Community > Posts By > Kleisto

 
Kleisto's photo
Mon 04/15/13 02:16 PM
It's also patriot day.......

All I will say is this has all the signs......I don't believe a word of them.

Kleisto's photo
Mon 04/15/13 02:02 PM
Two words: FALSE FLAG. That is all.

Kleisto's photo
Sat 04/13/13 11:29 PM






I think that everyone here would benefit from reading a book titled "Faith That Hurts, Faith That Heals".

Yes, some people have been abused while participating in church activities as children. That abuse leaves them distrusting churches, and you really cannot "correct" them just by lecturing them. You have to get to know their personal stories and then help them work through their emotional pain that resulted from the abuse. Telling victims of religious abuse not to feel a certain way just won't work.


I agree. Victims of abuse have to face their abusers, work through their own pain and their own circumstances so they can heal and move on.

my point in saying 'get over abuse' was to hold a mirror to the statement that religious should 'get over' ourselves,,



Not the same statement, when I am saying for you to get over yourself, what I mean by that is realize that not everyone shares your beliefs, and that while it's fine to have your own, to try and understand others and not just judge them as wrong or try to outright dictate to them based on your own viewpoint. That's what I mean when I say religious people need to get over themselves. They need to understand people have different needs (kids included I might add) and it isn't necessarily going to be what you THINK they need. We would do far better if we listened and tried to understand rather than just judged based on what we believe we know or have been told.

That's far different from being told to get over my abuse as if it didn't happen, or get over the effects it had on me......very different.

And as for hostility...honestly I get really tired of the back and forth at times.....it gets emotionally draining so when I get quiet that's usually why. I sometimes think about just quitting posting here entirely really.....




Not the same statement, when I am saying for you to get over yourself, what I mean by that is realize that not everyone shares your beliefs, and that while it's fine to have your own, to try and understand others and not just judge them as wrong or try to outright dictate to them based on your own viewpoint. That's what I mean when I say religious people need to get over themselves. They need to understand people have different needs (kids included I might add) and it isn't necessarily going to be what you THINK they need. We would do far better if we listened and tried to understand rather than just judged based on what we believe we know or have been told.


let me change a few words...

not the same statement, when I am saying for you to get over your abuse, what I mean by that is realize not everyone going to church shares your expeirence, and while its tragic and sad to have gone through it in your personal journey, try to understand others and not just judge them as abusive or wrong or try to outright label them as dictatorial based upon your own experiences.

Thats what I mean when I say plenty of people go through tragedies which they need to mend and move on from. They need to understand people have different experiences (kids included I might add) and it isnt necessarily going to be what you THINK they are expeiriencing. We would do far better if we listened and tried to understand rather than just become defensive based upon what has happened to us.


to tell someone to get over THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES is exactly the same as telling someone to get over THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES (And by default the results of those experiences or the lessons from those experiences)


The difference though is, you are using your experiences to try and dictate and control other people and behaviors......and that is wrong. You can believe anything you want to on a personal level, but it needs to stay personal. The moment you try and tell someone else how to live by force based on your beliefs you cross a line.

THAT is why I can never truly "get over" my abuse because that abuse is symbolic of an overall society problem in how we think and view people. It is something I will NEVER consent to happening again.


I have no control over anyones behavior nor can I dictate anyones behavior, I have a parental control over my childrens behaviors as well as the right to teach them values and standards the way I see fit, whether its in my home , in a church, or a combination of both

it is clear you have not raised children and I am almost done with trying to explain what parenting is,,,,but 'by force' is a subjective judgmental choice of words for the fact that children do not have the resources, development, experience to naturally CHOOSE the best things for them and therefore require the PARENT to step in and , if necessary, 'by force' make the choice for them


Thing is sometimes what you THINK is best for them really isn't no matter how good it may seem to you. What you want for them and what they actually NEED are not always the same thing.

A parent may THINK pushing them into their religion is a good thing, or that it's not harming them in any way, but it doesn't make it true even if you can't see the effects yourself or choose to ignore them if confronted with them.

But whatever, you can think as you want......I am tired of this.....so I'm ending this now.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 04/12/13 08:03 PM
Just more proof about the REAL purpose of "education".......people need to start standing up to this garbage.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 04/12/13 04:11 AM










Any thing wrong if God had created satan to being a nice guy without rebelin' against him at the outset, Adam and Eve not fallin' in the garden of Eden...folks livin' happliy in paradise?


It is not Satan's fault. One can not blame another for one's own actions. It was man's own action(s) that got ourselves taken out of the garden. Satan did tempt them, but nevertheless it was our choice to eat of the fruit... our = human race.
how did the Perfect get corrupted in the first Place?
No,don't give me that Free-will-Jazz,that doesn't hold water!
Actually it is jut an Obfuscation,so the real Question doesn't have to be answered!
HOW did the Perfect get corrupted in the First Place!
And don't blame Man either,remember,he had no Concept of Good and Evil until he tasted that Fruit!

*************
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

********************

Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged"


:thumbsup:

"how did the Perfect get corrupted in the first Place?
No,don't give me that Free-will-Jazz,that doesn't hold water!
Actually it is jut an Obfuscation,so the real Question doesn't have to be answered!
HOW did the Perfect get corrupted in the First Place!
And don't blame Man either,remember,he had no Concept of Good and Evil until he tasted that Fruit!"

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:banana:

bigsmile





Because God created us, not our choices. People will choose to do anything they wish to do. Even a child brought up very nicely could potentially grow up to be a serial killer.

So, no our getting kicked out of Eden or anything else has absolutely nothing specifically to do with God in the causing of it, it was our own fault for our disobedience.
If you are perfect,you can not chose the Imperfect!
You can NOT disobey!
You are using exactly that very Obfuscation I asked you not to use,but expected you to,because you have no,and there is no answer!
A Perfect being can not at in a disobedient or Imperfect manner!
It's IMPOSSIBLE,regardless of the mental Acrobatics you employ!

And then you go on and blame Man,who was created perfect,yet on his own Volition,even though he had no Knowledge of Good or Evil went and chose to become Evil!
And all that before tasting that Fruit of the Knowledge Of Good and Evil!
Before tasting that Fruit,mind you!


Again, things you say have nothing to do with one another. How we act or behave has absolutely NOTHING to do with our physical creation. The ONLY way for us to have been automatically perfect in our choices, behaviors, thoughts, ect would have been made like robots with no real thought. But we have thoughts in which we control influenced by peers, environment, or any number of possible influences.


If you are perfect,you can not chose the Imperfect!
You can NOT disobey!


Again, comparing apples and oranges with one another. We are made perfect, our BODIES and soul are perfect in how they function. That again after again has NOTHING to do with our choices or decisions.


You're not getting it Cowboy! If we are MADE perfect, it's impossible to be anything but how we were made. How could a perfect being create imperfect people, UNLESS it wanted us to have flaws to begin with? And as an aside if our bodies and souls are made perfect how could that NOT effect our decisions.....would they not be in accordance with our souls? That makes no sense whatsoever....if we are capable of making a bad choice it means our soul cannot be perfect then under your definition, because choices stem what's in our souls to begin with.

In any case you cannot have it both ways, either we were made perfectly for our purpose as we are, or we were made flawed. If we were made flawed, than God cannot be perfect because he made a mistake, something perfection does not do by definition. It's incapable of screwing up. Hell your God in the Bible is said to have regretted making man to the point he wanted to kill them off entirely and pretty much did in the great flood. That right there by itself indicates God screwed up, which AGAIN a perfect being could not do.

It is one of the biggest flaws of the Biblical God, there's only two choices either God made us perfect and by extension everything is exactly as it was supposed to be "fall" and all, or God messed up, which would make it imperfect. Pick a side it cannot be both.

I mean you're seriously gonna sit there and tell me God is so perfect and yet is incapable of creating a people who will do as it wants it to do? Incapable of having the foresight to know if he created them a certain way they'd do something it didn't want them to do (which then means it's not all knowing either, and if it DID know this and created us as such anyway, this God is even worse than imperfect, it's downright evil)? No, that doesn't work no matter how you try and spin it. God is either perfect or it's not, there's no inbetween.



No, you're not getting it.

How we are made has absolutely nothing to do with if we sin or not. We are all made the exact same way, yet we are all totally and completely different from one another in the way we think, act, behave, ect. If how we were made had anything to do with how we behaved in any way at all, we would all behave the exact same.
you still need to explain to me how the Perfect gets corrupted!


This. There is no way we can choose "wrong" if we are created perfect. To be perfect means there is no wrong choice to be made, the moment we make one we are not perfect anymore. Even a child knows this.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 04/12/13 03:29 AM
Edited by Kleisto on Fri 04/12/13 03:36 AM







Any thing wrong if God had created satan to being a nice guy without rebelin' against him at the outset, Adam and Eve not fallin' in the garden of Eden...folks livin' happliy in paradise?


It is not Satan's fault. One can not blame another for one's own actions. It was man's own action(s) that got ourselves taken out of the garden. Satan did tempt them, but nevertheless it was our choice to eat of the fruit... our = human race.
how did the Perfect get corrupted in the first Place?
No,don't give me that Free-will-Jazz,that doesn't hold water!
Actually it is jut an Obfuscation,so the real Question doesn't have to be answered!
HOW did the Perfect get corrupted in the First Place!
And don't blame Man either,remember,he had no Concept of Good and Evil until he tasted that Fruit!

*************
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

********************

Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged"


:thumbsup:

"how did the Perfect get corrupted in the first Place?
No,don't give me that Free-will-Jazz,that doesn't hold water!
Actually it is jut an Obfuscation,so the real Question doesn't have to be answered!
HOW did the Perfect get corrupted in the First Place!
And don't blame Man either,remember,he had no Concept of Good and Evil until he tasted that Fruit!"

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:banana:

bigsmile





Because God created us, not our choices. People will choose to do anything they wish to do. Even a child brought up very nicely could potentially grow up to be a serial killer.

So, no our getting kicked out of Eden or anything else has absolutely nothing specifically to do with God in the causing of it, it was our own fault for our disobedience.
If you are perfect,you can not chose the Imperfect!
You can NOT disobey!
You are using exactly that very Obfuscation I asked you not to use,but expected you to,because you have no,and there is no answer!
A Perfect being can not at in a disobedient or Imperfect manner!
It's IMPOSSIBLE,regardless of the mental Acrobatics you employ!

And then you go on and blame Man,who was created perfect,yet on his own Volition,even though he had no Knowledge of Good or Evil went and chose to become Evil!
And all that before tasting that Fruit of the Knowledge Of Good and Evil!
Before tasting that Fruit,mind you!


Again, things you say have nothing to do with one another. How we act or behave has absolutely NOTHING to do with our physical creation. The ONLY way for us to have been automatically perfect in our choices, behaviors, thoughts, ect would have been made like robots with no real thought. But we have thoughts in which we control influenced by peers, environment, or any number of possible influences.


If you are perfect,you can not chose the Imperfect!
You can NOT disobey!


Again, comparing apples and oranges with one another. We are made perfect, our BODIES and soul are perfect in how they function. That again after again has NOTHING to do with our choices or decisions.


You're not getting it Cowboy! If we are MADE perfect, it's impossible to be anything but how we were made. How could a perfect being create imperfect people, UNLESS it wanted us to have flaws to begin with? And as an aside if our bodies and souls are made perfect how could that NOT effect our decisions.....would they not be in accordance with our souls? That makes no sense whatsoever....if we are capable of making a bad choice it means our soul cannot be perfect then under your definition, because choices stem what's in our souls to begin with.

In any case you cannot have it both ways, either we were made perfectly for our purpose as we are, or we were made flawed. If we were made flawed, than God cannot be perfect because he made a mistake, something perfection does not do by definition. It's incapable of screwing up. Hell your God in the Bible is said to have regretted making man to the point he wanted to kill them off entirely and pretty much did in the great flood. That right there by itself indicates God screwed up, which AGAIN a perfect being could not do.

It is one of the biggest flaws of the Biblical God, there's only two choices either God made us perfect and by extension everything is exactly as it was supposed to be "fall" and all, or God messed up, which would make it imperfect. Pick a side it cannot be both.

I mean you're seriously gonna sit there and tell me God is so perfect and yet is incapable of creating a people who will do as it wants it to do? Incapable of having the foresight to know if he created them a certain way they'd do something it didn't want them to do (which then means it's not all knowing either, and if it DID know this and created us as such anyway, this God is even worse than imperfect, it's downright evil)? No, that doesn't work no matter how you try and spin it. God is either perfect or it's not, there's no inbetween.

Kleisto's photo
Fri 04/12/13 02:21 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/included-maryland-controversial-rain-tax-exactly-sounds-031617277--finance.html

This is what you get when you allow intrusion after intrusion into your life by the state......how's that freedom working for you now?

Notice too the government exempts itself.......what a surprise.....rant

They are BEGGING for a revolt.

Kleisto's photo
Thu 04/11/13 09:41 PM




life is a balance, it can sometimes be all about our opinion, our desire, our thoughts,, but sometimes it is necessary in order to be part of a SOCIETY to be PART OF THE SOCIETY and blend down some of the INDIVIDUAL,,,,,,,


I think some people flourish better in different environments, but I also think there is a survival of the fittest need to be tought and understand 'the game',, 'the status quo' or whatever we call it so that we can be competitive in the real world,,,,which doesnt necessarily conform to EACH Individual,,,

I prefer montessouri which takes childrens strengths and builds on them while continuing to instill the basics of our culture so they can remain relevant and comptetitive,,,

some public schools also can be found with such a model but are more likely to be located in communities where people have more income

many public schools are overcrowded in terms of student to teacher ratio and resources which makes it much more difficult for them to have the time or resource to conform to each individual childs specific and unique circumstances,, and makes it more necessary for the parents to work with their unique attributes while the teachers are given a more 'uniform' standard by which those children can most peacefully and fairly receive their education,,,

yes, it seems some people don't get that rules/regulations/laws are for a reason... utopia doesn't exsist and the reason being is that everyone has a different opinion on things... the "free thinkers" are right in what they believe, i used to think that way myself, but i have come to understand that many laws are made so we can all live together, somewhat peacefully...


Wrong, they're made so that you will fall in line with what is wanted of you. They do not want free thinkers...., I believe George Carlin put it the best when he said:

"I'll tell you what they (the government) don't want

They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.

They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking.

They're not interested in that! That doesn't help them. That's against their interests.

They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting ****ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 ****ing years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers – Obedient workers.

People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. "

(full transcript of the entire bit is here: http://dotsub.com/view/5782d237-ab0a-41bc-a35b-d8b34d886b7c/viewTranscript/eng

That is what the government wants.....they may say they care about the people want the best for them, that they wanna protect us, keep us safe and so on and so forth, but it's all a bunch of hot air. Most laws are formed to serve THEIR interests, not ours. Oh sure you'll be given certain crumbs of freedom, like what restaurant to choose to eat at, what car to buy, shoes to wear, things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things....things to keep us from revolting, and even that veil is beginning to lift, but things that actually would CHANGE the way we do things? Nope, that's not allowed, can't break their stranglehold on the public.....nothing in it for them then.

We need to wake up......America, the legal system, our government, is NOT what we are being told it is, not by a long shot. Quite frankly people trying to defend it are a part of the problem, it needs to stop, the system is broken and needs fixing. If they won't fix it, than we should. Enough of this garbage.




so.... anyone that disagrees with you is a problem? you sound just like the government you hate so much...


Yes you are a problem for the simple reason that you are defending the enemy. The government is the enemy of the people anymore, and if you're defending them, you are contributing to their power whether you know it or not.

Kleisto's photo
Thu 04/11/13 03:37 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Thu 04/11/13 03:37 PM











i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either...


That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.)

So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe.



thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway...


I'll explain it to you then.

1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers.

2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing)

If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE.

So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do.

And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet.

Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists.







ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts:
Building 7 was not hit by a plane
it collapsed anyway

the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell...




Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else?

On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable.

BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions.

So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before.

The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important.


sorry, just don't see it that way...


I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it.


since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it...

BTW, thats not a fact...


But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way???

And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you!


just a refresher... i never said i thought they did, i said i didn't care whether they did or not... makes no difference to me when it came down, about 12 square blocks around it was demolished by the muslims hatred for jews and bush... it was coming down no matter what, just a matter of when...


Nevermind the the fact that Bin Laden had ties to the Bush family LONG before this happened........but never let the truth get in the way of a good story right?

Kleisto's photo
Thu 04/11/13 03:28 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Thu 04/11/13 03:30 PM









i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either...


That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.)

So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe.



thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway...


I'll explain it to you then.

1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers.

2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing)

If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE.

So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do.

And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet.

Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists.







ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts:
Building 7 was not hit by a plane
it collapsed anyway

the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell...




Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else?

On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable.

BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions.

So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before.

The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important.


sorry, just don't see it that way...


I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it.


since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it...

BTW, thats not a fact...


But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way???

And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you!

Kleisto's photo
Thu 04/11/13 03:08 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Thu 04/11/13 03:13 PM







i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either...


That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.)

So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe.



thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway...


I'll explain it to you then.

1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers.

2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing)

If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE.

So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do.

And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet.

Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists.







ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts:
Building 7 was not hit by a plane
it collapsed anyway

the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell...




Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else?

On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable.

BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions.

So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before.

The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important.


sorry, just don't see it that way...


I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it.

Kleisto's photo
Thu 04/11/13 03:07 PM

As it was, everyone was so shocked and stunned by the twin towers and the loss of life and the planes and the spectacle of the towers falling, no one much cared about why building 7 fell or what classified files got destroyed in it.


They even tried to cover up it even happened in the official story. For something as simple as a demolition, they sure went to great lengths to deny that fact.

Like I said, their handling of it brings more questions than answers.

Kleisto's photo
Thu 04/11/13 02:42 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Thu 04/11/13 02:44 PM





i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either...


That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.)

So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe.



thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway...


I'll explain it to you then.

1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers.

2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing)

If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE.

So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do.

And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet.

Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists.







ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts:
Building 7 was not hit by a plane
it collapsed anyway

the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell...




Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else?

On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable.

BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions.

So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before.

The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important.

Kleisto's photo
Thu 04/11/13 02:06 AM









Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility...


rofl rofl rofl

Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings.

This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire.





Actually yes, no cascading explosions no explosives period. None


Tell me something hot shot........if there was NO explosives in Building 7, why didn't they test for em in the official story before coming to the conclusion there weren't any? What were they afraid of? If there was none, surely the test would have shown that right? The fact that they didn't says to me the cat was watching the hen house.


For the same reason I mentioned. It was a scientific impossibility. For the exact things I stated in my post. Yet you also seem to think you know more than the scientist I mentioned. Please give your credentials so we can compare them to his.


You sure put a lot of faith is these alleged scientists.

laugh laugh


No kidding, you get the feeling that some of these people would jump off a bridge if a "scientist" said you could survive doing so. I mean.......screw the facts right?


pot-kettle?... you should look up the definition of "fact"




Not really, I know what the facts are, I could careless what the media may try to spin them as. It's you that needs to learn them, not me.


so what are your facts?


People like Jeannie and I have been TRYING to tell you the facts of the matter forever......if you weren't listening before, why should I expect you to listen now? I'm not gonna keep rehashing something just for you to ridicule it, no point in wasting the truth like that.

Kleisto's photo
Wed 04/10/13 04:38 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Wed 04/10/13 04:40 PM


life is a balance, it can sometimes be all about our opinion, our desire, our thoughts,, but sometimes it is necessary in order to be part of a SOCIETY to be PART OF THE SOCIETY and blend down some of the INDIVIDUAL,,,,,,,


I think some people flourish better in different environments, but I also think there is a survival of the fittest need to be tought and understand 'the game',, 'the status quo' or whatever we call it so that we can be competitive in the real world,,,,which doesnt necessarily conform to EACH Individual,,,

I prefer montessouri which takes childrens strengths and builds on them while continuing to instill the basics of our culture so they can remain relevant and comptetitive,,,

some public schools also can be found with such a model but are more likely to be located in communities where people have more income

many public schools are overcrowded in terms of student to teacher ratio and resources which makes it much more difficult for them to have the time or resource to conform to each individual childs specific and unique circumstances,, and makes it more necessary for the parents to work with their unique attributes while the teachers are given a more 'uniform' standard by which those children can most peacefully and fairly receive their education,,,

yes, it seems some people don't get that rules/regulations/laws are for a reason... utopia doesn't exsist and the reason being is that everyone has a different opinion on things... the "free thinkers" are right in what they believe, i used to think that way myself, but i have come to understand that many laws are made so we can all live together, somewhat peacefully...


Wrong, they're made so that you will fall in line with what is wanted of you. They do not want free thinkers...., I believe George Carlin put it the best when he said:

"I'll tell you what they (the government) don't want

They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.

They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking.

They're not interested in that! That doesn't help them. That's against their interests.

They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting ****ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 ****ing years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers – Obedient workers.

People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. "

(full transcript of the entire bit is here: http://dotsub.com/view/5782d237-ab0a-41bc-a35b-d8b34d886b7c/viewTranscript/eng

That is what the government wants.....they may say they care about the people want the best for them, that they wanna protect us, keep us safe and so on and so forth, but it's all a bunch of hot air. Most laws are formed to serve THEIR interests, not ours. Oh sure you'll be given certain crumbs of freedom, like what restaurant to choose to eat at, what car to buy, shoes to wear, things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things....things to keep us from revolting, and even that veil is beginning to lift, but things that actually would CHANGE the way we do things? Nope, that's not allowed, can't break their stranglehold on the public.....nothing in it for them then.

We need to wake up......America, the legal system, our government, is NOT what we are being told it is, not by a long shot. Quite frankly people trying to defend it are a part of the problem, it needs to stop, the system is broken and needs fixing. If they won't fix it, than we should. Enough of this garbage.


Kleisto's photo
Wed 04/10/13 10:34 AM

schools are not government funded, they are state funded, with each district governing themselves... that's why they have ISD after every cities name...IE - Houston independent school district... the government sets a unified system of rules, about discrimination and things of that nature, and the school districts themselves make their own rules as they see fit... the government has no grand conspiracy to keep kids from having a mohawk...
whoa


Uh.....department of education mean anything to you? Government sets the rules, be it on a state or federal level, they still set them, and remember who gives the funds to operate the schools in the first place.....

You can deny the facts all you want, but it does not change what they are.

Kleisto's photo
Wed 04/10/13 10:32 AM

make enough Laws,and everyone will be a Criminal!
And so easy to be "GUIDED"!


exactly, this is what schools were designed to do from the get go, no matter what they tell you otherwise. They were never about any true education, just about obedience training.

Kleisto's photo
Wed 04/10/13 10:31 AM







Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility...


rofl rofl rofl

Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings.

This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire.





Actually yes, no cascading explosions no explosives period. None


Tell me something hot shot........if there was NO explosives in Building 7, why didn't they test for em in the official story before coming to the conclusion there weren't any? What were they afraid of? If there was none, surely the test would have shown that right? The fact that they didn't says to me the cat was watching the hen house.


For the same reason I mentioned. It was a scientific impossibility. For the exact things I stated in my post. Yet you also seem to think you know more than the scientist I mentioned. Please give your credentials so we can compare them to his.


You sure put a lot of faith is these alleged scientists.

laugh laugh


No kidding, you get the feeling that some of these people would jump off a bridge if a "scientist" said you could survive doing so. I mean.......screw the facts right?


pot-kettle?... you should look up the definition of "fact"




Not really, I know what the facts are, I could careless what the media may try to spin them as. It's you that needs to learn them, not me.

Kleisto's photo
Wed 04/10/13 09:52 AM




I think that everyone here would benefit from reading a book titled "Faith That Hurts, Faith That Heals".

Yes, some people have been abused while participating in church activities as children. That abuse leaves them distrusting churches, and you really cannot "correct" them just by lecturing them. You have to get to know their personal stories and then help them work through their emotional pain that resulted from the abuse. Telling victims of religious abuse not to feel a certain way just won't work.


I agree. Victims of abuse have to face their abusers, work through their own pain and their own circumstances so they can heal and move on.

my point in saying 'get over abuse' was to hold a mirror to the statement that religious should 'get over' ourselves,,



Not the same statement, when I am saying for you to get over yourself, what I mean by that is realize that not everyone shares your beliefs, and that while it's fine to have your own, to try and understand others and not just judge them as wrong or try to outright dictate to them based on your own viewpoint. That's what I mean when I say religious people need to get over themselves. They need to understand people have different needs (kids included I might add) and it isn't necessarily going to be what you THINK they need. We would do far better if we listened and tried to understand rather than just judged based on what we believe we know or have been told.

That's far different from being told to get over my abuse as if it didn't happen, or get over the effects it had on me......very different.

And as for hostility...honestly I get really tired of the back and forth at times.....it gets emotionally draining so when I get quiet that's usually why. I sometimes think about just quitting posting here entirely really.....




Not the same statement, when I am saying for you to get over yourself, what I mean by that is realize that not everyone shares your beliefs, and that while it's fine to have your own, to try and understand others and not just judge them as wrong or try to outright dictate to them based on your own viewpoint. That's what I mean when I say religious people need to get over themselves. They need to understand people have different needs (kids included I might add) and it isn't necessarily going to be what you THINK they need. We would do far better if we listened and tried to understand rather than just judged based on what we believe we know or have been told.


let me change a few words...

not the same statement, when I am saying for you to get over your abuse, what I mean by that is realize not everyone going to church shares your expeirence, and while its tragic and sad to have gone through it in your personal journey, try to understand others and not just judge them as abusive or wrong or try to outright label them as dictatorial based upon your own experiences.

Thats what I mean when I say plenty of people go through tragedies which they need to mend and move on from. They need to understand people have different experiences (kids included I might add) and it isnt necessarily going to be what you THINK they are expeiriencing. We would do far better if we listened and tried to understand rather than just become defensive based upon what has happened to us.


to tell someone to get over THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES is exactly the same as telling someone to get over THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES (And by default the results of those experiences or the lessons from those experiences)


The difference though is, you are using your experiences to try and dictate and control other people and behaviors......and that is wrong. You can believe anything you want to on a personal level, but it needs to stay personal. The moment you try and tell someone else how to live by force based on your beliefs you cross a line.

THAT is why I can never truly "get over" my abuse because that abuse is symbolic of an overall society problem in how we think and view people. It is something I will NEVER consent to happening again.

Kleisto's photo
Wed 04/10/13 09:48 AM







it was overbearing and unneeded

ater a few minutes they would have moved on too something else

if there were no east Indians in the class and they showed up to
class they would also be a distraction

should they be sent home


if they want to enforce rules and thats what the rules say,,,,





a lot of states have rules against gay marriage as well

just because its a rule does not make it right

there used to be rules about drinking fountains to but they were changed



but as long as they were 'rules' they were expected to be enforced,,,


or protested

and

changed


Amen. Sometimes rules don't DESERVE respect, and should be disobeyed and challenged. One of the big problems this country and in ways the world has is this "roll over" mentality accepting every and all restriction they place on us no matter how inane it is. It's time we stop that, apathy is killing us. We need to start telling them NO, we need to start pushing back.

And Msharmony, this isn't JUST about the mohawk, the mohawk is a symbol of everything wrong here.....a symbol of so many insane laws and regulations that have no business being as such. It may seem insignificant on the surface, but it is a sign of a bigger problem, that is to say a power hungry government wanting to control as much as they can. It's something we need to be protesting, enough is enough.



goopd grief, its not the GOVERNMENTS LAW< its a school regulation

it does nothing to give government power over us personally, it just guides the environment in which taxpayers children are being TAUGHT,, when they are not in public school, they can go for whatever they want to,,,,





This is true, but remember who runs the schools in the first place, they are government funded. You don't think they have a say in how things are done there? And regardless stuff like this is still a symbol of a ever more controlled society, which is not good.

1 2 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 24 25