So basically as a law abiding citizen, I am supposed to close my eyes open wide and eat whatever the gov't is feeding me? I think I'm getting it now.

 

FACT in the case ....................The towers are down thousands of people dead planes hijacked what more do you need.....oh i'm sorry you do not believe that terroist did this bad deed however LIBERALS would rather believe that MR Bush our president orchastated this dastardly deed.....why did you not talk about this while it was happening ????????you Liberals always need to imply wrong doing were there is none by our government.........AGAIN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON SADAM AND OSAMA ARE THET YOUR ROLE MODELS .............signed .....LIBERAL SCUM HATER

 

I didn't know Rush drove a Scion!

Im not a "liberal' by the way, but I disagree with you. How would you like to label me? I'll give you a minute to decide. Oh. and how many other countries have you spent time in incidentally?

 

hey turbo, no one is blaming bush on 911 so take a GIANT chill pill

 

three...........however I do watch the History channel again why bash the country your living in do you have facts.................or just conjecture........facts that can be proven beyond any doubt is what will turn the tables.............. OH and to answer your question on the labeling If you believe our government had anything to do with this 9/11 you are crazy and a LIBERAL SCUM............

 

Dude! Just because someone doesn't agree with something a gov't or person (ie Prez) does, doesnt mean they are "for" Osama or Saddam. Also, just because one person might tend to agree with something that a democrat would say doesnt make them "Liberal Scum" No more than someone who agreed with a Republican would be a "Right Wing Nutjob" The world simply isn't that black and white.

And from what I can tell, most of the people talking of 'conspiracy' here aren't saying Bush was sitting in Florida, cackling and rubbing his hands together, as the events of the day occured. Jeeze! Dont freak out so much when people ask questions. Be a bit more open and respectful of other peoples beliefs pleeze They have as much right to believe there was a cover up as you have to your opinion there wasn't.

w00t

 

 

I'm not saying the gov't had wrong doin in the attacks. I am just saying I will NOT believe EVERYTHING they tell me. and I'm not liberal scum.

 

Well, you've got a sense of humor, so I can't hate ya.

 

That's the beauty of this GREAT country. You can question the government without dying for what you say.

Others already died for us to have that right. Others are currently fighting for us to keep that right. Back these men and women regardless of how they got there.

If anyone thinks for one moment Islam would not like to control the whole planet...I suggest you all read more about the Qu'ran and what it "teaches" it's followers. By their own numbers, they estimate Islam to have 1 billion followers. They say 10% of them are "extreme". I say the CAIR numbers are low...but I'll give them their 10%. Folks, 100 million Muslim nuts want to impose Islam on the world.

This is Pinkey and the Brain on steroids.

 

[img][/img]

 

Absolutely! I have friends over there now and support every one of them for doing their duty unflinchingly when their country asks. The ones that don't believe in the war go as willingly as the ones that are behind it. Sense of duty and honor are humbling even though they tend to make light of it themselves.

Anyone who doesn't think for a minute that extremests want to rule the world have another thing coming. Sure our policys have hurt us in this end, but the fact is we are top dog and in order to rule the pack you have to knock out the top dog. Thus as westerners we are the target.


I have to disagree about the Qu'ran statement though. Like the Bible it can be interpreted in a thousand different ways.

 

You keep coming back with OPINION but absolutly NO FACT.

FACT: The 9/11 "Omission" Report raises more questions than it answers:

The final report released by the 9/11 Commission contradicts itself in the very first chapter, repeatedly, and strains credulity beyond a reasonable limit in a number of places. Lets start with Chapter 1...

In chapter 1, there is a discussion of NORAD’s mission to defend the airspace of North America. The report states that in the immediate post-Cold War era:


NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction. [p. 17, emphasis added]

This statement shows the threat of planes being used as weapons was known to NORAD for a long time. But later in the same chapter, the report states:


The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols. It was improvised by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. [p. 31, emphasis added]

This must be what Chairman Kean has called the “ failure of imagination.” So we are asked to accept that while NORAD was well aware of the possibility of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons, it somehow couldn’t imagine commercial aircraft being hijacked and used as weapons? This seems highly unlikely, particularly when one considers the environment in which NORAD found itself after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

At the conclusion of the Cold War NORAD was threatened with severe budget cuts. But as the Commission report indicates, members of the air defense community made “an effort to preserve its mission” by advocating “the importance of air sovereignty against emerging “asymmetric threats” to the United States” including “drug smuggling, ‘non-state and state-sponsored terrorists’ and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology.” [1] In this environment of creative attempts to preserve their mission, how likely is it that NORAD would have failed to consider the possibility of civilian aircraft being hijacked and turned into missiles if it would have strengthened its case for a continuing commitment to wide-spectrum air sovereignty?

 

FACTS regarding the Towers:

--The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry,.

--The towers' tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.

--The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower's rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building's profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building's structure ahead of the falling rubble.

--The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.

--Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.

 

That mentality is why Islam gets a pass as they continue to grow. This link gives you everything you need to know about Islam from it's beginning.

http://www.lamblion.com/New08.php

<Snip>

The Intolerant and Militant Nature of Islam
One of the most controversial issues regarding Islam concerns whether or not it is a militant religion. Muslims in the West argue it is peace-loving. Westerners who have experienced it in the Muslim world argue it is inherently in_tolerant and militant.

The Koran itself preaches intolerance toward other religions. Sura 5 contains the following command: “Take not Jews and Christians for friends . . . He among you who takes them for friends is one of them . . . Choose not for friends such of those who received the Scripture before you [Jews and Christians] . . But keep your duty to Allah” (verses 51, 55, 57). Extreme intolerance is commanded in Sura 5:33 — “[For those who do not submit to Allah] their punishment is . . . execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.”

The Koran also expresses an intolerant attitude toward any person who decides to reject the Islamic faith or convert to another religion. Such persons are to be executed (Sura 9:12). In the Hadith (the oral tradition of Muhammad’s sayings) it says “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (Hadith 9:57). These commands are practiced in all Islamic Fundamentalist countries today.

With regard to militancy, the Koran not only condones it, it commands it:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and [some of] you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not (Sura 2:216).

Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war (Sura 9:5).

Fight in the way of Allah . . . and slay them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them and drive them out . . . and fight them until . . . religion is for Allah (Sura 2:190-193).

Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith as saying, “The sword is the key of heaven and hell. A drop of blood in the cause of Allah — a night spent in arms [war] — is of more avail than two months of fasting and prayer. Whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven, and at the day of judgment, his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim.”12


Regarding the Christian Crusades, they were an aberration in Christian history based upon perverted Catholic doctrine and not upon any biblical injunction. In contrast, the intolerance and violence that have characterized Islam throughout its history are firmly rooted in the Koran.

What a contrast all the ghastly commands of Muhammad are to the loving words of Jesus who told Christians:

“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

“Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).

“Do not judge, lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1).


“However you want people to treat you, so treat them” (Mat_thew 7:12).

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).

“This is my commandment that you love one another” (John 15:12, 17).

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

And what a contrast it is between the admonition of Muhammad to conquer for Allah with the sword and Jesus’ exhortation to go forth in peace and appeal to people’s hearts through the preaching of the Gospel, relying on the persuasive power of God’s Holy Spirit.

 

WTC 7:

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

The evidence does not support the idea that Building 7 was damaged by fallout from the tower collapses, nor that there were diesel fuel tank explosions. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.
Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.
Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep.
(Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320 degrees F. 1 ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in highrise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

 

SCIONDAD,

Not from what I have seen. On the contrary, I think it is this kind of misinformation and refusal to understand other's beliefs that has helped to cause some of the problems we now face. On both sides.

Anyone can pull out passages and use them for their arguments...
I.E. One could argue that Chrisitianity preaches intolerance:

"All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman." Chronicles 15:13 "

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first hand putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people." Deuteronomy 13:6-9"


Sounds pretty hateful to me.

Nuff said.

 

Try moving into the New Testament of Jesus Christ. Then show me these hateful verses. Those are the old testaments "before" the savior came and completely changed the eye for and eye approach to life.

 

comeon guys back on the topic

 

This is on topic. It wasn't 19 crazy Christians that flew planes into our buildings. It was Muslims dying for their Allah to strike a blow against the evil west. The WTC buildings represent the West of the World.

Big picture guys....big picture.