What's with all the Jew hate?

By who though?

We can't do it, we are nothing like as well qualified as he.

Maybe the battery of experts that are on the side of the perpetrators, yes, I am sure they would happily say so, but falsity as fact is their bread and butter.

 

Why do you insist on these irrelevant speculations?

Of course if Jesus came yesterday, we'd all be able to see his "miracles". He would still have to die in a bizarre plan to die for the sins of man. He'd be resurrected along with a whole bunch of other zombies, and it would all be on tv. At that point, the jews wouldn't have many alternatives to call him meshiach. (the NT would not yet have been written.)

Don't think the jews of smyrna have much sway these days, do you? Isn't he really saying that persecution is a bad thing and those the practice it and yet claim to be religious are in fact agents of Satan? doesn't that apply to christians as well living in the church of Satan.

not much of a theologian.

 

You missed the point.

No matter.

 

Actually, his speculations were peer reviewed and rejected. The official investigations and the subsequent detailed examination of the findings by structural engineers, architects, materials scientists, demolition experts, fire investigators and others with pertinent areas of expertise trump the whacko conspiracy theorists. Its kinda how science works jack.

 

Meaning that your interpretation (sorry jewhaters like br nathanael and jeff rense, and icke, and duke's interpretation) of scriptures are more relevant than biblical scholars?
Or is it just that its a great phrase that conjures up precisely the evil jew imagery you and your pals so heartily indulge in?

 

You put too much faith in them.

Would you expect Al Capone to investigate himself fairly, and report back fairly about his own activities?

- - - Updated - - -

I now have no idea what you are yammering about.

 

Well, I can't say I am surprised that you take this crazy bigot and extremely poor scholar seriously.

ONe thing tho Ivan. I am no christian. I am an atheist, and I believe all this dogmatic religious nonsense is the bane of humanity, not the boon you et.al. believe.

I particularly like the circular logic of true jews follow jesus christ. Good one.

 

Isn't he really saying that persecution is a bad thing and those the practice it and yet claim to be religious are in fact agents of Satan? doesn't that apply to christians as well living in the church of Satan."

Exactly Right, Jonsa! Anyone claiming to be a Christian that doesn't follow Christ is basically in the Sinogog of Satan.

 

yet another logical fallacy.

S'okay I think everyone else does.

 

He has gone on record as having said 'Satanism' is not evil. Lol, there is a falslity by definition.

And he works so hard to defend and minimise all evils done by the Synagogue of Satan.

So..

 

Jonsa an Atheist; Well there maybe hope for you yet. Most atheists have an honest disgust with the drivel put out by most churches, mosques, temples etc.

Most human religion is:

 

Thank You, Jack for your point on Jonsa.
No matter what or who a guy is, if he says something true & correct, I'm gonna honor that at the very least.

Oh, and Thanks Jonsa for:
"I particularly like the circular logic of true jews follow jesus christ. Good one." Glad you like it.
Seasons are a "circular logic" also.

 

Here's the thing. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none.

His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

"After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents."

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.

http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html

"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1874

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

The conspiracy sites are quick to point out these civil engineers haven't taken their valuable time away from their students, families and jobs to critique Professor Jones' 42 page unpublished report line by line. The inference drawn from this is they are just dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it. Or if they are looking at it, they're stumped by the incredibly flawless nature of this 42 page report. It's easier to just say it's wrong than have to address this masterpiece of forensic science. But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the thing. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none.

His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

"After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents."

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.

http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html

"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1874

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

The conspiracy sites are quick to point out these civil engineers haven't taken their valuable time away from their students, families and jobs to critique Professor Jones' 42 page unpublished report line by line. The inference drawn from this is they are just dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it. Or if they are looking at it, they're stumped by the incredibly flawless nature of this 42 page report. It's easier to just say it's wrong than have to address this masterpiece of forensic science. But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.

 

I see, and this therefore justifies the actions of "christians" like those depicted in the cartoon? That Jesus who supposedly is this god of love and peace is actually full of hatred, to the point of condoning murder, for those that don't follow his teachings?

The bible it seems (both OT/NT) contains so many contradictions and so many commands and justifications for evil acts against non believers that it is no wonder absolution and redemption are a key part of the religion. I do find it considerate that God gives his flock the ultimate ability to shed responsiblity for a lifetime of their own sins and evil actions.

 

Even a cursory investigation of Satanism and Luciferianism will uncover the fact that they are not inherently evil. Since you seem totally oblivious to its various forms and sectarian beliefs, I must assume you are merely taking the "name" at face value like you do so many other things.

Jesus wasn't talking about all jews jack. But again the metaphorical language and contemporaneous events they apply to seem lost in your cursory and inaccurate assumptions of meaning and intent.

Ya must of skipped a lot of sunday school classes.

- - - Updated - - -

Amen.................

 

The "Christians" in the picture, were not really Christians. I'd like to put Hitler in the picture working with the other 3 devils. The girl getting her head cut off might be the Christian.

No Christian is justified in going against "nature's God" and His Perfect Intent for mankind and the universe. None of America's wars have been justified by "nature's God", not even the war for Independence.

 

All those gurus giving their negative opinons regarding Professor Steven E. Jones, did not present any shred of evidence contrary to Professor Jones's observations and hypothesi. All they did is parrot the pary line from the foxes to the chickens, and flaunt their fancy titles as PROOF of their correctness.

None of the NEO-CON supporters can openly and honestly discuss all the flaws in the NEO-CON cover story on 9/11.

 

What would you be investigating it for though?

If 'Satan' is the embodiment of lies and evil, 'Satanism' will be lies and evil.

Oh wait...are you saying that because a Satanist may CLAIM what they engage in is not evil, that it's not.

Yeah.

Not like 'satan' was the great deceiver or anything, right..

A paedo ring would not regard themselves as evil either.

Even the founder of the so called 'Church of Satan', was Anton La Vey (really Levi or Levey).

An Ashkenazi Jew.

Baron and Baroness Phillipi de Rothschild in a joint venture with Robert Mondavi, begin the construction of a pyramid in Napa Valley, California, where the leader/founder of the Church Of Satan, Ashkenazi Jew, Anton LaVey, is based. This is known as Opus 1 (which means, the first work), and the front for this temple is that it is a winery.

Concepts


The terms Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path refer to a dichotomy between two opposing philosophies found in the Western Esoteric Tradition, which itself covers various groups involved in the occult and ceremonial magic. In some definitions, the Left-Hand Path is equated with malicious Black Magic and the Right-Hand Path with benevolent White Magic.

Might Is Right, or The Survival of the Fittest, is a book by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard. First published in 1890, it heavily advocates amoralism, and psychological hedonism. In Might is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas of human and natural rights and argues that only strength or physical might can establish moral right .


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

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

 

Yes.

Even those that believe to be free thinkers are, ironically, quick to place faith in proven liars.

They accept that bankers, politics, media men, etc, can be corrupted, and got onto the dark side.

But they seem to think the dark side are not able to find apparently qualified experts, who will promote the offical line.

They dismiss and ignore anyone, not matter how intelligent, well qualified, or just downright persistent, well, fair enough, if they wish to choose to do that, all they are doing is sending out a messag that it can be done again, another party can be blamed again, and they wil believe it all.

Again.

 

No war has ever been justified by "nature's God" whatever the hell that is.

If this god has perfect intent for mankind and the universe, when does the perfect part kick in?

I find this faith in God's perfect inent to be a major abdication of responsibility, inquiry, and human emotional and intellectual maturation.

 

Have to disagree with you here.

Fighting for freedom is perhaps the only thing that is okay. Were it not so, God would not have delivered the israelites out of the hands of the egyptians and fought their battles for them.

Violence in general is misused as is the application of force and compulsion. These are to be used only as a penalty of sorts for violating righteous laws. When laws become too unrighteous, and when the results are actually harming life's continuance, it becomes obligatory to a free man to oppose it unto death.

 

I have found the exact opposite to be true in my life. Some may choose to say "the devil made me do it". And to that I would say no, you did it. And then throw the books at them for it.

Personal responsibility is a core tenet of Christianity, hence the point of repentance. Many however are confused about this crucial aspect of Christianity. And even more choose not to adhere to it.

 

Specifically, in relation to those experts who countered Jones that I cited, who, in your opinion, are the proven liars? And what evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

Well, aside from the fact that it was the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate (a Gentile), who was responsible for the execution of Jesus--he gave the crowd a choice between his sparing Barabbas and his sparing Jesus from death--even those among the crowd who preferred Barabbas were surely not a majority of Jews in Israel at the time; nor are they emblematic of Jews throughout the world, for all time.

The mantra that "the Jews" are "Christ killers" is a slander I have heard throughout my life, ad nauseum...

 

The proven liars. The so called Neo Cons that were looking for a 'New Pearl Harbour'. They conspired to create the entire thing. There is no doubt in my mind, that men like Pearl (an Israeli spy as far back as the 70's), Feith, Wolfowitz, etc, were part of a group that manufactured the post build up, the execution of it, and the post media mantra of it being Muslims with bolt cutters.

These are fifth columnists, mostly Jews, and mostly dual 'citziens'. It is obvious that such men would then be able to bring forth what seems a lot of convincing sounding men, to support and cement their story, in the public mind.

Israel do it, fake historians, fake archelogists, it is almost like a 1984 thing, in which if you elimate facts as they are, and replace them with a new narrative, that becomes the facts(sic).