I know! The terrorists planted a bomb in the WTC, and then flew planes into it to cover up the fact that they had a bomb!



Think again....

Qur'an/Koran: collection of revelations given by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel
Muslim: one who submits to God
Islam: literally means "submission" in Arabic; the name of the religion

The majority of Muslims would not run into a crowded public place and detonated ten packs of C4 strapped to their chest. However, simply because the majority don't believe in this doesn't mean that the (relative) minority wouldn't fly a plane into an infidel country's buildings. Islam teaches that one of the most sure ways to get into Heaven and act of submission to Allah is to die defending or spreading your religion. Some people, like Bin Laden, have used this to convince some that terrorist attacks against the West is an act of defense of Islam.

Are you trying to imply that, because there are Muslims who aren't extremists, that there lies a possibility that the government had its hand in the WTC attacks? Or has someone here said that all Muslims are extremists?

What? no.

I am saying that it's not at all inconceivable for a muslim beliving person, who is so into their belief that they would slaughter people or die for it, to also follow the rules of not drinking alcohol or visiting strip clubs.

Ok

Alright

Bill your comment is silly. Verily so, indeed.

Interesting site. Although, I dont think even Karl Rove would be THAT devious.

Seriously, where did that guy get the info on the F-16s running at 23.8% thrust?

I'm sorry, but America had no real plan for something like this. It was chaos that day and for a few weeks afterwards. Everyone was unsure and it rumbled up and down. Now, you could say that Bush/The Republicans milked 9/11 for all its worth politically, but the Dems would have done the same thing. I hate the American political machine for what its done to the victims of 9/11 and the Iraq War. Both sides using it for political gain when American lives are being lost.

But that's not the true Islamic belief. Non-radicals and true muslims believe in peace and the good of their fellow man. If they're willing to defy one part of the Koran why not defy another?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]But that's not the true Islamic belief. Non-radicals and true muslims believe in peace and the good of their fellow man. If they're willing to defy one part of the Koran why not defy another?[/QUOTE]

EXACTLY

indeed.

The extremists WANT us to start painting ALL muslims with the same brush, so all christians or non believers will hate all muslims, and there can be another holy war jyhad thing ma bob.

personally, i believe it wasnt da tewwowists, it was the Tzimisce antedeluvian waking up and using his extensive powers to cause cause, and then swallow the twin towers whole and take the blood of the victims!
Come on, you were all thinking it too, its possible!!!

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

And on the other hand, it's not inconceivable that someone willing to violate the laws of his religion by slaughtering innocents

Some other points in rebuttal to those raised on the website:
- From everything I've heard, the short-selling of UAL and AAL stocks was done by the hijackers and their accomplices.
- People, particularly important people, change travel plans all the time, and there are a lot of important people out there. If the attacks had happened on 6/25 instead of 9/11, you could probably come up with a similar list of people who'd changed their plans on that day and the day before.
- The author seems to believe that the immediate response by US air defense would have been to shoot the airliners down. This makes no sense when you consider that, prior to 9/11/01, virtually all airliner hijackings were hostage hijackings in which the hijackers would return the plane and passengers in exchange for money/political concessions/release of prisoners/etc.
- The success of the hijackers in taking the planes with only knives can be explained in similar terms. Flight crews likely believed that the hijacking was a hostage hijacking, and by the time they learned otherwise, it was too late.
- The difficulties in coordination between the FAA and NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector) are explained in detail in the first chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report. AA 11 crashed into the North Tower a mere forty seconds after fighters were scrambled. The FAA did not suspect that UA 175 had been hijacked until just eight minutes before it hit the South Tower. NEADS did not know AA 77 was missing until it was four minutes away from hitting the Pentagon, and as the author of Temperamental's article notes, it would have taken the fighters from NYC 9.6 minutes to get to the capital. NEADS did not even know that the last flight, UA 93, had been hijacked until four minutes after it crashed. Both the FAA and the air defense system were completely unprepared for the attacks. The author talks about the AD grid operating "normally" when in fact there was no "normal" response to multiple hijackings and suicide attacks.
- I'm not sure what the author hopes to prove by pointing out that no other steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed in the way the WTC did. To my knowledge, no other steel-frame buildings have ever had a jet-fuel fire in them either.
- No one has yet been able to provide a rational motive for either allowing the attacks to happen or engineering them.

I agree. I'm just saying that there is a possibility of both side's.

Guys, the statistic was on some show about why 9/11 conspiracies are stupid... I don't think they would make up a stat like that...

And guess what MB, I know a large amount of people too. My boss even lived in New York on 9/11. He doesn't believe it. Alot of people don't believe it.

You see Bill, the difference is the people im talking about are all new yorkers. You are talking about one person who was there at the time. I am talking about a collective of friends and acquaintences that probably numbers past 500. Oh. And all of these people are from NY, NJ, or CT.
So if you noticed, you know 1 person that was in NY.
The amount of people I know and would call you wrong far outnumber that one man.

"Some show that wouldn't make it up?"

Surely you can do better than that... I'm frankly disappointed.

MB my point is he and nearly everyone he knew from NY agree on this. It's not just the one man..

Anyway I'm not going to argue about this any longer because frankly it's pointless to do so.

I live in NYC, and I've never met a person who has voiced the opinion that 9/11 was anything other than terrorism.

RAAAARRRRG!

This all reminds me of The Crusades!

http://www.911timeline.net/


^theres another site which has some interesting stuff if you're interested


I dont really think that theres a big conspiracy (although possible, but then again anything's possible)

Why is it pointless? Because you know youre wrong? Thats fine.

But have you ever stopped to consider that maybe "I know a guy that knows some people that say ____" isnt exactly the most accurate of statements?

It's ok, Beggar. NY is full of nut cases that would believe all the conspriacy bull****. Maybe the guy Bill knows is one of them and all that guys friends are some more of those nut jobs.

haha, its funny because its true

It's pointless to argue because we've done it before. You just say a bunch of stuff about how since you live in the area what you think is more valid than what I think, and I say a bunch of stuff about how you're ignorant, and it goes on and on and nothing is accomplished. I want to stop arguing not because I know I'm wrong, it's because I know you think I'm wrong.

Think what you want, but the majority of New Yorkers don't beleive the conspiracy crap.

Hugs For Avenger!

Bill, you have 2 options.

1. Prove it.

2. Exit is to your right.

The same can be said for the people onthe other side of this argument.

Nope. Burden of proof is on Bill et al.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Nope. Burden of proof is on Bill et al.[/QUOTE]

Not really, the burden of PROOF is on both sides. The burden of making said person's statement make sense is on Bill, as it's generally accepted that most New Yorkers would go with the terrorist...er....theory...or...whatever.

This is the poll I think Bill is talking about:



http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

I'm going to ask the question again, just for the fun of it: Can anyone tell me what could possibly motivate the U.S. government to either allow these attacks or stage them, killing thousands of people and causing an economic recession in the process?

WHY IT'S OBVIOUS, THEY WANTED TO GET OIL FROM IRAQ LAWL.

</sarcasm>