Home > Uncategorized > Jesus Take The Wheel Day

Jesus Take The Wheel Day

jttwA Facebook group is offering Christians everywhere an opportunity to demonstrate their TRUE FAITH, just before April.

I understand why Christians aren’t supposed to test their Lord, but wouldn’t this be a great demonstration to us non-believers?!  It would convert more people than millions of door-knocks.


h/t Bill

  1. January 10, 2013 at 9:44 am


  2. Yeshua
    January 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

    The one I like is when someone attributes a sick person’s recovery to his god (instead of the medical treatments he received), you ask the question, Why won’t god heal amputees?

    Their belief begs the question, if the person doesn’t get healed, does that mean the god doesn’t love him, or that he didn’t rally enough people to pray for him? Imagine the guilt a loved one must feel, that he or she could have saved Grandma is only more people on Facebook had ‘liked’ that prayer post.

    Or this quote from last Sunday’s Atheist Experience broadcast in which a Christian caller blamed child rape on the children being evil (which is a core teaching of Christianity, that all of humanity is born evil and in need of saving:

    “You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you. If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your god.”

  3. A pesky fact
    January 10, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Fwiw, I think the Jesus with Velociraptor pic is hilarious.

    So Mitch, did you ever check out St. Padre Pio?

  4. A pesky fact
    January 10, 2013 at 9:54 am


    It’s one thing to bring up the possibility of begging the question.

    It’s another thing to bring up the possibility of begging the question, and then present a counter argument that begs the question.

  5. Yeshua
    January 10, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Pesky, you completely misunderstood.

  6. Yeshua
    January 10, 2013 at 10:19 am

    If it helps, there was a quote missing in the original quotation, which was a quote within a quote.

    You either have a god who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a god who simply watches it and says, “When you’re done, I’m going to punish you.” If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your god.

  7. Just Watchin
    January 10, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Why let the fun end there? Have all Muslims blindfold their camels and let allah do the driving!!!

  8. A pesky fact
    January 10, 2013 at 11:33 am


    It still meets the definition of begging the question: presuming what one seeks to prove, namely, that one thing occurring in one instance is proof that it wasnt prevented in a different instance, and then using the observers lack of evidence as proof of an affirmation. (which would be an additional 2 logical fallacies, mistaken reversal and mistaken negation).

    There are good arguments to be made by atheists. What you’ve presented isn’t one of them.

    If I may propose a brief question for dialog: you have put forward a dichotomus scenario. Is it possible that this is a 3rd (or more) additional scenarios? Dichotomus reasoning is itself often a logical fallacy.

  9. Yeshua
    January 10, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Pesky, whoosh, it went over your head. No begging required.

  10. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Yeshua’s point seems clear to me, pesky. Sure, there’s evil in the world, but if God is willing to see to the punishment of child rapists, why doesn’t he do it before rather than after the child is raped?

    Can you answer without Latin?

    (Oh, I’ve looked at the Wikipedia entry on Padre Pio. Hardly a thorough investigation on my part, but enough to learn that even Popes thought he was a fraud.)

  11. A pesky fact
    January 10, 2013 at 1:42 pm


    His point may be clear, but it is not logically valid.

    If you will permit me to answer your question with another question: is it possible, even just a little bit, for horrible evil to occur, but that greater good comes of it?

    As for Padre Pio, skepticism pending investigation is different than believing one to be a fraud. Is it possible, even just a little bit, that he actually bore the stigmata for 50 years?

  12. Yeshua
    January 10, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Mitch, the usual answer is that the god gives humans free will. However, if there is an all-knowing all-powerful god who created the universe, then this god knew the totality of all outcomes in this universe before he created the universe.

    And, specifically the Christian god knew who would be saved and who would be tortured for eternity. There is no ‘roll of the dice’ for this god, no randomness, no free will for the humans in his creation. The universe is exactly as he knew/intended it to be because he had this foreknowledge of exactly what every person would do based on the parameters he set in place at the point of creation.. There can be no free will if the Christian god exists, which makes the notion of Hell all the more sadistic.

    The only thing more perverse is that this god (as the story goes) created people with ‘original sin,’ (his idea) then subjected himself to blood sacrifice to save us from the sin he originally condemned us to. And if we thoughtfully examine the evidence found all around us and conclude this god doesn’t exist, why, that thought crime is worthy of eternal punishment.

    Speaking as a parent, there is no crime my children could commit, or anyone could commit, that would make me wish that person eternal torture. Unending, torture forever. So if such a god does exist, I couldn’t worship it because it is less moral than myself. Such are the fancies of Bronze and Iron Age savages, who for some reason are highly regarded today. Go figure.

  13. Mark 11:22-24
    January 10, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    “Then Jesus said to the disciples, ‘Have faith in God. I tell you the truth, you can say to this mountain, ‘May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and it will happen. But you must really believe it will happen and have no doubt in your heart. I tell you, you can pray for anything, and if you believe that you’ve received it, it will be yours.”

  14. A pesky fact
    January 10, 2013 at 2:32 pm


    It wouldn’t be so weaksauce if the Church hadn’t explicitly addressed matters of pre-destination in great deal some 400 years ago. Your argument is 400 years behind the times and incorrectly employs/defines key terms.

    If you will permit me to work through it in reverse, you are misunderstanding/misusing the term hell. Arriving at an accurate definition of the term will help you start fixing the logical fallacies you seem to have internalized regarding free will.

    Hell is defined primarily by it’s self-selective nature, and that it’s chief torture consists of eternal separation from God, as per the wish of the individual. Judgement consists of giving a person what they desired in life for all of eternity.

    If you arent one of those closed minded types (that sadly are convinced the fully understand things they have not read or studied, merely by assumption or acclamation from another who has not read or studied then), perhaps you would be open minded enough to read the segment of the Catechism dealing with precisely this?


    Your arguments would be more persuasive if you used the words in them correctly.

  15. That Man
    January 10, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

    Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.Matthew 10:34-36

    He said to another man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God. Luke 9:59-60

    Jesus hates families [fact]

    Jesus is not worthy of following, do away with the God of Lies, Destruction and hatred.

    don’t even get me started on the rest of the garbage in that book

    Jesus is no more worthy of following then YHWH, do away with the God of Lies, Destruction and hatred.

  16. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm


    You ask “is it possible, even just a little bit, for horrible evil to occur, but that greater good comes of it?”

    Sure, pesky, though that’s usually called “the end justifies the means,” and that phrase is usually used by someone for doing great evil where the ends are by no means certain. But since you’ve responded to my question with a question, let me do the same. What is the possible greater good that comes from the Lord not preventing a child’s rape?

    “The Lord works in mysterious ways” is probably your safest bet for an answer, but let’s see if you can do better than that.

    that man,

    Sure, all your biblical quotes are accurate. But Jesus also preached love and a great deal of wisdom. The story of Siddharta (later the Buddha) leaving his wife and young child in order to find “what it’s all about” is similar to the biblical assertion that you have to abandon everything to follow Jesus.

    There are two approaches to both of these fables.

    One is to state that they are not to be taken literally but as psychological guidance, regarding the importance of “letting go” when you are in search of enlightenment or God.

    The other (and both may well be appropriate) is to recognize that if you’re building a religion for the long term, it really helps to have its founder supposedly instructing people to abandon everything else to stick with co-religionists. The founder will — usually — be long dead before anything gets written down, so he or she won’t be around to tell you that what you’re doing is completely against everything he or she stood for.

  17. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    And pesky, regarding Padre Pio’s having borne stigmata for 50 years, you ask is it possible, even a little. Sure, it’s possible.

    But my admittedly-limited-to-one-Wikipedia-article investigation suggests that he miraculously lost his stigmata shortly before his death, and that he wore mittens because his stigmata embarrassed him. It also says:

    The founder of Milan’s Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, who met Padre Pio once, for a few minutes, but was unable to examine his stigmata,[18] concluded Padre Pio was “an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people’s credulity.”[19]

    So, yes, it’s possible his stigmata were signs of his connection to God. It’s also possible the sun will not come up tomorrow, and we haven’t yet discovered that every gazillion years the universe skips a day so God can take inventory. What’s possible isn’t the same thing as what’s credible. Is his story credible? Not to me.

  18. A pesky fact
    January 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Regarding Padre Pio, what would you consider to be a fair look into him? Surely a case as significant as his warrants perhaps reading a book on the topic? It seems that Fr. Gemelli was able to sure determine in a lot in only a few minutes without examination. Hardly sounds like a scientific conclusion was reached by him. Pio underwent repeated, significant, lengthy medical exams and observations, which most good books on him explore in

    One significant miracle worth considering from St Pio is that of a young woman born without pupils. Padre Pio restored her eyesight… Though she remained without pupils. On another occasion his intercession was credited with the complete physical regeneration of a destroyed eye — observed under medical conditions at a hospital by an atheist doctor.

    The all-seeing google turned this article up:

    I skimmed it and it seems pretty solid. Willing to give it a read, Mitch? What’s 10 minutes, plus a few minutes of reflection? Surely a case as utterly extraordinary as that of St Pio is worth a few minutes of consideration?

  19. A pesky fact
    January 10, 2013 at 3:51 pm


    What can come of such horrible things indeed?


    The Christian claim is a radical one. That Heaven is real, and is open to all, that it is the pearl of great price. It is unmerrited and freely given out of love.

  20. Plain Jane
    January 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    Christians competing for Darwin awards? Those who crash are just faith deficient.

  21. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm


    I believe the Christian claim, as you describe it, is very real. Several times now, I’ve mentioned here a Buddhist story that I find very moving. I was going to retell it, but I tried to pull it up on Wikipedia and discovered, to my delight, that it is very close to a parable attributed to Rabbi Heim of Romshishok, CS Lewis, and others.

    I think a difference between our ways of understanding is that, while I believe Rabbi Heim was telling the absolute truth, I don’t believe for a moment that he “ascended to the firmaments.” I don’t think he intended for me to believe that; he just wanted to explain what heaven was.

    To my ears, at least, heaven and hell are here on earth, and no God need be involved.

    From Wikipedia:

    Rabbi Haim of Romshishok [2] was an itinerant preacher. He traveled from town to town delivering religious sermons that stressed the importance of respect for one’s fellow man. He often began his talks with the following story:
    “I once ascended to the firmaments. I first went to see Hell and the sight was horrifying. Row after row of tables were laden with platters of sumptuous food, yet the people seated around the tables were pale and emaciated, moaning in hunger. As I came closer, I understood their predicament.
    “Every person held a full spoon, but both arms were splinted with wooden slats so he could not bend either elbow to bring the food to his mouth. It broke my heart to hear the tortured groans of these poor people as they held their food so near but could not consume it.
    “Next I went to visit Heaven. I was surprised to see the same setting I had witnessed in Hell – row after row of long tables laden with food. But in contrast to Hell, the people here in Heaven were sitting contentedly talking with each other, obviously sated from their sumptuous meal.
    “As I came closer, I was amazed to discover that here, too, each person had his arms splinted on wooden slats that prevented him from bending his elbows. How, then, did they manage to eat?
    “As I watched, a man picked up his spoon and dug it into the dish before him. Then he stretched across the table and fed the person across from him! The recipient of this kindness thanked him and returned the favor by leaning across the table to feed his benefactor.
    I suddenly understood. Heaven and Hell offer the same circumstances and conditions. The critical difference is in the way the people treat each other.
    I ran back to Hell to share this solution with the poor souls trapped there. I whispered in the ear of one starving man, “You do not have to go hungry. Use your spoon to feed your neighbor, and he will surely return the favor and feed you.”
    “‘You expect me to feed the detestable man sitting across the table?’ said the man angrily. ‘I would rather starve than give him the pleasure of eating!’
    “I then understood God’s wisdom in choosing who is worthy to go to Heaven and who deserves to go to Hell.” [3]

  22. Anonymous
    January 10, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    But did their elbows being splinted on wooden slats prevent them from reaching their bootstraps?

  23. G. Gilbert Yule
    January 11, 2013 at 7:12 am

    Dog help us all!

  24. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 7:32 am

    Here is a wonderful sermon from Rev. Nancy Taylor of the First Congregational Church of Sonoma. When she speaks of God, she speaks of the Spirit of Love Eternal. Remove the capitals, and this is a god I believe in.

    Nowhere in this sermon is there anything that insists I accept any particular brand, or believe in anything supernatural. (The spirit of love is, to me at least, self-evident and does not require belief in the supernatural.) This is what speaks to me. What truly repels me is the idea of a God who is rooting for one team or another.

    It strikes me as tragic that these two versions of God are so often mixed up, so that people who are rightfully suspicious of those who insist on a particular version of the former God — the sky God who does or does not become incarnated and perform miracles — become unwilling to hear the wisdom universally offered by those who speak of the latter — the spirit of love.

  25. January 11, 2013 at 7:59 am

    G. Gilbert Yule,
    I didn’t realize that dog was separate from us. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

    Falling down is inevitable, staying down is optional.

  26. Just Watchin
    January 11, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Forest Queen :G. Gilbert Yule,I didn’t realize that dog was separate from us. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
    Falling down is inevitable, staying down is optional.

    If dog was not separate from us, it would mean that BarryO had comitted canibalism. Woof.

  27. January 11, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Suppose it depends on your definition of ‘canibalism.’ Thinking in your terms of canibalism – yes, I would agree, Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Obomb bomb, chews us up and spits us out – just as he’s been told to do.

  28. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 9:04 am

    In case anyone hasn’t noticed, I’ve abandoned the experiment at keeping the comments section relatively sane. Carry on and enjoy.

  29. January 11, 2013 at 9:15 am

    “Relatively sane”? As in, let’s continue thinking/believing/acting in slave-speak? We all know where that path leads to.

  30. Just Watchin
    January 11, 2013 at 9:33 am

    Forest Queen :Suppose it depends on your definition of ‘canibalism.’ Thinking in your terms of canibalism – yes, I would agree, Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Obomb bomb, chews us up and spits us out – just as he’s been told to do.

    I’m not sure you got it Queenie. If you recall, while growing up, BarryO admitted that he actually ate dog meat.

  31. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 9:38 am

    What I love about the Jewish version of the parable at #21 is how authentically Jewish it sounds. I can just hear a yiddishe accent huffing “Him?! I’d rather staaave.” There’s the old joke about the very orthodox guy who gets shipwrecked. The first thing he does, being very religious, is build two synagogues. Why two? One, he attends. The other, he “wouldn’t set foot in!”

  32. A pesky fact
    January 11, 2013 at 9:41 am


    We are now speaking and articulating clear differences between the physical and metaphysical, acknowledging that truth is outside us as opposed to subject to us, and that some of these truths are self-evident.

    We are making great progress in dialog indeed.

    As an aside, reaching the understanding that the phrase “we hold these truths to be self-evident” is not merely a rhetorical flourish (but rather a concise philosophical statement of commonly held belief) is often a major breakthrough for many Americans these days. (Not implying such for you, just an interesting general observation).

  33. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 9:54 am


    I’ll list a few of the things that you appear to believe in and that I definitely do not:

    1) Padre Pio having God-given stigmata
    2) A virgin birth involving a holy spirit (as opposed to parthenogenesis)
    3) Papal infallibility
    4) Human infallibility of any kind (which includes, IMO, #3)
    5) The physical resurrection of any animal
    6) The acceptability of civil rule by a religious authority (which necessarily follows from 3)
    7) The idea that any institution has a view of truth elevated above all other institutions (ditto)
    8) Suspension of the physical laws of the universe (as opposed to the existence of laws and effects we do not yet understand)

    It’s #8 that causes me to reject what I would call Catholic (and Jewish, and you name it) superstition, as well as all literalism in connection with religious texts.

    If your stigmata can’t be shown to the guy from Catholic University, if you cover them with mittens, and if they magically disappear on your death, when you can no longer prevent people from looking at your hands, I don’t think they exist.

  34. A pesky fact
    January 11, 2013 at 10:27 am


    Re: #6, papal infallibility extends only to matters of faith and morals, and is unrelated to the exercising of governmental power.

    Not trying to nitpick. An equally important part of dialog is persons understanding what, where, why, and how their views diverge.

    Did you read the article I linked yesterday on Padre Pio?

    Additionally, he underwent numerous lengthy detailed medical examinations. It is unreasonable to have expected him to submit to examination by any doctor that presented themselves. As for the mittens, what would you do if you were leaking blood out your hands all day?

    To dismiss Padre Pio on the grounds that a single doctor reached an unscientific conclusion in an unscientific short timeframe based on an unscientific examination (all these by his own admission) is… Unscientific.

  35. Anonymous
    January 11, 2013 at 10:32 am

    “In case anyone hasn’t noticed, I’ve abandoned the experiment at keeping the comments section relatively sane. Carry on and enjoy.”

    First the goal was “restore civility”, then it was to remove “meta” comments, finally “relatively sane”. It isn’t easy to create a sterile imaginary world, Disney tried, and the Republicans still try. Yet, the “real world” with all its warts and blemishes, is far better than any illusions, no matter how well intended.

  36. LOL
    January 11, 2013 at 10:37 am

    To dismiss Padre Pio on the grounds that a single doctor reached an unscientific conclusion in an unscientific short timeframe based on an unscientific examination (all these by his own admission) is… Unscientific.

    The word most educated people would use in that situation is… reasonable. I can’t believe you really believe what you just wrote. You must be trolling yourself. You admit you have bad, unreliable evidence, but then want us to accept the bad evidence at face value. That, sir, is unscientific. You are drawing faith-based conclusions.

  37. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 10:48 am


    Yes, I did read the article you suggested regarding Padre Pio. Perhaps you feel that, on balance, the evidence supports his having stigmata. We’ll have to disagree on that. In the spirit of dialog, I’ll say that most of the evidence in your article was what many people I know would call “anecdotal,” and, for better or worse, we don’t value it as much as we value the report from the doctor at Catholic University. The reaction to “anecdotal” evidence is one of the things that often separates scientists from “people of faith.”


    I can’t disagree. The problem remains… an unknown number of people are sufficiently repelled by the comments that they may stop participating. I understand that others are repelled by attempts at moderating, censoring, or editing. There’s no good solution. You may be right about Disneyland. I’ve given up mainly because I’d hoped a single shock to the system would change its path. I’m not about to keep banging the side of the radio in hopes the signal gets better.

  38. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 10:58 am

    and pesky,

    On the idea that the Pope’s infallibility “extends only to matters of faith and morals, and is unrelated to the exercising of governmental power,” I’ve never understood how if someone is infallible with regard to morals, that person should not automatically be world president.

    The explanation for the Papal shyness, I suspect, is that the Church has long since reconciled itself to the Protestant reformation, and to the Vatican’s difficulty in exercising civil power outside of, perhaps, Italy and possibly some parts of Africa.

    The big complaint much of the West has about Islam is precisely that Islam grew in an environment where it hadn’t lost civil control. As a result, it is much more honest about the importance of ITS beliefs in creating a moral government, and much more consistent in admitting that its mullahs, supposedly being in communication with Yahweh, should run all of society. That’s the danger of Islam, not its particular set of beliefs.

  39. A pesky fact
    January 11, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Papal infallibility was only defined in the 1870s. Ironically, Vatican I, where it occurred, was brought to a close by the military action that also brought an end to the Papal States.

    The infallibility in matters of morals could also be explained in English as, “in matter of moral principles”. The actual implementation of moral principles is a matter of “policy”, which differs from time to time and place to place, and which the Pope does not have infallibility in.

    Example: it is a moral principle that all persons should receive a living wage. How this is put into practice is called a “prudential judgement” of which reasonable persons can and do disagree.

    In short, it’s about the gap between principle and practice. I hope this clarifies a bit.

  40. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 11:14 am

    Come on, pesky. Don’t you think that an organization that tortures heretics is pretty convinced its leader is infallible? Do you really think the IDEA of papal infallibility was introduced only in the late 19th century?

    Is the right of a woman to abort a growing fetus a “moral principle” or a “policy?” Or is the “moral principle” or “policy” that every blastula has a right to be carried to term? If it’s a moral principle, it seems like the Church, to be consistent, should be willing to go just as far as Islam to impose its principles on the world. So the distinction between policy and moral principle seems purely semantic to me.

    It seems straightforward to me — religious institutions with hierarchies want people to do what they say. The only reason they don’t force people to do what they say is they lack power. That’s fortunate for those of us who believe in individual liberty, and who don’t think of Iran as the ultimate moral state.

  41. #35
    January 11, 2013 at 11:25 am

    I agree Mitch and I feel your pain. Will the idiots discourage the folks using their brains? The struggle continues; at school, at work, in traffic, at the HH, et al.

  42. Walt
    January 11, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Mitch, I have trouble differentiating between those in the Vatican who want to tell me (a non-Catholic) what I can and can’t do and those in Teheran who want to tell me (a non-Muslim) what to do and those in Tel-Aviv who want to tell me (a non-Jew) what to do. Or for that matter what those in Washington who want to tell me (a practicing Human) what to do. Each says “Gott mit uns” to rationalize the control they want to have over others. Really, that’s all you need to know about politics or religion.

  43. A pesky fact
    January 11, 2013 at 11:40 am


    This is where specifics start becoming important.

    There are 2 key differences that need addressing first. What you think papal infallibility means (and how it applies), and what it actually means and how it actually applies. I skimmed the wiki on it and it seems a very good overview.


    In addition, there is a fundamental difference between what some persons may (or may not have) believed about the Church in the past, and what the Church itself teaches/taught In addition, the Church has never taught that the members of the Church, nor it’s representatives are infallible in their actions. Just the opposite, rather, that the Church is filled with sinners all in need of salvation and forgiveness.

    Infallibility prevents formal teaching of error. It doesnt prevent/guarantee good decision making.

    I hope I’ve been able to clearly illustrate the difference.

  44. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 11:48 am


    Well, one difference is that you get to vote on who ends up in Washington. If you don’t think your right to vote matters, or has any effect on who ends up in Washington, I understand why you don’t see any difference.

    I don’t think Islam is “worse” than Judaism or Catholicism or Mormonism or Scientology. I just think it’s got more civil power than any of the others, and that makes it more harmful to the populations under its control. I doubt Islam could be much worse than Christian Capitalism, the dominant religion in the North American continent. Christian Capitalism split off from Christianity long ago, but it maintains Christian trappings and ritual, just as Christianity maintains ritual from pagan days.


    I gotta go. Nothing personal.

  45. Anonymous
    January 11, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    Mitch, I don’t think the Church’s willingness to torture was due to their belief in their infallibility at all, rather their lack of belief in the teachings they were forcing on the people – for power.

  46. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm


    I have a really difficult time believing that the torturers didn’t believe they were acting in their supposed God’s name. It’s when people have a real or imaginary end that is MAGNIFICENT that they sometimes become willing to use deplorable means. God has served that end throughout our bloody history. Today, national security will serve.

  47. January 11, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    A marathon of an education that weaves a solid quilt of history:

  48. Mitch
    January 11, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    Not sure why, but I listened to the first couple of minutes, long enough to hear the first allegation (about insider trading based on pre-event knowledge of 9/11). Here’s what snopes.com has to say:


    And: http://911myths.com/html/put_options.html

    Wikipedia, of course, has information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Suspected_insider_trading

    The question I would pose is this: if you were doing a documentary attempting to shed light on 9/11, and chose to mention the increase in puts on airlines, why wouldn’t you mention things like American Airlines’ warning to analysts that major losses would be coming?

    But seriously, if there were conspirators, do you really think they’d have left a trail as obvious as that? Never mind. Don’t answer that.

    Here’s a good read: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

  49. Plain Jane
    January 11, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    Except a great many of those accused of heresy, tortured and murdered were only guilty of having wealth desired by the Church, Mitch. Millions were murdered, not counting Jews and Muslims. It is and has always been an organization to consolidate power and control and if not restrained by secular law would be every bit as oppressive as Islam.

  50. January 11, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    “Not sure why, but I listened to a couple of minutes . . .” Not sure why?

    Perhaps you could get past your ooooh! conspiracy phobia and watch the other five hours that aren’t a documentary of 9-1-1.

  51. Forest Kook
    January 12, 2013 at 7:22 am

    If you won’t watch the full 5 hours of a documentary just because it begins with 30 minutes of pure hysterical nonsense, you’re just not open-minded enough.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s