The_Patriot21

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Not at all. The facts they had, and still have, is that the ship collided with the bridge pillar. Period.

Calling it an accident is an opinion, pure and simple, and must be stated as such by any legitimate media outlet.

An opinion based on the evidence at hand. 

The reason you don't see it, is your going into it with a bias in the other direction. Your assuming it's a conspiracy before knowing all the facts, which ironically your doing the exact same thing your accusing the media of doing, just on the other side of the issue, and without any actual evidence to the fact.

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Certainly not.

Question: why was the ship headed toward the pillar when the power went out? That alone arouses my suspicion.

1000-foot ships don't get blown around by a modest wind. Too much inertia.

 

Did you watch the video? I did. The ship was aimed to go under the bridge under the pylons when the power went out. 

I agree with you, again judging by the video and weather reports there wasn't enough wind to push it anyway. But that doesn't mean there wasn't other natural forces acting on it. A river has something called a current...and currents don't follow a straight line and could change course of the ship-especially if the ship had the rudder in the wrong spot when they lost power.

A ship like that without power is largely dependent on the currents.

49 minutes ago, FJK said:

Well, time will tell.

At least to someone, maybe someone unwilling to share it with others.

Unlikely. Notice I said I didn't blame the journalists for their initial reporting, as it lined up with the facts available at the time.

I also said it doesn't prove it wasn't a terrorist attack.

While I agree with the initial assessment I don't trust the media to report honestly if new information comes to light showing it was terrorism. If evidence comes to light that it was indeed intentional, I suspect the media will never report on that unless it helps those in power in DC.

This is how I count to 4. My wife says I'm not allowed to count any higher.

2 hours ago, FJK said:

Isn't that sort of like announcing that an act of mass shooting by someone shouting "Alahu Akbar" is not an act of terrorism while the bodies are still being carried away (and this is not a hypothetical situation) and the motives are not known?

Deliberate sabotage for terrorist reasons were ruled out before the real reasons for the apparent failures are known (and are still unknown)?

Chances are that if it was done for terrorism, or other politically incorrect reasons, it could quite likely never be brought to light in the public (remember that we still have not had the Covenant school shooter's manifesto made public when it was originally promised that it would be).

In a world of deceit, it is not a wise thing to be trusting without questioning.

Not really. Because In that case the person announced his intentions ahead of time. Guy walks in with a gun shouting terroristic threats and then actually shooting people? Yeah that's like comparing apples to oranges, and it's a horrible comparison.

If they said that shooter wasn't a terrorist right off the bat that's deceitful. Which yes, the media has certainly misrepresented that.

However in this case there was absolutely zero evidence initially that this was an act of terrorism. There still isn't. No one yelled Allah ack bar. No one made any threats. And to date no terrorist organization has laid claim to it. There was zero evidence then of terrorism, and there still is zero.

So to report it as terrorism would be deceitful. And it's logical for a news agency to report on the facts they have, and the facts they had initially, and the facts they have now, show tragic accident and not terrorism. 

So unless you have some actual facts, and not baseless conjecture to suggest anything different, then there's nothing wrong with how they're reporting it.

3 hours ago, FJK said:

Being fair, it was almost immediately announced that it was not an act of terrorism when the only thing really known was that a boat had hit the bridge and the reasons for it were mostly still just initial guesswork.

 

Well, no it was fair. Just watching the video there's zero evidence of foul play. It wasn't a fully functioning aircraft smashing into a building followed by another fully functional aircraft smashing into the neighboring building. There was no massive explosion.

There was two things reported immediately, one the eye witnesses, being the crew, claiming equipment malfunction. This was announced over the radio before the strike. This was how the toll booths were able to shut down the bridge limiting the casualties.

This radio call also gave someone (probably more then one but so far as I've seen they've only released one video) enough time to video the incident, which shows exactly what the crew was reporting, power failures and obvious signs of equipment malfunction.

Now this doesn't prove it wasn't terrorism. It absolutely could be. But to jump right out and scream terrorim when there were no obvious signs of foul play would not only be poor journalism but fear mongering, and could quite literally lead to panic in the streets in Baltimore.

They could have just not commented period and said their was a strike, but quite frankly, then everyone would have been screaming cover up anyway.

Any decent journalist would report on what they saw and heard based on the evidence and initial reports look like a tragic accident.

If it turns out to be terrorism it's no big deal to report on that when the evidence comes to light.

1 hour ago, other one said:

The ship was under control of the Harbor Master people until it is out past the bridge and maybe further., not the captain.

All I am saying is we need to wait to see what shows up when it's really investigated. Who do you know that can tell us for certain what happened to this bridge?  I've watched it hit it and knock it down, and I saw the lights go out and understand what that entails.  I saw the wake of the ship and I took the time to look at My Radar to see the direction of the wind and the speed to see what it would do to the ship that was coasting without power.  What the pilot reported, and the video shows, all adds up to being exactly what they said. It may well be that the problem was/is some very substandard fuel the ship picked up for the trip.  Tests will show that, but it takes time to test it.

Yes...but it would have been the captains choice to sail, that's what I was getting at, and previous bad choices to me shows the captains judgement to not be the best. And a ship without power has limited to no control, regardless of how good the crew is. Just judging by the video there wasn't likely enough wind to affect a ship of that size...maybe I'm wrong.

Bad fuel is a definite possibility...though I suspect would have reared its ugly head before it got to that point, but it's not beyond the realm of possibilities. I've seen water suspend itself in oil before with my own eyes.

On 3/26/2024 at 2:37 PM, other one said:

They had a harbor master crew guiding the ship out of port. They had reported that they were having some kind of propulsion problem and had lost control of the ship.  I had wondered how something like this had happened and wondered if it was on purpose.  Seems as though trained specialists were at the controls when something went wrong.

Indeed but further study shows some major flaws.

First this isn't the first time the captain has hit something, so likely we're not talking cream of the crop crew here, which is further evidenced by the fact the ship was sailing anyway.

Because also according to the articles I was reading the ship had been down for a couple months for similar mechanical issues that they couldn't figure out what they had. So we have a captain with a questionable history taking a boat that wasn't necessarily sea worthy out to sea.

And while it was being guided by the harbor crew, watching the video you can see It lose power twice before losing it completely. Neither time power "came back" did it come back fully, only some of the lights came on, and the second time it belched black smoke.

Black smoke in diesel motors signals incomplete combustion. It can be caused by multiple things, including a cold start, bad pistons, stuck valves, injectors etc.

From the looks of it, the motors supplying the power died, and they made at least two attempts to restart the motors without succeeding or if they did only partial starts followed by immediate dieing again. And without those motors running, there's no power and no propulsion, making steering difficult, even for a A+ crew.

It looks like straight up mechanical failure to me, not an intentional wreck.

Now that doesn't count out intentional sabotage. I don't think they intentionally aimed for the bridge, but I wouldn't put it past certain parties picking a shop with a history of mechanical problems and a lousy captain to sabotage-it makes a excellent cover. And a ship that large losing control in a narrow harbor can certainly cause major problems regardless of whether it hit the bridge or not.

However, since Covid, most industries have been suffering, everything from personal shortages to maintenance problems. Finding parts to fix things has been difficult, finding enough qualified people to properly maintain and fix things has also been a challenge for most industries.

So there's very high chance this is what it appears, a accident caused by mechanical failures brought upon by human incompetence.

The one thing Im sure of, is those in power will take this incident exploit it to the maximum effect possible.

That's unfortunate. Now, cue all the conspiracy theorists willing to run with it before even attempting to know all the facts in 3...2....1....

1 hour ago, Sower said:

                             Big Lou's Pizza, San Antonio Texas..

                         Multi Flavor, with or without pineapple...

See any pineapple

 

 

 

Yes, lots of it lol

2 hours ago, ladypeartree said:

make sure it is the appropriate committee

The appropriations committee?

1 hour ago, Slibhin said:

- The Guardian isn't a tabloid, it's a compact. Calling it a Tabloid because you don't like it doesn't make it one.

- The cite their sources, tabloids don't.

- Their staff are journalists, tabloid staff are not.

- Unlike the United States, the news overseas actually have editorial standards. Politicians in the UK can't show up on opinion shows during an election cycle for example, and Newspapers are subject to libel and other slander laws. In addition newspapers in the UK love exposing other papers for lying, so they tend not to do it too much.

- The narrative that never seems to end, that everyone who hates Donald Trump is a brainwashed dolt who only listens to the "MSM"... even those of us who do not even get CNN/MSNBC/Whatever is laughable. Most people who don't like him will say exactly why in detail. His cult of defenders, like you, will just call everyone and everything a liar/mislead.

You are an example of why authoritarians and fascists get to power so easily. You hate "the other side" so much that you can't see straight. His supporters at the end of the day love him because they think he hurts the people they hate. We don't need the "mainstream media" to tell us what to think... we just have to see his actions and listen to the words flying out of that hole in his face. The reason you don't understand why everyone else can't stand him and therefore they must be brainwashed MSM schmucks, is because the things that you guys think are his winning attributes are what all normal people find revolting about him.

Lol ok. That's why in the 2000s they were running articles on flat earth and on how Obama was a space alien wearing a human suit.

No...it's a tabloid.

Granted most of your MSM isn't really any more reliable then tabloids, but still.

Apparently it doesn't take much to go from a supermarket tabloid to "reliable news source" apparently, all it takes is "sources" and a crazy story that people actually want to hear.

And it's sad there's not much difference between CNN and the gaurdian.

Just goes to show that true journalism is a thing of the past 

Lol you know, once upon a time no one would take tabloids like the gaurdian seriously. In fact, even the left hasn't, I mean if trump had actually said any of this CBS, NBC, CNN, etc would be all over it.

Yet we have a few cringe anti Trumpers who will believe what even the MSM who hates trump won't believe, just because it tickles their ears.

On 2/15/2024 at 4:18 AM, ladypeartree said:

My son in law took my daughter out for a romantic valentines day meal last night ( I had the children yippee )    At the end of the meal the waiter brought a red rose to my daughter and presented it to her . Her husband was NOT amused and I agree it was very inappropriate  for any male to give a rose to another mans wife  My daughter thought it was fine till she was asked how she would feel if a waitress gave her husband a rose in front of her  HMMMMMM 

Now who thinks it was an appropriate gesture as it was valentines day who thinks it was inappropriate even on an appropriate day ??

Well, his intent may have just been to be polite. It may have been a restaurant policy. Buuuut it's not really appropriate either, regardless of intent.

Ok, so what's stopping you from going and doing so?

10 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

The OP, as is typical for threads I initiate opens with a scripture that references Jezebel who influenced the saints to apostasy. A clear concern is established for any modern influence that does the same. The OP then used a teaching from Peter to bring the focus to the church. I don't see my responsibility to other perceptions other than respond with further elaboration, which unfortunately cannot be found without further reading. If as you claim there was a "blanket application of terminology" perhaps someone could have actually cited/quoted from the OP so that a better way of expressing the concerns could be considered. Thanks for the feedback

 

You went from jezebel to influencers, with no mention of it being used for good. The natural assumption in your natural post is your talking about all influencers, and going back and reading the comments it's obvious I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion.

While I believe you when you say that wasn't your intention, that was how it came across, and it maybe wise to make your intent a little clearer in the future.

It's the curse of online forums like this, in that were depending on the written word to coney our message and intent. If we don't use enough words we often fail to convey our intended message, but if we use to many the post goes to long and people stop reading before getting a full understanding. It's a fine line we all walk my friend.

Im not saying this as an attack, but merely a suggestion for you in the future. Have a good day.

3 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

It was established early on that sharing testimonies, and the Gospel message is not what the OP is about, nor is the reference to "mass murderers" connected to Influencers, but Peter's statement concerning "busybodies".

Your comments don't reflect on the OP at all. There was no blanket term applied or "false flag". If there had been, your comments would certainly be valid, and are appreciated nonetheless.

Well, that is not the message that is conveyed in your original post-which is what I was referring to when I said OP. 

Most people aren't going to take the time to read 5 pages of comments to figure out if your backtracked your initial post, so in the future you may want to take that into consideration when making your first post.

You know we're all influencers in one way or another. Are we mass murderers?

Now on to the ops definition. I watch a lot of FB reels and find a lot of christian influencers on there, spreading Christ's love. Are they mass murderers?

I would say no. I would say the ops claim is a unscriptural generalization at best.

Social media is a thing now. It's an integral part of culture and it's not going away. It's where the people are, like it or not. And If we hide from it that doesn't do anything to further the kingdom of God.

Because social media isnt inherently evil or good. It's a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's largely used for evil, that is true.

But going through the reels I see many Christian influencers using the platform of their choice to spread the gospel. They're being in the world but not of it, using the tools available to them to preach Christ to those that will listen, just like the apostle Paul did on Mars hill.

I myself have used social media for good. It's a powerful tool that can indeed be used for good, hence why it's being censored so badly. 

So to compare influencers to mass murderers, isn't scriptural. At least not as a blanket term, there certainly are a great many of them that are following selfish desires, but they aren't all doing so and it's a disservice and a false claim to paint them all under the same flag.

Good 

7 hours ago, Henry_iain said:

I'm basically in agreement.  I do want to speak in the defence of Sam though.  I always consider him to be, in a sense more truly heroic than Frodo but that is a different conversation. I don't think Sam can really help expecting the worst from Gollum. It has a lot to do with their roles and personalities. Sam is fiercely loyal and  is suspicious of any individual that tries to interact with or approach  Frodo without clear purpose. He tries his best to give Gollum a chance but Gollum justifies his suspicions too often. 

Another interesting  thought to consider: near the end, Frodo himself succumbs to the rings power and it's only a stroke of luck (or is it perhaps a miracle) that saved the day. What would have happened if Gollum had been killed by Sam earlier? 

A good question to ask what would have happened if Frodo had actually completed his task without Gollum falling in? Could there then have been some hope for restoration? 

Interesting notion, had gollum not gone after the ring, it would not have been destroyed. It would have taken frodo, and ultimately fell into saurons hands.

Hobbits had more resilience to the ring then humans, but they were still susceptible to it. It would have even taken sam had he been the ring bearer.

There were people in middle earth who could. The ring held no power over dwarves, for example. However most dwarves would not have tried to destroy it but rather bury it in their treasure heap. The few that would, such as gimli, would have never have been able to get it there, as they would have killed gollum on sight and as such never found the secret entrance.

Outside of dwarves the only person that was impervious to the ring was Tom Bombadil, who according to Tolkien's other writings was a equal match to sauron in power If not more powerful, as long as he stayed in his woods. Keyword there. He lost his power if he left, and even if he did was far to absentminded to be able to make the journey.

Gandalf of course knew all this, including that frodo wouldn't be able to destroy the ring on his own, but that's a study for another time.

Interesting. The white house has proven it can actually run a budget and cut costs when it comes to circumnavigating congress, but not when it comes to eliminating national debt.

I should add, that Tolkien didn't intentionally write analogies into the LOTRs like lewis did with Narnia. in fact, in an interview he was asked about analogies and he denied it, according to him the LOTRs was intended for entertainment purposes only.

However one can easily make analogies out of a lot of the content, I believe a lot of that was because his faith just naturally flowed into his writing. But it was not intentional, and there certainly are elements that cannot be made into analogies at all. 

6 hours ago, RdJ said:

They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.
John 16:2‭-‬3 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.16.2-3.NKJV

 

He let a Jewish christian be burned because of how he saw the Trinity and I looked it up but could not find that he was sorry. They warned him, but he refused to listen.

You've completely missed my point but that's ok I see no further point to this discussion. Have a good one.

36 minutes ago, D. Adrien said:

I'd question if perhaps it wasn't the god of this world using these guys to murder and destroy.

I would say don't blame him for the actions of others. Now I don't condone all of his actions, but his actions did lead to a lot of good as well. 

I mean he's not even the first man of this nature that God's used.

Abraham was a horrible father.

Moses was a murderer.

King David was an adulterer and a murderer.

King Solomon was a womanizer.

Samson was not only selfish but also a womanizer who let his lust control him.

Matthew was a tax collector.

Paul before coming to Christ was a persecutor of the saints.

In fact going through the Bible many of the people God chose to use would not only be considered immoral by our standards, but they would make Calvin look positively tame by comparison.

God has His plan, and He uses corrupt men to do it. 

Which is good, because we are all corrupt. None of us are perfect and we all come with our own moral baggage.

Calvin was a product of his time. We look back on him and say hey look at all this evil he did, but to many don't take into account the time he was in. Luthor and Armenian were every bit the extremists Calvin was, but I don't see you going after them.

None of us are perfect. But it helps to take into context the world historical figures lived in to understand the why they did what they did, and it helps to remember that just like them, were sinners to, and we are all in need of the same grace.