No matter what religion you are in it still depend on the people.
People are killed every day by gun or what ever.
Criminals who are in jail have religion to but they think of what religion they are when they did what they did.
So it really depend on the people and not on religion.
You wrote true. Violence depends one's mentality and character. I tried telling that maybe 1000 times but i think they have a concealed thought about islam. Problem is they use religious scripture (in this case Quran) as an excuse to kill. Guys like you should stand against Quran, hell, all humanity should stand against it. Remember, Muslims are prepared (and in most cases ready) to kill in the name of their religion. That is what is fundamentally wrong with this religion. Well if you look at the past most religion are ready to kill just defend what they believe in. So islam is just being pressured as evil hence every one knows that its the mind of people not the religion. Except the Quran explicitly tells you what to do and what to say, i.e. kill and lie about it. All Quran books should be burned along with Bible and Talmud. All of it, to every single copy or manuscript. Erase it from human history. It was a big mistake. Only then humanity can move forward. Abandon your 6th century myth if you have any sanity left in you. I remind you that your atheism older than those religions. You lived in age of dinosorous Takiyya. |
|
|
|
Given his achievements, I would guess that Trump would pull 140 or higher on Stanford-Binnet IQ tests. That's not extremely unusual though.
You seem to have a warped view of the IQ scale... Less than 0.5% of people have an IQ of 140+... Trump is most definitely not in the top 0.5% smartest people on the planet... not a chance ... A quick few pokes at my calculator reveals about 35,000,000 people. I call that a lot and 'not extremely unusual'. I suspect that well over half of the people I've worked with over the last decade have been in this group. That being said, many of them are remarkably inept in a lot of ways. Probably due to the education system. Most of them have had graduate degrees so there was plenty of opportunity to fuck up their native potential. I sure got a lot smarter when I started unlearning what schools tough me, with a few notable exceptions. Every election cycle, this nonsense starts. Gore was "really smart." Bush was "dumb as rocks." Obama was "smart as a whip." No, Gore isn't very smart. No, Obama isn't "smart as a whip." No, Bush wasn't "dumb as rocks." These are all lies by desperate mousehives. Bush higher SAT score than John Kerry (vanity) Freedictionary ^ | 10-9-2004 | Me Posted on 10/09/2004 9:56:01 PM PDT by SideoutFred http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20people%20by%20SAT%20scoreBush 1206 Kerry 1190 :rollin Here is what we also know from New Yorker Magazine and UPI in articles from January of 2004. -- Bush's SAT scores are higher than Bill Bradley's, Paul Wellstone's, and John Kerry's. -- Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT, 566 of 800 on verbal and 640 of 800 on math. [Since the SAT's scale has since been "recentered," Bush's score is more like a 1300 today.] -- Bush's verbal score would place him between the 84th and 92nd percentile of college-bound students, or the 93rd to 97th percentile of ALL high-school seniors taking the exams, the percentile usually used. -- His math score would also place him between the 84th and 92nd percentile of college-bound students, or the 94th to 98th percentile of ALL high-school seniors taking the exams, the percentile usually used. -- Using one method to extract IQ's from these SAT scores, Bush's IQ would be somewhere between 124 and 137. Hardly a dunce, that's at least in the top six percent of Americans. -- We all hear of Bush's supposed college mediocrity, but in reality his "worst" courses were two C-minus scores. Accounting for grade inflation, Bush's worst grades are around today's B-minuses. Recentered SAT: 1300 IQ: 124-137 Stupid: Definately not. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1240592/posts  I'm willing to say Gore's a moron, and seem to recall Obama's IQ as having been realistically estimated in the mid 120s. That's believable. Trump? My guess I think a lot of people share, and here's what it is. The guy is really smart but his public face is exactly IQ 100. Watch him when he gets asked questions about statistics, for example. He rattles them off pretty darn quick. I admit to having played this game too. It's actually fun. Go to New York City with a Texas slow drawl and see how people act and what scams they try to pull. Lol... But for two brain celled minions of the Bernie, I would ask this. If your Great Leader has impressed you with his honesty, why on his behalf would you lie or distort the truth? Just honestly curious, really. |
|
|
|
Once Trump has this Republican primary locked in you'll see his true liberal self come out.
He'll talk about how he voted for Obama, how he supported Clinton, how he wants universal health care. He'll be the shining star that the Democrats have been looking for.
The establishment orthodoxy on all fronts (center, left, and right) have painted themselves into a corner. Most of the things that 'their' people 'know' about Trump (violent racist bigot, hates free speech, wants to fuck his own daughter, etc) have been fabricated and implanted with no real basis in reality. So far it works because the 'high info' people achieve their understanding by being programmed rather than looking for themselves. The trouble with fabricated 'knowledge' which happens to be invalid is that it is difficult to sustain over long time periods. Especially when there is pressure from a challenger which cannot be suppressed. It's why the most dishonest attack ads occur very near voting night. I predict that no matter how Trump plays things (or is) policy wise, those who hate him for reasons which are fabricated will progressively turn their hate and dis-trust toward their media programmers and the candidate who is being animated by said media. Again, my prediction is that at the end of the day this person with the Dem stamp will be Joe Biden and not Hillary Clinton if they have to go up against Trump. Not very clear who, or even what, it will be on the third-party-split-the-vote-and-install-an-establishment-puppet side. If it is Jeb Bush we'll have a 'crime family vs. crime family' choice again. A follow up to the 'skull-n-bones vs. skull-n-bones' choice we had in Bush vs. Kerry. This is pretty insightful. Can a 3rd party candidate start up at this late point in the game? So many states have rules about things like that. It is totally amazing that a rigged system pushed Jeb Bush vs. (the strawman) Marco Rubio AND Hit Clinton vs (the strawman) Saunders and the people totally ignored the dynamic. On the R side, only the rebels got the votes, and on the D side, the support for the strawman was certainly unexpected. I hope the R crowd unifies behind Bad Hair Dude and buckles down to fight the incompetent choice of the democrats. It is quite interesting that although the invective against Trump is rising, the bad points of Hillary are simply not even contested. Of course their scheme is to pull in prettyboy Castro for VP to divert attention away from Hillary's senility or whatever her mental problems are. Of course, "believers" in Sanders are naive fools. They have fallen for one of the oldest pitches. "I'm a nice guy, and I'll give you free stuff." It's worth noting in conclusion that a fair number of Democratic talking points are "let's ignore some of those laws we don't like because well, we don't like them." To inculcate an attitude like that it helps if the primary candidate herself is an acknowledged corrupt liar. The voter's opinions and expectations go down, he thinks they are all corrupt and liars, so why should he not vote for the liar who promises free stuff? And the game of socialism is of course to create and give out free stuff, but only to the chosen and privileged few, not the masses. The masses are to be impoverished, because beggars are easier and cheaper to please. And the saudis would like to buy cheap votes, wouldn't they? |
|
|
|
Given his achievements, I would guess that Trump would pull 140 or higher on Stanford-Binnet IQ tests. That's not extremely unusual though.
You seem to have a warped view of the IQ scale... Less than 0.5% of people have an IQ of 140+... Trump is most definitely not in the top 0.5% smartest people on the planet... not a chance ... A quick few pokes at my calculator reveals about 35,000,000 people. I call that a lot and 'not extremely unusual'. I suspect that well over half of the people I've worked with over the last decade have been in this group. That being said, many of them are remarkably inept in a lot of ways. Probably due to the education system. Most of them have had graduate degrees so there was plenty of opportunity to fuck up their native potential. I sure got a lot smarter when I started unlearning what schools tough me, with a few notable exceptions. Every election cycle, this nonsense starts. Gore was "really smart." Bush was "dumb as rocks." Obama was "smart as a whip." No, Gore isn't very smart. No, Obama isn't "smart as a whip." No, Bush wasn't "dumb as rocks." These are all lies by desperate mousehives. |
|
|
|
It was claimed that all security cameras were removed days before attack. It was also claimed that men were working in buildings for days for unknown purpose.
Also it is claimed that the bomb-sniffing dogs used for security were pulled out several weeks before the event. And claimed that Lary Silverstein bought WTC in july 2001 for 3.3 billion dollaes and insured them 6 weeks before event for 3.6 billion dollars. Insurance was included terrorist attacks. After attack he asked from insurance totaly 7,2 billion for double impact. But court decided only 3,6 billion. Smart businessman and augur  Duh, duh duh. Before 911 terrorist events were not excluded from insurance policies. Acts of war were and several other categories, but not terrorist attacks. |
|
|
|
It was claimed that all security cameras were removed days before attack. It was also claimed that men were working in buildings for days for unknown purpose.
Who cares "it was claimed that..." |
|
|
|
Oh god. All politicians are bad in my opinion. It's gotten this bad for me: As long as Donald Trump does not get elected, I'll be happy with the result. And in this case I am not sticking with the traditional definition of happy.
I almost hope the Don does get elected so America learns it's lesson... the hard way...
When people don't learn their lesson, they keep trying stupid shitProblem being they won't learn their lessons. They get dozens of mass shooting every year and the highest murder rate of Western world but still want to keep their guns. They saw a president assassinated but they're ok with the magic bullet explanation. They were send to war in a totally irrelevant country for totally BS reasons but they went nevertheless, and with a smile. They're dumb. Nothing to save here. Just kill them all. I'm glad your real self is emerging. |
|
|
|
When you say more taxes than almost anyone on the planet you forget Europe then. And you do realize that your taxes don't repay fed reserve interest in a great part? 56% of your budget is for the army. Army budget: 600 millions 56% Education budget: 60 millions 6% Welfare: 56 millions 6% Clearly Welfare is going to ruin your country xD Maybe you should stop talking about subjects you don't know anything about? Those numbers are wrong. |
|
|
|
No, you do not see "detonation" in this video. |
|
|
|
Nonsense on all counts.
To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength. Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely.
Explosives do not "melt" anything. They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel. This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material.
I've done metal fabrication for fun and profit over the years. In order to get steel into a condition where it loses a sigificant percentage of it's strength, one typically uses something like a rosebud. This mixes hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen in a very controlled manner. You then choose the ideal area and configuration to heat a carefully chosen weak point in the material. And wait. And wait. And wait. When you finally achieve the weakening needed for the job you want to do, you drop the torch in a panic and reef on the work like hell. Excuse me but what is your point? You are simply explaining a case where energy inputs less radiative, conductive and convective heat losses results in a slow but steady buildup of thermal energy. It's just a matter of asking, what does it take to put enough joules into a material to soften it. What amount of material burning toes that. You need to set up the question correctly to get a meaningful answer. I may or may not choose to dig out my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and work the problem if you do. Probably not since vastly more work than I am capable of has already been done by AE911Truth.org.My point is, of course, that the environment plays a big roll in the tenability of whether the amount of energy in the potentially combustible material was sufficient to weaken the structure enough to cause a collapse. Note that none of the official investigators would release the visualizations they supposedly generated in spite of numerous requests from the engineering community. Last I heard. Without these, it is pointless to try to model the thermal inputs to deduce the plausibility of the initiation sequence. Even if that could be done, there are countless other show-stopper problems with the 'official conspiracy theory' that a gaggle of Muslims in cave half way around the world did it. Okay, I understand. I don't care about their "visualizations" or scenario modeling. There is no problem with simply looking at sources of heat and it's effects on nearby materials in an objective manner. This is the way to understand things. First, it is necessary to debunk the idea that "jet fuel won't melt steel." By simply noting that there is no relation between melting steel and a building collapsing. Second, it is necessary to understand that an ordinary fire certainly will generate temperatures sufficient to weaken steel such that a steel building collapses. This is done by looking at the energy content (joules released) by jet fuel burning and by office contents burning. Actually if you are lazy, which is not stupid, it's easier to just put a piece of rebar in the charcoal while grilling some hamburgers, and then pull it out and see how easy it bends. These are very simple things, really. |
|
|
|
I haven't read other replies, so sorry if somebody has said something similar to this.
I consider myself a Muslim, although I do not pray. I find almost all Muslims only pray to ask Allah for things. I don't want to ask him for worldly things, I only want to be accepted into paradise and everyone who deserves it be rewarded it.
I have similar views to Neil deGrasse Tyson, I believe in Allah (he'd use the word god) but I don't make my whole life about religion.
The one thing that confuses me about religion and Islam is that the people in the time of the prophets would have had an unfair advantage. They would know with certainty after seeing the miracles that god is real and they should be good to go to paradise. People today grow up only believing in something if they see it. Although I believe it is said every human being is given the chance to learn about Islam, and if not (say they die just after they're born) then they'll go to paradise so it doesn't matter.
One thing I can say and that I hope for is Shari'a law to be established everywhere completely accurately, then I know without a doubt no bad things will happen. There will be no such thing as a thieve or murderer.
I'd like to hear your guys opinions on what I've said, I'll reply to all of you.
Sure. You'll just kill off all the thieves, murderers, adulterers, apostates, and how many others to establish your "peace on earth?" Killing people would certainly be a growth industry in such a world of sharia law. Historically, across the world in many cultures, such policies have not worked out well at all. Oh, by the way. No, people in the 7th century who thought they say miracles will not automatically go to paradise. This is utter nonsense. I do not think you understand the teachings of your own religion regarding miracles. I am an atheist, so it is nothing to me what you choose to believe. |
|
|
|
Just so glad I'm not American right now... Tough choice. The stupid compulsive agressive billionaire so full of himself you'd think he would explode, or Hitlery?
Never, never, ever believe that someone who talks at an IQ level of 100 and who is a billionaire is stupid. Anyone with an IQ of 100 IS stupid! ..... Hey, please. There's no need to push the hard sell, you know you are not convincing when you do that. Just for fun, take a look at where you are wrong. An IQ of 100 is not "Stupid," it is exactly "average." "Talks at an IQ level of 100" is not equal to "has an IQ of 100," it simply means "attempts to communicate effectively with the average person." Are we having fun now? And not insulting anybody. How about that? |
|
|
|
Nonsense on all counts.
To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength. Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely.
Explosives do not "melt" anything. They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel. This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material.
I've done metal fabrication for fun and profit over the years. In order to get steel into a condition where it loses a sigificant percentage of it's strength, one typically uses something like a rosebud. This mixes hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen in a very controlled manner. You then choose the ideal area and configuration to heat a carefully chosen weak point in the material. And wait. And wait. And wait. When you finally achieve the weakening needed for the job you want to do, you drop the torch in a panic and reef on the work like hell. Excuse me but what is your point? You are simply explaining a case where energy inputs less radiative, conductive and convective heat losses results in a slow but steady buildup of thermal energy. It's just a matter of asking, what does it take to put enough joules into a material to soften it. What amount of material burning toes that. |
|
|
|
Fact is all three buildings were demolished using a mix of explosives including thermite
There was no hi-jacking taking place at all, planes that hit the towers were military without windows or markings.
Oh, and those who say buildings collapsed because of the jet fuel fire are just plain stupid and should not be taken seriously.
Jet fuel burned off within 5 minutes and only served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.
No, those are not facts. Facts you ignore. Where did the people on the four scheduled airline flights go? You know, the ones that you claim were not on the planes that hit the towers? Where did the planes go? Why were explosives needed along with planes? Regarding jet fuel and post-crash fires, steel that is softened by heat does not care whether the heat came from jet fuel or burning office desks. |
|
|
|
Even adultery is forbidden in Islam, you talk about rape!....
Yes we are. We are talking about reality. |
|
|
|
Building 7 was burning uncontrolled for hours, during that time showed evidence of structural failure, and then collapsed.
I don't understand what is complicated about this, or what even lends itself to a plausible need for a conspiracy.
Uncontrolled fire. It burned, then it fell. Period.
So what?
" If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise." http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/ I don't know why people don't accepting facts, what happened and what is behind all of this and if we don't talk about insurance we can't get big picture. It is a fact that it was more or less the first fire induced collapse of a steel frame high rise. So what? It was designed with the assumption that the sprinkler system and the water would be working to prevent fires and their effects. Take those away, and you have the situation which existed. There is no need to invoke conspiracies. |
|
|
|
Hmm... Ok that one is a bit bizarre. Not sure I'm ready to believe something like this xD First, he does not "prove" anything. Second, no thermite was found and none was used. Thermite produces a brilliant white flash. Has anyone seen that in the videos of the towers? I await an answer. |
|
|
|
  Building hit by a bomb during NATO bombing Serbia.
Building with steel frames cannot fall after fire. This amount of heat necessary for melting frames cannot be achieved with fuel, oil, plastic,wood. Only with specific explosives with high temperature.. Nonsense on all counts. To cause a steel frame building to fall, it is only necessary to heat the steel, then it has no strength. Welders, blacksmiths do this routinely. Explosives do not "melt" anything. They have a shattering effect, producing shrapnel. This is because the shock of the explosive exceeds the speed of sound in the material. |
|
|
|
....
The satellite data he provided show a clear increase of temperature... Did I miss a link somewhere? Cause if yes don't hesitate to give the link back.
...
You may indeed be missing some links, if not on the Internet perhaps in your thinking. |
|
|
|
islam is a good religion it really depends on the peoples ideology,every person has a different set of mind that can sometimes be corrupted.
Please answer this question then. Does Islam teach peace and tranquility if I am Muslim and decide that for my own peace and tranquility I am going to leave Islam? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
