw men arguments because you lack the ability to address what I say.
2. The rest of that statements is once again just confused nonsense....
Resorting to babbling and nonsense isn't getting you anywhere.
"Such an education!!"
With each of these nonsensical posts you're only reinforcing my point.
You simply have no idea about this topic
You lack a basic education and each comment reinforces it
"Now, you are cheer leading"
I'm schooling you and mocking you about it.
You can call that cheer leading if you want.
"Any child can wear goggles and mix some liquids of different colors including coke with mentos, so does this make birds, ducks and frogs? "
Again, a statement which has nothing to do with the science...and only shows how naive and uneducated you are.
Your staggering ignorance isn't an argument.
"At least have some honesty and decency to ask me for my position"
It's too late for you feign indignation.
YOU KEEP ARGUING THAT POSITION.
When I call you out on it you realise how dumb it sounds and you pretend you weren't.
But the posts are right there.
"Science is about extracting the laws and the mathematical models from the physical world and use them to produce products"
...and here you go again diverting away from the point.
Whenever I talk about our understanding improving you scoff at the very idea. Now here you trying to deny it.
Whenever I talk about how much our understanding has improved you divert to irrelevant blathering.
Whenever I try to make you see how people in the past wouldn't have been able to imagine what we have now you try to deny it with more irrelevant squawking.
"Only, people with medieval Christian background think that there is science vs. religion situation."
?? How can you be this clueless?
They are absolutely in opposition...this thread only confirms it more so.
One is based of evidence. The other off blind faith.
" As some guy will come 1000 years from now and say, those people had no idea that they can use X technology to travel over water."
What are you even talking about? haha you're sucj an incompetent mess...
"OK, Mr. Scientist, bring us your "many differences""
Fusion in a lab is a tiny little reaction.. its an attempt at controlled fusion with the most minimal amount of matter...stars are created with enormous amounts of matter over time.
That I need to explain this to you again shows what a bumbling fool you are.. How could you not work that out? haha
" In other words, they thought that the atomic fusion reaction is simple "
:What? Wow you're a confused imbeciule... no one has ever thought that atomic fusion reactions are simple. No one.
Wow. That's either the worst attempt at a straw man argument or you're just really ....really dumb.
Possibly both.
Wow you're a mess.
1
-
1
-
@mazen1010
“machine: a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work”
The universe isn’t a pice of equipment. It doesn’t have “several moving parts” ..it doesn’t do a “particular type of work”
You’ve just proven my point. You’re using terms broadly to shoehorn them into your clumsy theories.
If you want to declare that that definition can describe the universe…. Then I’m also able to declare that it fits your sky god. ..then you need to explain who built him.
”Who peeled our sun?”
You’re evasion of the question says it all really.
You lose again.
”Similarly, you after many unproved fairy tales say that the answer is my priest said it is nature.”
What unproved fairy tales?
So far anything you’ve brought up has backfired on you and you’ve shown you are woefully ignorant. They may seem like fairy tales to you but that’s because you’re so uneducated. Fire probably seems like magic to you.
”At least the theist see the power and the miraculous design of God, while you and your pseudoscience priests say the dumb nature has a secret life as it hides things in mystery labs and then come up with a primitive heart, then goes again in hiding and after millions of years it produces a more advanced heart for a different creature after it kills the old ones.”
Again this sentence is pure gibberish and has no resemblance to the real world. Those words make no sense and have no connection to science. When you have nowhere to go on a topic you resort to babbling. You end up just looking foolish and desperate.
”The denial of an infinitely capable God without providing the necessary demonstration”
You do the same thing. You are denying thousands of gods.
Have you provided evidence against them? No. So by your own definition – you’re irrational.
”n that it is a natural occurring process (e.g. wind erosion of rocks) is irrational.”
Again you fail to understand. We don’t know. We are trying to figure it out. YOU however have no evidence but think you do know.
You’re the one being irrational.
Once path relies on evidence.
The other faith – you. Irrational.
”This is the new version of nature worshipers, the ungrateful type. When someone claims that the DNA (and its ancestor the RNA) is the source of all the life on earth (similar to Gaia, the mythical earth goddess), then claims this helpless genetic strand to give the purpose of life (spread me, or else...) and you happen to believe him, then, you are the one who is disconnected from reality. :))”
Statements like this show you to be just nutty. You’re embarrassing yourself. You come off irrational and fervently crazy.
No one is claiming that DNA is the source of life. No one is replacing DNA with a magical sky god. DNA however is a fact. It is in all living beings. No one claims DNA gives purpose. You’re equivocating there… but logical fallacies make up most of your arguments…Genes are passed on… As for beliving… what we know about dna comes from evidence. Believing evidence is rational…. Waving evidence away because you don’t like (or understand) it… is what you’re doing. You hide from evidence. When confronted with it you flee…or pretend it’s something else. Yes. you are disconnected to reality.
” The Urey-Miller experiment produces some toxic and tar by-products.”
Again…. How is that cheating? You’re doing terribly here. You’re making statements and never backing them up.
” But for a blind atheist follower, anything goes”
Silly comments like this aren’t helping you cover your many lost arguments. It’s even worse that you make it after evading questions.
” That such claimed primordial soup of the Urey-Miller experiment, was the origin of life.”
I never actually claimed that. Your dishonesty is remarkable.
But for a blind religious fruitcake follower, anything goes.
’ This is to explain to you that your atheist priests are cheating you when they say that such an organic cocktail (the product of the Urey-Miller experiment) is the originator of life.”
You’re completely confused.
That is merely a working theory.
There are scientists who don’t even agree with it.
You’re clinging to arguments you heard once…and then projecting them on to people in the most clumsy manner.
You’re terrible at debating… lol
” An honest scientist would always inform people of the present limitations, a”
THEY DO. You don’t know about any of this though because you’re so wilfully ignorant. You’re like a cave man in a library…declaring that books don’t work…. Hahaha…
” However, your atheist head priests tell people that they are sure that God doesn't exist,”
There are no head priests… you sound like a moron when you say stuff like that.
You’re sitting on your computer…in a house with electricity… using the internet…to lose arguments against people on the other side of the world…but you’re opposing every thing about science… it’s really quite funny.
” ut all what they need is infinite time and infinite budget to figure out how to prove it.”
Infinite time and budget? No one is claiming this. You’re simply full of shit.
People are trying to find out the real answers. ..and you oppose the idea of learning new things so much that you mischaracterise learning new things as nonsense about “atheists priests..infinite time… infinite budget”…. Your starting position is to make something up and complain about that.
All your arguments are based on confusion, ignorant and dishonesty.
But for an uneducated, blind religious nut, anything goes.
1
-
1
-
“Actually the universe does have several (trillions of trillions) of moving parts, and all of them use power (energy/time) to do particular type of work”
Once again you fail to address the point.
Your definition fails. You’re argument is merely equivocation fallacy.
You’re using a definition that doesn’t work. But you keep trying to shoehorn and reword it..but in doing so you make it so vague I could just also apply it to your god. Who made your god?
“God is the machine maker. We make machines, but we don't necessarily have rotating parts.”
Once again you fail to address the point. The fallacious and clumsy argument you tried to make would also apply to your god. Who made your god?
”The first fairy tale is about the cosmological natural evolution, as there is no spontaneous self-assembly reactions that govern the universe.”
So much confusion. You’re so out of touch with reality it’s hard to know where to start.
No one is preaching anything. They are just trying to find the answer. Following the scientific method isn’t preaching. It’s a method of looking at evidence and repeatedly testing theories. Preaching fairy tales is what you do. …you know about a magical sky god who created the universe “pooof!” ..and people on flying horses…
No one is talking of life spontaneously self assembling.
You’re again resorted to a straw man fallacy.
”Star formation is not self-assembly”
No one calls it that… star formation is the result of matter and gravity…
You’re confused.
”otherwise, the fusion reaction would be straight-forward spontaneous self-assembly)”
That makes no sense at all. You’re confused. That stars form as a result of gravity and matter is know…. Fusion reactions are hardly “straight forward”… and even if they were it has no bearing on that stars are formed by gravity and matter.
You’re a mess.
”galaxy formation is not self-assembly”
Again it’s matter and gravity…
”(otherwise, the whole universe will be concentric spheres”
Not at all. Uneven amounts of matter are moving around in all directions…
So not only do your arguments fail miserably.
Not only do you resort to straw men.
Your arguments don’t even make sense.
”The second fairy tale is the biological evolution, as the beginning of life and variance of biology over time and space is”
1. You’re referring to abiogenesis. That isn’t evolution.
2. No one is preaching this. They are merely trying to find out how it started. No one is currently saying that they know how it started.
3. Preaching is saying “god did it….poof!” That’s what you’re doing.
So once again you’re making the error of thinking that the scientific method is preaching.
Your lack of understanding of what science is will always let you down here.
Also you’re merely projecting your failed position onto others.
”This is because your nature-worshiping priest didn't provide you with any proof”
You’re again confused. Interestingly that sentence is a response to me calling you out on spouting a nonsensical straw man argument. But those make up most of your posts it seems.
No one is worshipping anything when it comes to science. That’s your lack of understanding and projecting of your own insecurities. Science actually uses proof. It’s fundamental to science. Your position relies on faith.
So again the sentence is invalid and only really a projection of your position.
“Rationally, all what we see in the universe follow one set of physical laws and has unified building blocks.”
Again. You fail to address the point.
Thousands of cultures have had gods. Some monotheistic. Some polytheistic.
You deny all of them.
Your clumsy arguments about atheism apply to you.
You tie yourself in knots with your bungling attempts at logic and its quite funny.
”In other words, I don't know, but take this lie, it is a nice fairy-tale keep it until I find a better lie.”
WRONG.
Again you’re showing that you don’t know how it works.
They are not giving you the answer.
They are looking for the answer.
YOU are the one giving the fake answer.
YOU are the one giving the fairy tale while people figure it out.
You’re again showing your ignorance and only projecting your position onto others.
”"His contention is that the genes”
..sigh… god you’re hopeless.
1. He’s talking about genes. Not dna.
2. That’s from the selfish gene. I’ve read it.
3. You’re falling for the same equivocation problem that you get wrong over and over. You’re using ‘purpose’ in two different contexts with two different meanings
4. He doesn’t even say dna gives purpose. Your reference doesn’t even support your statement….
”"The dominant material”
Yes… so for the THIRD TIME how is that cheating?
I can only assume you’re so inept that you don’t have any idea what you’re doing. You’re posting links but you don’t even understand why… lol you’re a joke.
”Then, why you and your atheist happy friends claim that nature can originate life?”
Following the evidence.
Looking how evolution.
Understanding chemistry.
No one is claiming they know… they are merely trying to find out.
You know evidence right? Oh that’s right you’re religious you just believe what you’re told. Blind faith is much better hey sheep?
”"...we have a working theory that we know is true, which explains how you can go”
1. That statement is correct.
2. Your post has no bearing on the point you responded to…
You’re so bad at debating this topic lol…
”There is no such working theory”
…sigh… once again your lack of understanding is the problem here. There are many working theories about how life could have started… his comments there don’t contradict any of them…
You’re simply a mess.
”Christopher Hitchens vs. God”
Did hitchens pretend to be representing the creator of the universe? No.
Did he pretend to be a moral leader? No.
Did he give advice to people as if it came from a god? No.
Did people even worship him? No.
To call hitchens a head priest is once again just your ignorance and projecting your kooky world onto others.
Oh and Hitchens losing? Haha riiiiiight.
”Such as energy and matter have secret life and a secrete hide-out, where they go for millions of years and bring out a new developed heart with all the wiring ready to plug and play and they agree to install it on a new evolved species.”
..again this is the gibberish of a child who doesn’t understand. Your statement there has no resemblance to any scientific endeavour.
Your ignorance isn’t an argument.
You’re trying to erect another fallacious straw man but only look foolish in the attempt.
Once again we can see that your position is based on being woefully ill-informed about the topic. Your attempts to defend this position of ignorance are a list of fallacious arguments and confusion.
1
-
@mazen1010
”For anything to be made, it has to be subjected to time”
An assertion you don’t support.
”We know time only because things have different rates of change”
No that’s how hoe we know time. We are able to measure time.
”. If nothing changes differently with respect to the other, then we can't define time.”
Time is a dimension of the universe. It can be defined as such. It is entwined with space.
So your statement there is wrong and quite meaningless. ..and as usual it has nothing to do with what you’re responding to.
”When we observe that the universe as a machine”
You’re just repeating the same errors. You’re asserting it’s a machine. Your attempts to support this assertion have been shown to be full of faulty reasoning.
”This different set of physical laws must come from an outside source,”
Another baseless assertion.
”But this time to decay is not effecting anything outside our universe.”
You don’t know that.
You keep making these arrogant, baseless assertions.
Your arguments are a mess.
”Therefore, your clinging to a birth and manufacturing necessity for God is applying relative measures to the absolute.”
These nonsensical statements don’t get you anywhere.
You’re trying to use definitions that actually work against you.
You’re trying to set rules and then instantly break them…with god…then you’re stuck offering these pathetic half baked excuses full of broken logic and fallacies.
“Once this process stops at observing, and from that jumps to non-demonstrable conclusions”
..and once again your ignorance is the problem. They are not making conclusions. They are putting forward theories and trying to test them.
You cant seem to understand this. I can only assume you lack either the intellect or the honesty.
”So, matter and gravity had a secret life that brought stars to be formed??!!”
Secret life? You’re talking gibberish. Talking gibberish isn’t going to recover your broken arguments… lol
”But because your atheist priests said so, then they must be right!!!!”
We know how stars are formed.
Deal with it.
You may not like it. But that’s too bad. If you hate science so much go live in a cave.
You don’t realise how dumb you sound constantly complaining about science all the while enjoying all the comforts that science has brought you. Naïve. Clueless.
“The galaxies form galactic clusters, and our galaxy is being pulled by the great attractor.”
You’re admitting I’m right and you’re wrong. Haha you’re such a bumbling clown.
”So, if no one knows how it started, is it rational to claim knowledge of how it is advancing?”
How ‘what’ is advancing?! Can you please try to make sense?
”What you fail to see is how childish the evolution theory”
They might seem “childish” if you’re an uneducated, ignorant person who prefers fantasy to evidence….
”They have have no answer!!!! All what they do is to publish papers and books,”
Now you’re just descended into paranoid ranting…
You’re such an uninformed nutcase…. Now you’re crying that they only publish books? Evolution is the cornerstone of biology….and Is critical to many sciences including medicine. .. it plays a role in vaccines….you simply have no idea… all your arguments begin with your amazing ignorance. You’re like a child who knows nothing about the world but that’s the thing with ignorant people…they don’t know they are ignorant.
”We can logically conclude that there is only one infinite power that designed and is running the universe.”
All your attempts to demonstrate this have not only failed….they have failed in an embarrassing manner. You’ve shown that your position is one based on ignorance, confusion and blind faith.
Once again you don’t actually address the problem here. Your magic space god is just one of thousands of gods that man has invented. You try to skirt around the issue with preaching.
”A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes are made up of DNA.”
No kidding moron. That doesn’t change my point. People are made of atoms. But atoms and people don’t behave the same way.
As always, your statement, which was irrelevant, was wrong.
That’s another characteristic of your terrible pots… your babbling is as irrelevant as it is incorrect.
”Such dishonesty and acrobatic word games make the other 50%”
You just described yourself perfectly. You seem to project yourself onto others a lot.
”I will stop here,”
You should quit while you’re behind….well about 100 miles behind.
1
-
@mazen1010
”If time is frozen, can anything be made?”
What the hell is frozen time? How could that possibly happen?
But to answer your question, possibly. We don’t know.
Some theories say that time began with the big bang.
Your position relies on a magical god creating time…and creating the universe… from nothing.
”Similarly, if all the elements of the universe have stopped changing, can we measure time?”
Yes.
”As for the time-space making an imaginary fabric,”
Imaginary? You’re the only one talking about imaginary things here sport.
”God is outside the universe and God is outside the time function.”
This is just more preaching. You’re not making an argument. You’re making claims you can’t ever support. Sure you like to repeat them. ..but repeating them doesn’t change your failure to support them.
”This shows that you are a nature worshiper,”
Destroying your argument and holding up the pieces in front of you makes me a nature worshipper?
Your statement there is utterly moronic….but then again pretty much everything you say is.
”as you can't think of anything before the universe and outside it.”
Oh I can think of lots of things. Unlike you though I care about evidence…while you cling to fantasy.
”it. You have this as your brain system default, and all your arguments are based on that.”
You’re projecting your problems again…. Its quite funny.
”But relax, the Miller-Urey experiment couldn't prove that lightning is your creator,”
See previous post. Your lack of understanding and programming to believe in space god makes you obsess over the miller urey experiments without even understanding their relevance… or science…or facts…or reason… you really don’t understand anything…
But you sure love your space god! He sent a flying horse for his paedophile prophet. Really he did!
”Again you are lying on behalf of your atheist priests, as they made us headache claiming that "evolution is supported by large amount of evidence" and "evolution can explain"..”
So now you’ve jumped to evolution.. you’re so bad at debating… hahaha.
Evolution IS supported by a large amount of evidence.
That must really annoy you.
Poor religious crackpot.
Your god is a fantasy….
”For who much I can buy a tiny red-dwarf? It would be nice if you can make me a grow-in-water toy star for my children :)))”
The ramblings of a brain dead zombie.. lol
”That was response to you claiming that the universe has matter scattered, so I pointed out that the galaxies are formed into galactic clusters. “
No retard, you tried to declare everything would be in concentric circles…
I educated you otherwise….then you supported me.
You’re a clown…. Simply too stupid for discussions such as this.
”You admit that your atheist priests do not know how life started, but they magically became experts in how life is developing through time.”
Wow.. So much stupidity.
1. Every time you call them priests you sound like a moron.
2. Looking at evidence isn’t magic. It may seem like magic to really….reallly…dumb people… like you…but you probably think its magic when someone turns a light on….
3. Abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are different concepts. You wouldn’t know this because you’re a babbling caveman.
”So, now I became the bad guy for asking your head priests to give me a practical solution for a practical problem??”
You’re not a bad guy. You’re a dumb guy. Your lack of intellect and education is your problem.
As for “asking”…you could get an education…but you don’t want one. You want to remain stupid and clueless.
”This is the same response I get when I ask an illusionist to”
Yes but you think looking at evidence is magic…. You probably think everything is magic. A lot of things seem like magic to really dense people.
”hen tell me you immortal one, who brought life to earth when it was lifeless?”
We don’t know how it started….and neither do you.
”Your lightning god failed Miller”
Haha that you keep clinging to your confusion about these experiments only makes you look more foolish. Those experiments brought us closer to an explanation… that’s progress….progress that only reinforces how foolish your space god fantasy is…
”Based on your analogy (living people made out of non-living atoms), now we must believe the gene is a living being made out of DNA???!!!”
That makes no sense at all…and has no relationship with anything I have said.
When you lose arguments…resorting to mindless babbling isn’t going to recover any dignity.
”I will save this joke for my kids,”
Oh you have kids? That’s sad. I feel bad for kids that have to grow up with a father as poorly educated and as thick as you are. What chance do they have?
Poor kids. Their dad is a loser.
1
-
@mazen1010
”We know and realize time only because things change with different rates with respect to each other.”
You’ve already tried that line… we can measure time. We have atomic clocks. We don’t need two different rates.
You’re talking nonsense.
”So, before the universe clock started ticking, there was no time in the universe.”
But according to you nothing can be created without time…. So where did your magical space god come from?
You’re contradicting yourself all over the place here.
”Therefore, you can't apply a relative state experienced only by creatures to God who created all these creatures”
We know god didn’t create all the creatures…. Don’t you even know how pro creation works?
God you’re clueless.
”Time is just a relation that exists between creatures.”
No that’s not what time is. Exactly what time is, is still something that people are working out…but it’s a relation between creatures….that’s also simply nonsense.
You’re terrible at this.
”Time and space are two independent relations,”
Time and space are not independent.
”and coupling them together in a fabric is imaginary.”
Are you trying to talk about special relativity? No. It is not imaginary. It has been demonstrated.
You probably think its imaginary…just like you probably think everything you don’t know anything about is imaginary… and that’s quite a lot of things.
Again the problem here is that you’re too uneducated to even try to discuss such topics….
”time can change without the distance changing, but the theory of relativity doesn't apply at the subatomic level.”
The laws work. They work in their areas of applicability.
You don’t understand this. So you declare they are imaginary….haha you’re a blind fool.
”God's existence outside the universe is a rational conclusion”
So you keep claiming….yet whenever you try to talk about it you just shoot yourself in the foot and make a monumental arse of yourself.
”It is based on the observed universe requiring the existence of an external free-willed and infinitely capable power to transfer it from its initial state”
That isn’t a requirement at all… so once again you fail quick and fail miserably…
”This is what your priests taught you to say that "you have evidence".”
Your priests taught you to deny evidence at all costs.
You’re projecting again.
It’s quite amusing when you do it. You describe your failings perfectly and try to project them to me.
You can’t address the evidence…. So you just deny it and cry like a baby about “atheist priests”… aww the nasty scientists keep making your magical space god irrelevant?
Yeah deal with that, nutcase.
”. Did you see the nature's forces that you claim to create everything, manufacture a Rubik's cube?”
Did you see god to it? No. A book told you….and you were dumb enough and gullible enough to just believe it…. That’s a good sheep…whatever you do… make sure you hide from evidence and pretend it isn’t there! lol good sheep.
”But still your priests fooled you to believe that they have "evidence" that nature created birds and animals and trees”
Are you trying to refer to abiogenesis? No one claims to have all the evidence for abiogenesis…
So once again you’re reduced to lying.
You lie so much.
What happens to deceptive people in your crazy cult? Burning?
”es, I must lack the understand of you kneeling down to the electric arc”
?? What? Do you take medication?
”Like the zodiac supported by many imaginary l”
Yes yes the same old weak lines… You don’t understand evolution so you think its wrong… you don’t like evolution, so you jump up and down and pretend the evidence doesn’t exist…
You’re an uneducated Neanderthal who likes the fantasy of his magic space god better than reality….
Much of the world has gone past you….you’re several hundred years behind in many respects.
1
-
@mazen1010
”This shows your arrogance and dishonesty. If I was a brain dead zombie, what makes of you who respond to "my debate from the realm of the dead"?? :)))”
If that was an attempt at a joke it was unfunny. If it wasn’t then you’re even dumber than I thought, which is really saying something.
”Again your dishonesty at work, I was telling you that the universe is not created by a self-assembly reaction, that is why it is not concentric spheres.”
That’s what I’m talking about you imbecile
You said if it weren’t created by magic space man it would be “the whole universe will be concentric spheres), nor any planet formation.”
YOUR WORDS…
You’re simply to stupid to even maintain the pretence of a debate. lol…
”. Then you responded with a stupid claim indicating another false god of yours "randomness", so I responded that it is not random”
I never said anything about randomness… I have been talking about natural processes…
Oh that’s right you deny all evidence and don’t understand science…. So you wave it away with silly statements… You’re a buffoon.
”But since I am not your honored priest, you wouldn't accept anything I say even if it was true.”
Accept what you say? Everything you say is either intellectual dishonesty or straight out gibberish.
You’re a dishonest moron who doesn’t know anything. I feel sorry for your kids.
You think intellectually dishonesty is ok if its for the magic space god..
You’re a vile person.
”There is no evidence for evolution occurring,”
Wrong. You’re an uneducated moron.
”evolution is just a fairy tale mad”
Wrong. You’re an uneducated moron.
” made to connect the scattered observations and partial experiments.”
Wrong. You’re an uneducated moron.
” So, it is similar to Abiogenesis in that it claims to have evidence”
Wrong. No one claims they have worked out abiogenesis….You’re lying again. You lie all the time.
You’re an uneducated moron.
” while it is just crystal ball gazing”
Evidence…science…testing predictions are the opposite of looking at crystal balls….you’re projecting your own failings onto others again.
” Evidence is through reproducible results.”
… you bumbling Neanderthal…evidence comes in many forms…
Evolution has been demonstrated over and over…
You don’t like it because it ruins your magic space god fantasy…. So you just deny with the most pathetic excuses possible.
” Evolution is just a horoscope reading.”
Yes yes you’ve made this ignorant silly line. You really only have about 4 or 5 idiotic lines that you just repeat hoping they distract from your constant failures….
” lso, anyone can see that all the natural forces (e.g. lightning, earthquakes, wind, waves, tsunamis, volcanoes and/or sunlight) can't manufacture anything not even a bicycle or a football”
This is a confused mix of straw and argument from incredulity…. Fallacies everwhere.
Your problem is always the same…you don’t get it…you don’t like it…you’re too dense to understand it….so you invent idiotic scenarios then dismiss them. You’re a joke. Naïve. Desperate. Dishonest.
” . So, the rational conclusion is that there is an external invisible force who is extending”
That’s just the god of the gaps argument…. You don’t understand therefore the answer is the magic space wizard.
” Just like the progress of a drunken loser”
Unfortunately for you….you’re the drunken loser here who doesn’t know what he’s doing…can’t stand up…can’t prove anything…can’t understand anything but keeps babbling….”mehh… god space mand did it!!!....I said so derp….erm.”….
Hahahaha
” You made a stupid lie + it got exposed +”
Nope. You just got caught lying.
You keep spouting these statements that don’t have any connection with anything I have said.
When you get called out on your desperate straw man arguments you just squeal that I’m lying.
You sport. You’re lying. You’re resorting to straw man arguments ever time.
You lose.
Every time you resort to a straw man argument you’re admitting you can’t defend your position.
” prefer to be a loser than to join the atheist faith that claims "Rubik's cubes are manufactured by natural forces, d”
There you go again. They don’t claim that.
You just got caught out lying again.
Your kids got screwed having you for a dad….
Dumb. Clueless about the world. A perpetual liar.
What a shit dad....
1
-
Mazen Ba-abbad
”This is another joke that you say”
You think our ability to measure time is a joke?
Haha… do you live in a cave? How can you be this dense?
” (after the atoms:people = DNA:genes)”
Why are you lying again? Oh that’s right you’re a compulsive liar. I never said they were equal. I used a simplistic analogy to illustrate how idiotic your statement was.
I tried to keep it simple but you’re simply to stupid to understand even simple concepts.
”. As if everything was vibrating at the same rate as the atomic clock, the relative speed will be zero, and again time will not be defined.”
More gibberish… every time you spout nonsense like this you show have no idea about any of this.
”God's action of creation is outside of time”
Bahahaha… so basically..again you declare a rule…then instantly break it…then make up a rule that god doesn’t need to follow rules… hahaha..
You’re such a dumbass.
”Because your electric arc did it???!!!”
I’m talking about animal procreation and you’re talking about electric arcs?! Haha you’re drooling retard.
”Each creature has its clock, there are biological clocks and there are different days and years for every planet.”
Wow that’s humours babbling but it doesn’t support your idiotic claim that time is just a “relation between creatures”.
You don’t appear to know…anything…
You never went to school did you?
”So, based on your claims we will not have a unit for distance measurement as it will keep changing over time?”
Nope. That’s not how it works at all. We do have units for distance measurements.
The main problem here is just that you’re a retard….
”Also, again you make another joke as space is defined as the distance between any two objects, according to you no time can be calculated for a single quark!!!”
No I never said…. I never said anything like that ….
You seem to lie every few sentences…. It’s other nonsense….or lies… or lies that are nonsense...
”This is a late confession from you,”
Haha educating you about basic physics is a confession? Wow you’re confused.
”, but since you are a dishonest person, I don't expect you to correct your above wrong statement.”
I have no wrong statement to correct.
So you made a false statement. I explained why your statement was wrong. You tried to just declare it was a confession. That was me refuting your statement…. You get confused by everything.
Wow you’re dumb.
”I am sorry, I couldn't make you leave your nature worshiping, with your gods;”
Blah another statement of yours crushed so you cry about nature and miller urey…
Haha why do even try when you’re so hopeless at this?
You’re making muslims look like morons….
”All these acrobatics that you are doing so to protect your nature's gods”
Again ..just projecting your own insecurities…
I refuted your stupid statement….so you fall back on the same tired lines….
You have nothing of substance.
”Sorry that is another nature's god of yours I missed, the god of random mutation and his friend-adversary the god of random selection (similar to yin and yang).”
…and again your statement was shown to be wrong…you don’t know what to do…so you cry “”…erm…nature …random….erm…”
You’re flailing about like the village idiot.
Actually I think that’s probably the only profession you’re qualified for.
How do you kids feel knowing their dad is the village idiot?
Sad.
i bet magic space god Allah and pedophile Muhammad would be disappointed with you too....
Sad.
1
-
1
-
@mazen1010
”Without any demonstrable experiments, your pseudo-scientists are no different than any shaman reading the signs of the silver owl and the golden eagle.”
Gravity has been demonstrated you babbling ignoramus…
” your pseudo-scientists are no different than any shaman reading the signs of the silver owl and the golden eagle.”
You’re again projecting your own position.
You deny science and evidence…in favour of magic because you like it better…
” Hydrogen gas + gravity = a self-assembled star, where is it???”
It’s self assembled if an external force, gravity causes it.
I gave you a list of papers about star formation…
You refused to look at them.
You’re like a cowardly neanderthal hiding in a cave…with his head in his hands…murmuring…”space god …space god….I like space god”
Once again your argument is “I’m too dumb to understand it so I refuse to accept it”
” I think you are using the word "natural" to mean "non-man made".”
..and here you go again trying to redefine what words mean…this has failed every time but hey give it another go dummy!
So you’re now denying what natural means… haha
” However, your continuous irrational denial of God”
You’ve yet to show any reason to believe in god.
Your only argument is “I’m too dumb to understand it so I refuse to accept it”
That argument doesn’t prove there is a magic space god. It only shows you’re an idiot.
”xposes your nature worshiping gods (the god of lightning, the god of hydrothermal vents, the mud god,...etc.)”
Blah blah nature god…atheist priest….you have of handful of dumb lines you repeat that don’t help you at all and only make you look mentally challenged.
”Since we have been debating for long.”
This isn’t a debate… you’re not capable of debating this topic…
This is me mocking an idiot….
I didn’t read your joke.
You tried to evade the point – you being completely wrong… with some joke.
Pathetic.
”'m really not of the type of person who takes the saying of anyone”
Blah blag your response had nothing to do with the point ….again… dumbass.
”All non-existent things are irrelevant.”
I guess your magical space god is looking pretty irrelevant until you can prove that he exists….
”But to claim that God doesn't exist, all the observations that proves that your natural gods (i.e. the gravity god, the lightning god, the mud god) are dead and can't create anything must be ignored.”
The logic of a child…with mental issues. Your argument is that “natural gods” are dead…so therefore your magic space god…is real… sigh…
God you’re stupid….hahaah…..how did I get into this with someone as dumb as you… lol
The logic there is a mess.
There is no evidence natural gods.
Lighting. Gravity. Mud. ..all exist… that’s a fact..
Your logic that your god must exist…if these non existant ‘natural gods’ don’t exist…is a non sequiter it’s totally illogical… you’re a twit.
”He died because of cancer, and he didn't live a long happy life. I”
No he seemed to have a very happy fulfilled life. He died at 62.
”I feel sorry for him not to see the truth “
He was an intellectual. Not a brain dead moron like you.
He made your religion look so stupid… people love his videos…
”He is your head priest,”
Your comment was so dumb even you are too scared to support it….lol…
”It needs some digging,”
You probably made it up.
You’re a compulsive liar.
Until you find it, I’ll assume you’re just lying again.
”t you just for a change try once to respond only to the logical and scientific claim”
You’ve yet to say anything logical or scientific.
Most ten year olds know more about science and logic than you do…. You’re one of the dumbest people I’ve ever come across.
I’m surprised you can use a keyboard.
”But they fail to provide any demonstration at any scale that such "natural occurrence"”
Wrong. I gave you a list to numerous papers about this.
You just hide from what you can’t deal with….like a scared little Neanderthal hiding in his cave…
Another post with no intelligent statements…. You evaded every point you couldn’t deal with….you cried about atheists a lot.
You seem to really hate them.
They must make your feel really stupid….and really bitter…
They laugh at your dumb religion and show how irrelevant it is with science…
Poor dumbo…
Hey dumbo …how old do you think the earth is?
Do you think dinosaurs are real?
The paedophile Mohamed fly away on a magical winged horse?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KurtBoulter
". If you want a complete secular society, then move to a country that is completely secular,"
I could say the same to you. If you want a Christian country move to East Timor or Haiti. They are nearly entirely Christian. They must be your paradise.
Off you go.
" stop complaining about how inconvenient it is for God haters and haters of those who worship God to live in a free country,"
You're the one doing all the complaining.
", with all laws based on the Christian bible"
Err no.
We don't keep slaves. Condoned in the bible.
We don't kill people for working on Sunday. A rule from the bible. In fact many people work on Sunday.
We don't murder disrespectful children. A rule from the bible.
Our ethics and morality has far surpassed that of the people who wrote the bible.
So no, our laws are not based on the bible.
You need to think a little more about this subject.
"The thing is, it would not make any difference what I said, because I believe in God, you would claim anything I said was not correct anyway,"
I'm sure you say things that are correct all the time. Many of your statements so far have been wrong.
"If you did not hate God, you would not fight against those who love Him by demanding that"
I'm not fighting against anybody
"stop openly worshipping the Lord God, spreading His Word"
Worship and spread his word as much as you want. It's a free country.
You're proving my point. You don't understand atheists or atheism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XxlolktkatxX
" no the average life was 65 "
I seriously doubt that... you haven't demonstrated this to be correct ...but it's fairly irrelevant.
". And there's a lot more evidence that she wasn't 9 like comparing her age to other people."
You've yet to present any evidence... all you've done is spout pathetic denials.
"And your only evidence is a false Hadith"
haha there we go... all the evidence that proves you wrong you just declare is false...
You sound ridiculous....
As for "only" you are wrong. I posted this below...You didn't respond to it.
So you've got Aisha herself telling us her age... and you won't believe her.
You are a classic example of rejection/confirmation bias in action.
Muhammad was a vile pedophile.
-------------------------
How do we actually know that Mohammed at age 50 married a 6 year old?
The sources for Mohammed’s marriage is not some modern slur, but rather comes from traditional Islamic sources.
Is it simply one obscure minor reference?
No, not at all, it is all over the place, there are in fact many many different references.
Sahih al-Bukhari (is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major hadith collections) of Sunni Islam, in some circles, this is considered the most authentic book after the Quran) – 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88,
Sahih Muslim (is the second most authentic hadith collection after Sahih al-Bukhari, and is highly acclaimed) – 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, 41:4915
Sunan Abu Dawood (is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major hadiths), collected by Abu Dawud) – 41:4917
Looking at the very first – Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Are these Hadith collections the only sources?
No, there are also other independent sources for this as well, for example al-Ṭabarī (a Persian scholar and historian), records a slightly different variation and notes that she was ten – Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1