Message understood?

[Hullfox]

Why?

What does Youtoob say?

Showaddywaddy did it.

[BoneDog]

Why?

What does Youtoob say?

Try 'The New Pearl Harbour' a book written by David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of philosophy at the Claremont School of Theology.

Can't see some folk reading it though cos it's not slandering Islam or Muslims or is not ultra right wing.

There is plenty of other evidence. Hard evidence that most of the science world acknowledges now. I won't bother explaining though

[BoneDog]

I know most people will carry on believing those guys who are KNOWN to constantly lie to us about almost everything. Lie after lie that gets proven, yet some silly people keep on believing them!!

But who cares? Not me

[Hullfox]

There is plenty of other evidence. Hard evidence that most of the science world acknowledges now.

You may well be right in your argument but that is one motherfooker of a sweeping statement you made there.

[BoneDog]

You may well be right in your argument but that is one motherfooker of a sweeping statement you made there.

I think you'd agree if you read what the scientists have to say about the collapses (both in under two hours of getting hit i think). Also plenty of stuff about the steel melting. Lets not forget that most of the fuel was blown away from the towers in fireballs and even if it was in the towers (which it wasn't) then it still wouldn't of got to the temperatures that it takes to melt steel. These are just a couple of points out of many.

The most compelling evidence if you ask me is how the planes managed to even get near the towers (especially the second one) when normally if a plane goes off course for over 60 seconds it has a fighter jet alongside it within 3 minutes. Many commercial planes had this experience in the 6 months before 911 yet on that day NONE of the four planes did!.

On that day, and that day alone, this is the only time that the normal procedures were not followed.

[Edmund]

I think you'd agree if you read what the scientists have to say about the collapses (both in under two hours of getting hit i think). Also plenty of stuff about the steel melting. Lets not forget that most of the fuel was blown away from the towers in fireballs and even if it was in the towers (which it wasn't) then it still wouldn't of got to the temperatures that it takes to melt steel. These are just a couple of points out of many.

The most compelling evidence if you ask me is how the planes managed to even get near the towers (especially the second one) when normally if a plane goes off course for over 60 seconds it has a fighter jet alongside it within 3 minutes. Many commercial planes had this experience in the 6 months before 911 yet on that day NONE of the four planes did!.

On that day, and that day alone, this is the only time that the normal procedures were not followed.

Wasn't there also another tower which went down? A mystery building which was pre warned and evacuated before anything happened. Something along those lines anyway.

[BoneDog]

Wasn't there also another tower which went down? A mystery building which was pre warned and evacuated before anything happened. Something along those lines anyway.

Yes, WTC7 or building 7 as it's sometimes called. The same person owned it and it was demolished about 5pm that day I think. They said fire destroyed it ! There's plenty of vids of it going down. Clear demolition job

[Edmund]

Yes, WTC7 or building 7 as it's sometimes called. The same person owned it and it was demolished about 5pm that day I think. They said fire destroyed it ! There's plenty of vids of it going down. Clear demolition job

Yeah I seen a program on bbc where they were showing it. Someone caught it on camera and they took it to a demolition expert who said it had all the signs of a controlled explosion even though the government claimed it was taken down from explosions of the twin towers.

Im not one for conspiracies but I am open minded on this subject as there seems to be a lot of evidence that something fishy was happening that day which we will never know about. There are to many to class them all as coincidences.

[Hullfox]

I think you'd agree if you read what the scientists have to say about the collapses (both in under two hours of getting hit i think). Also plenty of stuff about the steel melting. Lets not forget that most of the fuel was blown away from the towers in fireballs and even if it was in the towers (which it wasn't) then it still wouldn't of got to the temperatures that it takes to melt steel. These are just a couple of points out of many.

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

- while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Every conspiracy theory can be answered with a counter argument. My point remains that your suggestion that most scientists believe that it was all a conspiracy is a sweeping generalisation.

[BoneDog]

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

- while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Every conspiracy theory can be answered with a counter argument. My point remains that your suggestion that most scientists believe that it was all a conspiracy is a sweeping generalisation.

The expert you talk about is on one side (government), there are many many more who disagree. And no steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire. And if they did it would take hours if not days. (wouldn't happen though)

There are many fireman who were in the buildings that day who said they heard the explosions one after the other like in a demolition.

If the buildings were to collapse the tops would of gone sideways. They collapsed in demo style. There was also unprecedented work going on in both towers the weekend before. Miles of cables were laid along with other work. The power was cut the weekend before for over 36 hours (never happened before) causing main frames to go down. A British accountant or banker who had offices there talks alot about this.

About the fuel, as I said before most of it burned away outside of the towers. That was the fireballs we all saw. It is impossible for those towers to come down as they did. They can withstand massive earthquakes and massive fires. Much bigger fires than occurred that horrible day.

[BoneDog]

This is the one I want someone to explain away most of all. I honestly think only a supporter of the lies could truly say that was just a mistake.

"The most compelling evidence if you ask me is how the planes managed to even get near the towers (especially the second one) when normally if a plane goes off course for over 60 seconds it has a fighter jet alongside it within 3 minutes. Many commercial planes had this experience in the 6 months before 911 yet on that day NONE of the four planes did!."

[Hullfox]

This is the one I want someone to explain away most of all. I honestly think only a supporter of the lies could truly say that was just a mistake.

"The most compelling evidence if you ask me is how the planes managed to even get near the towers (especially the second one) when normally if a plane goes off course for over 60 seconds it has a fighter jet alongside it within 3 minutes. Many commercial planes had this experience in the 6 months before 911 yet on that day NONE of the four planes did!."

Like I said (and I apologise to Thrach because his thread has been hijacked)( there's irony and comedy) any of your arguments can be countered and vice versa.

"Washington, D.C., September 9, 2005 - Ten minutes after American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controllers in New York saw United Airlines Flight 175 heading "right towards the city," [p.13] but thought it was aiming for an emergency landing at a New York airport, according to FAA documents released this week under the Freedom of Information Act and posted on the web by the National Security Archive. Minutes later, Flight 175 hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.

The FAA documents, which are referenced extensively in Chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report, provide further detail on the report's chronology of the hijackings and its overall observation that the FAA was woefully unprepared and disorderly in its response to the attack. Distracted by Flight 11, the FAA notified the military at about 9:03 am that Flight 175 had been hijacked, almost the exact time the plane crashed into the second World Trade Center tower. Records show Flight 175 first exhibited signs of distress at 8:46 am"

[BoneDog]

Like I said (and I apologise to Thrach because his thread has been hijacked)( there's irony and comedy) any of your arguments can be countered and vice versa.

"Washington, D.C., September 9, 2005 - Ten minutes after American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controllers in New York saw United Airlines Flight 175 heading "right towards the city," [p.13] but thought it was aiming for an emergency landing at a New York airport, according to FAA documents released this week under the Freedom of Information Act and posted on the web by the National Security Archive. Minutes later, Flight 175 hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.

The FAA documents, which are referenced extensively in Chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report, provide further detail on the report's chronology of the hijackings and its overall observation that the FAA was woefully unprepared and disorderly in its response to the attack. Distracted by Flight 11, the FAA notified the military at about 9:03 am that Flight 175 had been hijacked, almost the exact time the plane crashed into the second World Trade Center tower. Records show Flight 175 first exhibited signs of distress at 8:46 am"

That is all statement from the people who are spinning the lie though. As for them thinking it was heading to make an emergency landing, well they would not think that. They had no contact. And they would of sent interceptors as is always the case. It is standard procedure for the FAA.

The commission report is written by people in on the plan. That report leaves more questions unanswered than anything.

[Thracian]

Are these your words or the words of the report?

Either way they are complete bollocks! Never heard so much shit in all my life.

Anyone who wants to criticize Muslims all the time should really read the Koran so they know what they are talking about. Cos most the time people just use examples that are made up or wrong. Let's not forget there are 'real' Muslims and 'fake' muslims.

If you read the book you won't need me to quote it or to precis any part of its content.

And the book was written by the most learned of Muslim scholars who held a scholarly position in the heart of a strongly Muslim society.

Seems to me that even the greatest Muslim scholars argue about message of the Koran. The book I've mentioned speaks about mens actions in the name of the Koran which, to me, is highly relevent to events in the world today and indeed to events within our own society.

By all means tell me about "real" Muslims and "fake" Muslims because from what I have read - and I have read a lot both in books and on Islamic websites - there were two messages to Mohammad, the second one being markedly different to the first.

[Hullfox]

That is all statement from the people who are spinning the lie though.

The commission report is written by people in on the plan.

You are really mising my point here

In your arguments, everything you say is the truth, everything else is a lie. You have accepted the conspiracy theory lock stock and barrel and won't consider for one minute the other side of the argument or indeed counter it with anything other than the "lie" accusation.

I seem to remember that your stance was the same in the israeli/palestinian thread where you denied the existence of an underground network of tunnels and claimed that the palestinians armoury of weapons consisted of fireworks on sticks.

You may be well read but you come across as being very blinkered once you've had your mind made up.

[Dr The Singh]

Are these your words or the words of the report?

Either way they are complete bollocks! Never heard so much shit in all my life.

Anyone who wants to criticize Muslims all the time should really read the Koran so they know what they are talking about. Cos most the time people just use examples that are made up or wrong. Let's not forget there are 'real' Muslims and 'fake' muslims.

Unfortunately Empty my friend It does exist, Al-Tiqaya is nothing new, I have heard muslims talk of this, and have heard the term and it's reference by my own ears.

Again Empty, the Quran is an open book open for interpretation and there are many Sura's whose nature can be interpreted in many ways, by the way it has nothing to do with it's arabic origins. Modern scholarly is far more adept then that!! Also the quran meaning is useless without knowing in which way, when and why those suras were said, they would just be sentences, hence the hadiths come into play they link the suras to the actual event the prophet had said them and why...which links into Mohammads life, his biography and alot of his life is exiting and yet contreversial. Unfortunately Mohammed did not prohicise his own death, his untimely death probably did not allow him to set his doctrine 'in stone'!!! This is a problem not just with Islam, but with all faiths, unfortunately with Islam, it's extremism has come forth now, whereas eg christainity it has passed (IMO)!!!

All in all, Islam is a very complicated issue, first in which the quran's sura's are not in date order hence there is no timeline of events, second is the whole host of hadiths and third his biography. IMO, it is evident to see why Islam has splintered, and why there are parties and groups which have found extremist notions from Islam and very humble notions from it!! FOr me, man must decide what it believes in which way he\she wants to live not by a book!!

What is a 'real' or 'fake' muslim?? We have sunni, we have shia, suffi etc etc. All cliam there version is 'real', in relation to what I have written above, the quran being interpretable and reliant on other references has lead to this splintering!

Back on the topic, firstly we all recognise that there is a problem with many Islamic groups following a more 'extreme' order\version of Islam. I have said before, it is for Muslims to tackle this issue with the support of the rest of us. Unfortunately when a non muslim attacks the Islam, there are waves of protests and even fatwas, but when a muslim uses the quran for there own interpretation there is non eg Osama, Bakhri, Dr Zakir Naik. Dr Zakir Maik, a well loved scholar throughout the world, one which is loved by many youths in the west, often challenges other religious leaders for a debate. This guy will never do a online debate, why??? Because what he says in a debate can be verified and on many occassions he has lied and interpretated the quran and other doctrine falsely, not only that he he has inrefutable evidence to show according to islam, death of apostates, beating of women and many other contreversial things which the majority say are false. Then tell me this, why on earth is this guy recruiting people in his doctrine, why is there no protest against him, why are muslims so quite, if they really want people to believe that Islam is fair and honest faith and then behave in a fair and honest way against your own aswell??????

[BoneDog]

You are really mising my point here

In your arguments, everything you say is the truth, everything else is a lie. You have accepted the conspiracy theory lock stock and barrel and won't consider for one minute the other side of the argument or indeed counter it with anything other than the "lie" accusation.

I seem to remember that your stance was the same in the israeli/palestinian thread where you denied the existence of an underground network of tunnels and claimed that the palestinians armoury of weapons consisted of fireworks on sticks.

You may be well read but you come across as being very blinkered once you've had your mind made up.

I don't say I know what happened that day, all I say is that I know it was not like the official story says. There have been too many story changes by the US administration and there is too much evidence to suggest things were not as we are told.

I know what you mean about how I sound. I keep looking back at what I write and then get embarrassed and think 'I'll talk different next time' but never seem to!

As for the Israeli thing, I said the Palestinians have AK's and other light weapons but I said the rockets were home-made things and not smuggled in. This is because I have seen a few videos of them making and firing them. I have also seen alot of videos of the 'damage' they have done when they have been 'lucky' (if that's what you'd call it) enough to hit a building. I have seen kitchens hit and there are still unsmashed plates on the table and no windows smashed. I was just trying to explain what uneffective and weak weapons the rockets are compared to the missiles fired from the other side which explode on a massive scale.

[BoneDog]

Unfortunately Empty my friend It does exist, Al-Tiqaya is nothing new, I have heard muslims talk of this, and have heard the term and it's reference by my own ears.

Again Empty, the Quran is an open book open for interpretation and there are many Sura's whose nature can be interpreted in many ways, by the way it has nothing to do with it's arabic origins. Modern scholarly is far more adept then that!! Also the quran meaning is useless without knowing in which way, when and why those suras were said, they would just be sentences, hence the hadiths come into play they link the suras to the actual event the prophet had said them and why...which links into Mohammads life, his biography and alot of his life is exiting and yet contreversial. Unfortunately Mohammed did not prohicise his own death, his untimely death probably did not allow him to set his doctrine 'in stone'!!! This is a problem not just with Islam, but with all faiths, unfortunately with Islam, it's extremism has come forth now, whereas eg christainity it has passed (IMO)!!!

All in all, Islam is a very complicated issue, first in which the quran's sura's are not in date order hence there is no timeline of events, second is the whole host of hadiths and third his biography. IMO, it is evident to see why Islam has splintered, and why there are parties and groups which have found extremist notions from Islam and very humble notions from it!! FOr me, man must decide what it believes in which way he\she wants to live not by a book!!

What is a 'real' or 'fake' muslim?? We have sunni, we have shia, suffi etc etc. All cliam there version is 'real', in relation to what I have written above, the quran being interpretable and reliant on other references has lead to this splintering!

Back on the topic, firstly we all recognise that there is a problem with many Islamic groups following a more 'extreme' order\version of Islam. I have said before, it is for Muslims to tackle this issue with the support of the rest of us. Unfortunately when a non muslim attacks the Islam, there are waves of protests and even fatwas, but when a muslim uses the quran for there own interpretation there is non eg Osama, Bakhri, Dr Zakir Naik. Dr Zakir Maik, a well loved scholar throughout the world, one which is loved by many youths in the west, often challenges other religious leaders for a debate. This guy will never do a online debate, why??? Because what he says in a debate can be verified and on many occassions he has lied and interpretated the quran and other doctrine falsely, not only that he he has inrefutable evidence to show according to islam, death of apostates, beating of women and many other contreversial things which the majority say are false. Then tell me this, why on earth is this guy recruiting people in his doctrine, why is there no protest against him, why are muslims so quite, if they really want people to believe that Islam is fair and honest faith and then behave in a fair and honest way against your own aswell??????

Yes I agree Al-Taqiya exists but it's not a bad thing. Muslims were getting persecuted back then just as they are now in most Muslim countries round the world. All Al-Taqiya means is to hide your religion and not tell people if it means your life would be in danger. It doesn't mean hide your religion so you can get up to mischief. If some people have took it to mean that then they are not Muslim. They are fakes just like there are lots of fake Christians.

I don't think Christian extremism has passed. Robertson and the like are stronger than ever and are backing the extreme right to the hilt. They are also calling for Holy war to protect Jerusalem until Jesus comes back!

A real Muslim is someone who follows the Koran and Sunnah in its original form with no innovations. If you study the Koran and Hadith it is easy to see who is a real Muslim or not. Anyone following innovations is a fake. How can someone say they are a Muslim when they don't follow their book? The same as Christians who don't follow what Jesus said. It doesn't make sense. Being a Christian means to be like Christ was in his life and follow his way. There are fakes in both and they are easy to spot if you know what these religions really teach.

Zakir Naik is not an extremist ! He has debates all the time with Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians. I've seen loads of em and he is not an extremist. I must of watched 25-30 hours of his talks and he is peaceful. I have seen the small clips of his talks that people use to try and slander him, but these clips don't tell the real story of what he's saying. I think that anyone who watches the whole things will see.

[Flynny]

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

- while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Every conspiracy theory can be answered with a counter argument. My point remains that your suggestion that most scientists believe that it was all a conspiracy is a sweeping generalisation.

In fairness you could do this for days. I've got no opnion on what went on because I can't get my head around it all but something definitely seems a bit fishy. Most conspiracy theorists decide what 'must' have happened and look for evidence based on that, and end up making some strong arguments and some weak ones that discredit them.

If you just accept that 'something a bit weird went on' and look for stuff to back that up it becomes much easier - there was definitely molten steel in the remains, I've seen several pictures of it - how that happened has never been explained and probably never will be because conspiracy buffs like to take everything too far.

[BoneDog]

In fairness you could do this for days. I've got no opnion on what went on because I can't get my head around it all but something definitely seems a bit fishy. Most conspiracy theorists decide what 'must' have happened and look for evidence based on that, and end up making some strong arguments and some weak ones that discredit them.

If you just accept that 'something a bit weird went on' and look for stuff to back that up it becomes much easier - there was definitely molten steel in the remains, I've seen several pictures of it - how that happened has never been explained and probably never will be because conspiracy buffs like to take everything too far.

One word - Thermite !!

[James.]

I'm assuming the conspiracy theorists think that the US government would destroy the World Trade Centre to justify the war on Aghanistan, Iraq, etc?

That just doesn't seem quite right to me, did they really need to do THAT to justify it? I don't think so. If I'm wrong in my assumption I'd be interested to know what the theoretical objective would have been.

[BoneDog]

I'm assuming the conspiracy theorists think that the US government would destroy the World Trade Centre to justify the war on Aghanistan, Iraq, etc?

That just doesn't seem quite right to me, did they really need to do THAT to justify it? I don't think so. If I'm wrong in my assumption I'd be interested to know what the theoretical objective would have been.

Who knows why they would of done it? I think some powerful group (not necessarily the people we know like Bush etc but people more powerful) were involved inside the US else the planes would never of got to their destinations in the first place. The standard procedure that happens when an airliner goes off course for more than 60 seconds was not used on FOUR planes that day. And it just happens those four planes were on the biggest terrorist mission ever known to man. There are records that show all the times a plane has gone off course and the action that fighter jets take. There are a few air bases around that area and fighters can intercept any plane within 3 minutes notice anywhere in New York or Washington. Just seems very dodgy to me

[Daggers]

So, governments can cover up a massive inside operation to instigate a "global war on terror"...but they can't cover up porn film expense receipts, brutality in prisoner of war camps or blow job cum stains.

Seriously - those of you who believe in conspiracies need to wake up.

[BoneDog]

I think that 'conspiracy theorist' is a term that shouldn't be used so much. Whenever someone accuses the governments of lying they get called it. We all know governments lie (WMD's for one example) so it shouldn't be such a bad thing accusing them of it

[BoneDog]

So, governments can cover up a massive inside operation to instigate a "global war on terror"...but they can't cover up porn film expense receipts, brutality in prisoner of war camps or blow job cum stains.

Seriously - those of you who believe in conspiracies need to wake up.

I'm not saying a government did anything. Most people realise that Prime-Ministers or Presidents aren't the real power. I think that folks who say the official story is wrong realise that there are very powerful people above the President who were involved. All these ministers who get caught doing stupid shit are not the real brains behind anything.

You say that folks who believe in conspiricies need to wake up, are you saying there is no such thing as a conspiracy?

A conspiracy just means 'a secret plan'. I think that's the dictionary meaning.