i watched this video yesterday.. is this a fact?.
loose change 2nd edition (full).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yx9nrx37sm.
I don't subscribe to the 911 conspiracy theories. I do, however, think there are some interesting "anomalies"... but I am not nearly passionate enough about the issue to debate it.
In these types of situations there are many instances where "common sense" based on still photos is an easily fallible thing.
i watched this video yesterday.. is this a fact?.
loose change 2nd edition (full).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yx9nrx37sm.
Almost no structural damage whatsoever. Actually glass window panes are still intact.
Some are, most are not. Wings are mostly hollow and designed to support the vertical weight of a plane in flight, not horizontal force smacking into a structurally sound building.
recently a circuit overseer said in one of his talks that the new light.
on the generation teaching shows how very close the end is because.
there will be a time when the over lap will end.
I know. The end is so close that we had to add a whole different group of people to it to extend it some more.
Just remember, it's bullshit. Is, was, always has been bullshit.
blood teaching overt vs. suggestive is the title of a new blog article based on newly obtained information.
this is in the form of a brief email exchange followed by a letter from watchtower to a private individual.
it took a couple of days to track this information back to its owner, but with permission i share it with everyone at my blog.[1].
Thanks for this Marvin. It truly boggles the mind how they can pretend to know anything.
not in the fossil record, geographical spread or d.n.a.
it's certainly not found in the perfect 'design' of our bodies or the planet we live on.
without appealing to the supernatural or 'sacred texts' where can solid evidence be found against darwinian evolution by natural selection?.
Also, can you give me an example of irreducible complexity within biology as I am not aware of a single one?
Five bucks says she uses the eye :)
not in the fossil record, geographical spread or d.n.a.
it's certainly not found in the perfect 'design' of our bodies or the planet we live on.
without appealing to the supernatural or 'sacred texts' where can solid evidence be found against darwinian evolution by natural selection?.
Living organisms only reproduce after their kind, they do not gradually morph into other species through successive generations. Irreducible complexity is a mechanism that blocks biological evolution.
Actually, Alice, had you read the latest watchtower brochures you would know that they don't define "kind" and then talk about how just a few undefined "kinds" could produce all the "kinds" we have today.
i watched this video yesterday.. is this a fact?.
loose change 2nd edition (full).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yx9nrx37sm.
I was responding to the claim that parts of the plane vaporized.
Given that no picture (interior or exterior wall) I have seen shows scoring due to wings, I am asking whether the wings vaporized before striking the building.
No.
There was no scientific claim made that the plane was "vaporized". It was shredded into scrap as it passed through E-Ring, D-Ring, and C-Ring, with some pieces stopping at the outer wall of B-Ring, crashing into a forest of structural columns that tore the plane apart.
Leolia, I wasn't claiming that the plane was vaporized in the "disappeared into thin air sense", but rather that some components, fabrics, lighter metals like smaller sheets of aluminuim, plastics, were completely turned into ashes or gasses during the impacts and resulting fire. Of course, certain people (not you) are assuming i meant the entire fuselage or the wing.
not in the fossil record, geographical spread or d.n.a.
it's certainly not found in the perfect 'design' of our bodies or the planet we live on.
without appealing to the supernatural or 'sacred texts' where can solid evidence be found against darwinian evolution by natural selection?.
Wow. That was an interesting website.
Of course, by "interesting" I mean "whoever wrote that is dumber than a bag of hammers"
i love how you try to sound sure of yourself, especially when people question why you are on this board.
so in a spirit of full disclosure, why not reveal our true names.
if you are what and who you claim, i would have a much easier time accepting what you say.
Dude, that was bold.
i watched this video yesterday.. is this a fact?.
loose change 2nd edition (full).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yx9nrx37sm.
I think that you are idiotic.
OK.
I showed the address.
Why don't you see that?
I did see that, but you can't explain the relevance and didn't address my earlier points.
