rattler14
Forum Replies Created
JWR wrote on Mar 4 2006, 01:49 AM:Quote:“And, now years later, many of my military contacts have confirmed the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition with bombs being placed in the basements of both towers.All you have to do to show this as a false statement is watch the buildings fall. If the “bombs” were in the basement then why did the collapse start from near the top?
Oh, and I know all about those “Tall Whites”. They like to hang out with the Short Greys, Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis, and sometimes the Tooth Fairy. 😛
JWR
[post=”2334″][/post]Actually JWR, there is a lot of evidence that bombs were in the basement and went off both at the time of impact and when the buildings were coming down. In fact, the first recorded blast was heard by a janitor, William Rodriguez, in the basement many seconds before the plane crash blast overhead. There is witness testimony of people being taken out of the basement levels pre-collapse with some to most of their skin singed off from the intense heat generated by the blasts.
But yes, the tall whites thing, is mixing truth with absurdity.
Syzmanski is disinfo
For a great example, read the article here.
http://wingtv.net/thorn2006/syzmanski2.html
He mixes truth with some really really stupid things, thereby giving the opponent the easy straw man to attack and discredit the whole movement. The 9/11 movement (as well as other movements like the tax honesty movement) are rife with such unwanted individuals.
If you disagree with me, that's fine. But I don't trust the guy, especially since he has not apologized or retracted any of his sensationalistic stories that have been proven to be completely false.
Riverway wrote on Mar 3 2006, 08:54 AM:“Tall White creatures” ???? Yeah, right!Look, a lot of this story is plausable, govt. bringing down the buildings etc., but the tall white creatures pretty well does it for me.
[post=”2331″][/post]- Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 1 2006, 12:00 PM:Mr. Rattler – are you saying that the State Department much like the IRS, are starting to send computer generated letters saying to the effect: “No Silly – you cannot be a national.” ???
When did they start doing this???
Sonik Speed
[post=”2316″][/post]I'm busy at work. But I'll dig up the reply to get the exact wording. But that is essentially it.
Bing,
Unfortunately, they seem to form letter respond back now, making ridiculous claims that “nationals” can only be living and breathing human beings that were born in the Somoa and Swain islands.
I'll try again with the unmodified form, but I have a feeling it's going to be the same old story. No real response, just a form letter F-U
Colleagues,
Before we get into a flame war, let us not forget
Matthew 7:6
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
We have other battles to fight. Arguing with those that have infinite time on their hands, is certainly not worth the effort.
- Riverway wrote on Feb 27 2006, 05:14 PM:How about starting another site w/a name similar to Quatloos to debunk the fake debunkers at Quatloos, draw in legitimate questioners, and spread the truth about this big tax scam?[post=”2293″][/post]
Most of us have these things called “jobs”, where we get to leave our home computers and go work to actually do something constructive.
Here's a short little exercise. Look at how many posts the more active members in this forum have. Now take a peek at some of those at quatloos. See any disparity? If they are not getting paid, they certainly have ~ 1 butt load of time on their hands.
Maybe it's part of the “welfare to work” program? 🙂
Bing,
I disagree. The worst part about quatloos is that people actually cite it. I can't tell you how many people I've told that I'm not liable (though they have made themselves, and therefore I have let them be in their own taxpaying world). Usually the first website they come back with is quatloos. It usually gives me a good laugh, but it's exactly what the IRS needs. People will spend approximately 10 minutes on the internet, find this, then reassure themselves that they weren't crazy and that it is actually just a big scam.
THAT, in my opinion, is the worst part.
- cdsea10 wrote on Feb 22 2006, 08:49 AM:from Public Notice by Dan Meador :
? INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. — The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Two principles of law clarify definition intent:
(1) The example represents the class, and
(2) that which is not named is intended to be omitted.
In the definition of “United States” and “State” set out above, all examples are of federal States, and are exclusive of the several States, with the transition of Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving the point. This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of regulations which extend authority to establish revenue districts in the several States (26 USC ? 7621), authority for the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC ? 7801), and no grant of delegated authority for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or other Department of the Treasury personnel (26 USC ? 7802 & 7803).
[post=”2278″][/post]Brian Rookard hasn't posted here in ages, and is a known IRS supporter. Be wary of his words, as they are often quite deceptive (IMHO).
But once you know the definitions down cold, the whole stack of cards falls immediately.
Friends,
I offer you this one very strong piece of evidence
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2…raplanet+9%2F11
watch between the 10-30 second mark. Now what is there that shouldn't be if there was only fuel fires?
I'll give you a hint. It starts with the letter M and rhymes with olten steel 🙂
Sonik,
My comments are not meant to be biting to you, I am merely having fun with this while pointing out that there are many people that do not wish to engage in debate, but rather weigh down researchers.
I just say it to put it out there for the lurkers to read and hopefully keep in mind when they read this and other forums. I'll try to be more careful to not directly imply you.
I'm busy today, so will not be able to respond to the points you brought up, but I'll get back to you.
- Sonik Speed wrote on Feb 13 2006, 03:12 PM:Nonsense! This is a very intellectual conversation. Surely, all fellow FamilyGuardians respect one another and engage in critical thinking. It is not the purpose to always find rebuttal in your opinions. It is however the purpose to question one another and engage in critical thinking. I for one, will not rebut your beliefs. I will critic them by asking questions and not attack them. This type of learning is called the Socratic Method of learning, keyed by Greek philosopher Socrates. The art of learning through questions is the most effective way of learning. The right to petition is within the 1st Amendment, because the Founders knew exactly that through questions, you get answers. 🙂 Anyway, let me examine your responses to the questions I had:
QUESTION #1 and QUESTION #2 – I have no comment on your answers.
QUESTION #3 and QUESTION #4 – If you say that Christians are NOT Jews and if you also say that Jews are NOT Christians, then why do both Christians and Jews cite the same Book?
QUESTION #5 – I can see your point on this. In other words, you just BELIEVE the Bible to be as it is. This is ok though. But let me ask you this – Is the Bible God's word? If it is then, how is it His Word and how is it HOLY, if the Human hand has somewhat altered it? Is it safe to say that the TRUE MEANING has been altered or somewhat SKEWED?
QUESTION #6 – You answer that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is “the same thing” – What do you mean by this? When answering this question, keep in my this fact that the concept of the “Trinity” was practically “invented” through the Nicean Council in 325 AD. In other words, in 324 AD the concept of the trinity did not even exist. Did you know of this important history?
By the way Rattler – thank you for participating in this very important discussion. Currently, I am going through a learning process when asking these questions, so your participation is very helpful.
<> Sonik Speed <>
[post=”2250″]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]Sonik,
I only said it in jest. I have no problem with people wanting to know the nitty gritty details, as long as they honestly wish to learn and engage in scholarly debate and inquiry. Unfortunately, as my experience shows in many 911 forums (just as example, I do not wish to discuss this in this thread), many people ask questions simply to waste time and frustrate those wishing to truly reach out to people.
Re: citing the same book. I certainly do not see Jews citing the new testament. As for the old testament, the Christian religion does not ignore the past and what essentially prophesied the coming of Christ, among other things. If anything, it acts as a reinforcement to the old testament.
Re: God's word. I think the foundations that started shortly with Moses and the disciples of Christ were pure at heart, and any “skewness” that may have resulted from human error was not due to malice. After all, many people gave their lives in front of lions because the believed so strongly in him. These are not things scammers would tend to do, yes/no?
If there was unintentional skewness, does that matter? Possibly, but I think with multiple gospels and lots of eye witness testimony, I am willing to put faith in the fact that any skewness is not detrimental to the final or total message.
Re: Trinity. I agree with the sense that the trinity seems just redundant, but It's just a way of saying the same thing.
Hope this helps!
- Sonik Speed wrote on Jan 17 2006, 07:28 PM:1 ) JESUS IS GOD (True or False)
2 ) GOD IS JESUS (True or False)
3 ) ALL JEWS ARE CHRISTIANS (True or False)
4 ) ALL CHRISTIANS ARE JEWS (True or False)
5 ) THE BIBLE IS 100% RIGHT IN EVERYTHING IT TALKS ABOUT (True or False)
6 ) FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT? WHAT IS THIS?
[post=”2089″][/post]I didn't want to miss out on all the fun 🙂
These answers are true to the best extent of MY knowledge of the bible, which I admit is not very complete or thorough at my present stage in life. I am trying to soak it all in, but as we all know there are many people out there that use the bible for their own gains, their own interests, and many other deceitful practices. Thus, it can be quite difficult to truly get “the real version” out.
BUT, no excuses. Here are my answers.
1 ) JESUS IS GOD (True or False)
False.
Even though Jesus has “God-like” powers, it is my understanding the God sent his son to die a sinless death in restitution for all of our sins past, present, and future. The counter argument was that Jesus is merely an human and/or physical extension of God in the world which we perceive. The problem I have with this is from the sermon on the mound.
I will certainly contradict myself later in question 6, but this stems from our humanly definitions of what “is” is. Frankly, we are all part of God's creation and therefore one could make a logical conclusion that we are linked to God in ways that we cannot see or perceive. Without going too far down the rabbit hole, I will leave this answer as false.
2 ) GOD IS JESUS (True or False)
False.
Although God is, and we are all part of God in some way (as he created the souls we have and the building blocks that make up our being) I believe that God is God and Jesus may have been some form of extension of him, but not “him” so to speak.
3 ) ALL JEWS ARE CHRISTIANS (True or False)
Absolutely False. Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and the only path of salvation is through him and NOT making the impossible attempt to follow the letter of God's law using only human will power.
4 ) ALL CHRISTIANS ARE JEWS (True or False)
False.
See Above
5 ) THE BIBLE IS 100% RIGHT IN EVERYTHING IT TALKS ABOUT (True or False)
Undeterminable.
For instance, how do you know you're not in some form of the Truman Show right now. You have to have faith that you are not. Though, millions of Americans are hooked in the American Matrix right now, and cannot see it.
So I believe the bible on faith. To nitpick particular parts of the bible is to reject because of witness credibility issues. I'm certain their might be an over exaggeration here and perhaps a mistaken city name there. That is the nature of humans, we are not perfect.
6 ) FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT? WHAT IS THIS?
To me, it's the same thing. The Father, is God. Jesus was merely an extension of him, but not HIM, into the world in the form of a human. The holy spirit is, in my opinion, the term meant for the Aura or the state of being in communion with Christ and thus, by extrapolation, in communion with God.
Alright, I'm sure I'll get some ridiculously specific rebuttals, but lay them on me 🙂
- Sonik Speed wrote on Feb 12 2006, 04:16 PM:Rattler – interesting posting. But I applaud you even more for this statement:
We should be very very cautious with the information throughout the Internet. Anything unverified is false. Well done! It would be so interesting if someone can investigate into this even more. I cannot because I do not know where to start! 😮 Although I am not an 861 advocate, I would love to see verifiable research on this.
Sonik Speed
[post=”2242″][/post]Well, I myself have been burned a few times by being, how should I say this, “too quick” to send out something I personally was not confident in it's veracity, but sent it around because I hoped or just wanted it to be true to prove my claims.
So if I ever post something that is questionable, I try very hard to make that known so I don't get it thrown in my face later and lose face in front of people.
The obvious reply is, then why post it at all? Well, the path to the truth does not always occur in an exact linear path. Sometimes we must ask questions and post plausible theories and such before an issue is truly “solved”. Also, posting turns more attention to an issue that looks intriguing, but would otherwise be ignored if we had to have 100% irrefutable proof prior to mentioning.
I hope this all makes sense 🙂
- Bing wrote on Feb 10 2006, 09:29 AM:rattler, I think the fonts could be a bit larger so as to make the articles easier to read.
Bing
[post=”2229″][/post]Just curious, do you use explorer or firefox/opera/netscape/safari?
I bumped up the font size 2 points, and the spacing 4. It looks a bit more readable now, in the articles section. All other fonts I kept the same.
thanks
Scholars for 911 truth, headed by Professor Jones, is starting to make some great headway
I mean, it's starting to get published in the Mainstream Media. From the Miami Herald
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0201-28.htm
Jones recently gave a presentation, and an overview can be found here
http://www.gnn.tv/blogs/12675/Prof_Jones_U…inar_Feb_1_2006
mp3 of it is here
http://www.911truthseekers.org/uploads/BYU…eptember_11.mp3
I highly encourage everyone to download and listen to this clip.
