Define Sins!
If a human kills, it's a sin
If an animal kills, it's not.
Not that I condone killing but is it a sin because the bible says it is.
And if so, does someone who kills in the name of their god go to heaven or strait to hell (as defined in that book), I would expect the latter.

OK, I'm heading at a tangent so...,
Um..., Have a great day!

This is a parody made by an atheist.

Well done there captain obviously.

Though in fairness to you Poe's Law may be something you should consider looking up on the google.

Nice, although really, really stupidly there will be those scary religious folk who will believe this. I wouldn't be surprised if he posted this on GodTube for a laugh.

The part on 9/11... I have a friend who is SO frigging into the conspiracy theory, and it hinges on the most flimsy of 'evidence', and YES he was a Ron Paul supporter, AND he believes in UFOs..

Such a enormous waste of brain time.

I've heard of Poes law, thanks. I just get sick of people getting angry about these posts.

"on porpoise" hehe.

>> ^spoco2:
The part on 9/11... I have a friend who is SO frigging into the conspiracy theory, and it hinges on the most flimsy of 'evidence', and YES he was a Ron Paul supporter, AND he believes in UFOs..


And the flimsy evidence that Usama Bin Laden and 19 Hijackers did it managed to convince you?
I don't know about you but I didn't see any evidence that proved he/they did anything. Heck even the FBI doesn't think there's enough evidence to connect him to it.

What's wrong with being a Ron Paul supporter. Seems to me if everyone had listened to him in the 80's we wouldn't be in the shit right now.

And UFO's are real. The designation is a fairly normal term. It means unidentified flying object. Not believing in them is like not believing the sun will rise.

>> ^Fade:
>> ^spoco2:
The part on 9/11... I have a friend who is SO frigging into the conspiracy theory, and it hinges on the most flimsy of 'evidence', and YES he was a Ron Paul supporter, AND he believes in UFOs..

And the flimsy evidence that Usama Bin Laden and 19 Hijackers did it managed to convince you?
I don't know about you but I didn't see any evidence that proved he/they did anything. Heck even the FBI doesn't think there's enough evidence to connect him to it.


I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building.

What's wrong with being a Ron Paul supporter. Seems to me if everyone had listened to him in the 80's we wouldn't be in the shit right now.

I know bugger all about his policies really, but I just found it funny that in this video the guy connected the two... and I thought 'hey, yeah, he is an avid supporter of him too'. Nothing against RP, don't know enough to have anything against him.

And UFO's are real. The designation is a fairly normal term. It means unidentified flying object. Not believing in them is like not believing the sun will rise.

Oh, don't get all semantic. You know exactly what I'm talking about. The belief that there is some enourmous coverup that intelligent aliens have landed/crashed here, somehow met ONLY the US government and they are using their tech for weapons research.

I have no doubt there is other life out there, what I don't believe is that they have come here, only been seen by yokels etc. and left it at that. There are SO many things you can see in the sky that can be misconstrued as an alien spacecraft. Until I see incontrivutable proof of, or meet an alien (or ghost for that matter, same deal there) I won't believe in them... there's no proof at ALL that they exist.

>> ^spoco2:
I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building

Really? When, outside of 911, have you seen a 767 smash into a building designed to withstand a 767 smashing into it. I mean, you make it sound like collapsing in on itself is the obvious result but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Can you provide evidence for the claim?

oh my god! my world view has just been shattered! im gonna slit my wrist with that razor now........

also, how come in every religion post theres always some douche who assumes people are angry over it? ok NOW im gonna go slit my wrist...

>> ^Fade:
>> ^spoco2:
I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building
Really? When, outside of 911, have you seen a 767 smash into a building designed to withstand a 767 smashing into it. I mean, you make it sound like collapsing in on itself is the obvious result but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Can you provide evidence for the claim?


So, because you've seen a building be demolished and it looks the same as that, you think that that's the only plausible explanation for the WTC to collapse? Despite the fact that you know aeroplanes crashed into them? If you actually looked at how the WTC were built (centre steal core with an outer web) and then considered what happened (fires heated the steal trusses between the inner and outer portions to an extent that they started to bow) and also watched some actual footage of the side of the building being pulled inwards JUST as would happen if that was happening, and then saw that piece of the building actually give way and break, starting the chain reaction of the building collapse...

Well, then you might think 'yup, that seems pretty darn plausible to me'. Compare that to... well, let's see, we first have to have explosives planted around the place somehow... in such a way that NO ONE noticed... then we have to get this whole aeroplane crashing into the buildings thing to happen... THEN we have to have the building actually fail at the point where the aircraft entered (because there is video SHOWING it fail there first just as it starts to collapse), and then we somehow have to have some demolition work in such a way as people wouldn't see any further chargers going off.

It is such a complete and utter fools errand trying to suggest that they were brought down by demolition.

Then you have to ask who would do that? (sure, you can come up with a lot), but then you would also have to think... WHY would they come up with this convoluted way of doing things when there are much, much easier ways that would have just as easily been blamed on terrorists.

*sigh*

I'm not saying that the demolition theory is any more plausible, personally I'm more a fan of the directed energy weapons theory. What I am saying is that there are far to many inconsistencies, coincidences and plane sighted lies for the official story to be the complete truth. I just don't buy it.
What I do take issue with is belittling people for questioning the party line. Frankly the world would probably be a much better place if everyone took what the media and governments said with a heavy bag of salt.

>> ^Fade:
I'm not saying that the demolition theory is any more plausible, personally I'm more a fan of the directed energy weapons theory. What I am saying is that there are far to many inconsistencies, coincidences and plane sighted lies for the official story to be the complete truth. I just don't buy it.
What I do take issue with is belittling people for questioning the party line. Frankly the world would probably be a much better place if everyone took what the media and governments said with a heavy bag of salt.


Not accepting things without questioning is all well and good. But for people to be spending so much time and energy trying to prove a demolition conspiracy theory based on the most ridiculous of 'evidence' is just absurd.

Again, I really think that the 'Let's blame Obama' line may well be completely bogus, and that does need more outcry and real proof put on the table. But I think anyone with a slightest bit of rational thinking can see that the towers fell due to bloody big planes hitting them. If you actual go and read/watch/listen to the 'proof' that those that think otherwise have, it's just laughable... really, very laughable.

I don't think it is. The fact remains that the towers were designed to withstand aircraft collision. In fact they were designed to withstand multiple collisions. The centre steel core and outer supporting skin were all part of that design. There's pretty solid science and engineering evidence to suggest that they shouldn't have failed so spectacularly. The fact that they did means that either the design was fatally flawed, a possibility that means an awful lot of newer skyscrapers need to be looked at and possibly reinforced, or that it was sabotaged.

The demolition theory is not laughable. It's certainly less laughable than the pancake theory.

By the way... Yes, I knew it was a parody...
That's why I said I was heading at a tangent....