London, July 7, 2005. A day of slaughter, tears and solidarity. 56 precious lives lost, hundreds are injured, traumatised, bereaved. All of us made less secure, especially Muslims.
Before anyone could know, the Prime Minister hints at who was responsible. Despite the pre-war ‘framing’ of Iraq, most media rush to Islamophobic judgment. Although some people, including some Muslims, abuse their religion to target civilians, calm assessment should have suggested additional possibilities.
Apart from IRA or fascist bombs, State terrorism is far from unknown, ask the Irish, ask the survivors of the Bologna station massacre of 1980, successfully blamed on Red Brigade patsies.¹
The biggest slaughter since the Luftwaffe, yet a Public Inquiry would be ‘a distraction’. Too slow. Too expensive! We all know who did it, don’t we? But do ‘we’?
Take the lack of proof of the whereabouts of the designated perpetrators that morning. In the Luton station image (see photo image) ‘Hussain’s’ legs are incorrectly mirrored in glass, while ‘Khan’ appears entangled in the railings!
The Official Report says the men caught the 7.40 train, which runs contrary to the responsible officials at Thameslink, who repeatedly say the 7.40 didn’t run that day, while the 7.30 (left at 7.42) didn’t arrive until 8.39.² Having arrived by magic carpet, it isn’t perhaps too surprising that the reported movements of our four swarthy orientals at 8.26 and ‘around 8,30’ are equally peculiar.
Khan’s personal documents were found to have miraculously survived at the epicentre of three explosions. Lindsay’s DNA was allegedly found on his parking ticket - yet the Government Report has his car towed away as unticketted.
Many credible initial reports were of military explosives, yet suddenly the story changed to HMTD or extremely unstable TATP - which doesn’t flash, so doesn’t match survivor accounts. ‘Expert examination continues’ - 10 months later! - ‘but it appears that the bombs were home made’ - wriggle room?
For the rest the Report ignores awkward material which doesn’t fit, e.g. the testimony of Aldgate survivor Bruce Lait and policewoman Lizzie Kenworthy, who independently reported a hole in the floor with the metal pushed up. (Perhaps the men got up even earlier and placed bombs under the trains that morning?)
No mention of radio and TV interviews with senior ex-policeman and security consultant, Peter Power: “At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning.”
As for the coincidences in Tavistock Sq - where a (doubtless innocent) van from a firm which offers specialist explosions appears to have drawn level with the rear of the 30 bus stopped just outside the offices of The Lancet - there is no possible public interest served by not reassuring Muslims and many others by releasing all the images from the working traffic cam.
From London, surveillance capital of the world, we have not one image of the four suspects on the day. Instead of connected footage from a score of cameras, we have to take alleged CCTV sightings on trust. But after the Lawrence Inquiry finding of ‘institutional racism’, and now after Stockwell and Forest Gate, the Met have no right to demand trust.
It is clear that the police lied when they first said that the men were ‘cleanskins’ who had never come to their attention before, or only ‘peripherally’. It now seems that much time and money was spent on photographing Khan, tracking his car and tapping his phone. Why were transcripts of his conversations withheld from the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Recent articles and a book by Nafeez Ahmed³ develop a ‘Londonistan’ picture of Khan, Tanweer and others forming an exclusive ‘radical’ subculture in Beeston, and even being aided to make ‘secure’ contact with Finsbury Park and other figures linked to both ‘Al-Qaida’ and to MI5 and MI6. More and more people are asking not just ‘Could the Leeds 4 have been stopped? (the incompetence theory) but also ‘Did the authorities let it happen on purpose?’
However much ‘Leedsistan’ evidence is ambiguous: the London-end discrepancies demand we also ask: “Were Khan and his network being groomed as credible patsies?” and thus shielded from arrest before being duped or otherwise drawn in.
Many hypotheses remain open and jumping to premature conclusions will help no one. Nor will kneejerk sneers about ‘conspiracy theorists’. Most evidence must be released immediately - and progressive organisations must unite to force the rest of the truth to come out in a fully independent public inquiry with a wide remit, open procedures and ferocious legal powers, out with the Inquiries Act 2005.
Anything less dishonours the dead and imperils the living.

References:
1. Nato’s Secret Armies, Daniele Ganser (Cass, 2005). See also Muslims, Jews and Christians Against 911 False Witness, www.mujca.com/ , and Scholars for 911 Truth www.st911.org/ .
2. Here and elsewhere see http://www.julyseventh.co.uk or http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/index.html
3. London Bombings – An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth, 2006)
Keith Mothersson, Co-editor, www.julyseventh.co.uk Keith.mothersson@phonecoop.coop.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2524

"Admin" wrote:

"zara" wrote:

but they still needed a good excuse to attack afghanistan. and now they can capture any muslim they want and link him to al-qaeda, and stuff him in guantanamo. and no one cares coz he's apparently linked with al-qaeda. americans think long term too. they could do all sorts of things, giving al-qaeda as an excuse.

[color=red]But why would they wanna attack Afghanistan? [/color]why would anyone for that matter? It has nothing. Its got some potential, but that will take alot of ewffort to realise.

[color=red]because osama apparently confessed to 9/11 and since the Taliban refused to give him over to the americans, they attacked. The taliban were in afghanistan.[/color]

"Newbie" wrote:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

Muslims are paraniod. they need to get over lamo conspiracy theories. :roll:

[b]Theses are not conspiracy theories. These films are made by white people not muslims. They contain FACTS and Science, dont you understand this sentence. Check out the two films that i listed above and i guarantee you will not be saying the word conspiracy theory anymore.[/b]

Muslims are not the only conspiracy theorists.

Those docu's all full of OPINION. There are a few basic facts, then opinion to explain them.

If you believe them, then good. But that does not mean everybody has to.

I like to keep an open mind. and I like my way of thinking.

"Newbie" wrote:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

Muslims are paraniod. they need to get over lamo conspiracy theories. :roll:

[b]Theses are not conspiracy theories. These films are made by white people not muslims. They contain FACTS and Science, dont you understand this sentence. Check out the two films that i listed above and i guarantee you will not be saying the word conspiracy theory anymore.[/b]

No they don't, I just gave you links to point by point refutations of a loose change and of the "science" of the conspiracy theories - published by popular mechanics.

There is nothing scientific about headbanger music and half quotations.

What do white people have to do with this?! Seriously... some of you guys freak me out with the white obsession...

where the heck is latifah when I need her!

"Newbie" wrote:

The film does not contain "headbanger" music.

But the Popular Mechanics article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

That's because the position of the article is that the conventional description of the events is accurate... it doesn't need to proove that it's accurate, it's simply disprooving bizarre conspiracy theories.

Quote:

By the way did you now that the Popular Mechanics has strong links to the Bush administration. This Popular Mechanics article was made to put doubts in peoples minds.

Bold faced lie. Both Scientific American and Popular Mechanics are over 100 years old and neither have connections to government, they both assessed 9.11 conspiracy theories and shot each and every last one down.

What difference would it make if they were connected to the Bush Administration anyway? Bush had nothing to do with the attacks, it was bin Laden.

Quote:

I will tommorow show you how the Popular Mechanics article is nonesense.

No you won't. I doubt you'll even read either the Popular Mechanics article or the point by point refutation of loose change - instead you'll just post more "evidence" to which I will have to go back through said posted articles and point by point show you where it was already disproven. At which point you'll vehemently deny you didn't read the articles.

Either that or youll simply say nothing.

Quote:

This evidence is only the tip of the iceberg if you do the research you will find this out.
This and other documentaries contain basic physics principles etc which are FACT not FICTION. Plus all the other 100+ points in the films.

Some whackjobs with too much free time and access to youtube.com put together a collage of misleading "information" - that's not a documentary, definitely isn't "Fact" and it's certainly not credible evidence. They call them conspiracy theories for a reason - they never seem to evolve into anything further than a spurious theory.

You've got the basic physics principles in the Popular Mechanics article - refute them [i]today[/i] or stop screeching about your mountain of evidence hiding behind the curtain.

Quote:

Back in 2003, People also said that Saddam Hussein had WMD weapons and could launch them in 45 minutes and anyone arguing that he does not have them is a conspiracy theorist....

We're talking about Al Qaeda hijacking planes and attacking the United States, not WMDs in Iraq. You can't just wonder off topic every time you're backed into a corner.

"Newbie" wrote:

[size=18][b]Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies[/b][/size]
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics

Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.

The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.

The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.

Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.

"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious," said Jones.

Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 9/11.

In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.

Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.

The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.

As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch below).

Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded that constantly parroting the word "fact," without presenting any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.

Meigs contradicts himself completely in claiming that, "No one had ever seen a one hundred plus story building collapse to the ground before," and yet less than two minutes later agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing unexpected about the impact of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.

Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented event and yet claims that analysts knew exactly what was going to happen. How could they have known the ins and outs of an event that had never happened before?

Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The most closely studied collapse in world history," yet fails to address the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from the WTC, a supposed crime scene, was shipped to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed analysis.

Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely states that, "The real surprise is that the building stood up as long as it did."

In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!

Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political," and yet the foreword to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.

In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.

"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.

Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director AB “Buzzy” Krongard told the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.

McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's version of 9/11 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.

Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members has to say on this subject.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 9/11 victims - he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 9/11.

Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity in 9/11 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.

If we are to set aside the 30% of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36% who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a kidney dialysis machine.

Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

lol you want to talk about agenda driven?

"PrisonPlanet" a freelance "news" company run by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_%28radio%29]Alex Jones[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson]Paul Joseph Watson[/url], both of whom are notorious 9.11 conspiracy theorists. Their "News Agency" prinsonplanet along with their other websites propagandamatrix and infowars are mere vehicles to expound their theories.

These crackpots are so notorious they were [b]cited by name[/b] [[url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y]... as disseminating misinformation in the popular mechanics article. lol They have the most overt agenda of anyone here discussed.

Give us something credible - none of the accusations in their article defending their misinformation actually corresponds to another credible source.

In fact none of it corresponds to ANY other source.

[b]Popular Mechanics Assessment Seconded by Scientific American[/b]
May 23, 2005

Fahrenheit 2777

9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories

By Michael Shermer

Noted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book, L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002. But I never imagined such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore–wannabe filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor–like attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the justification for war. The evidence was there in the details, he explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites.

In fact, if you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google, you'll get more than 250,000 hits. From these sites, you will discover that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and 175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania; and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved). Books also abound, including Inside Job, by Jim Marrs; The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin; and 9/11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey. The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.

No melted steel, no collapsed towers.

For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales.

[url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E...

[b]Official Findings of the FEMA investigation[/b]

WTC 7 Collapsed due to fires started by the collapse of WTC 1

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Not Jews, not Republicans, not Zombies

Fires.

"Odysseus" wrote:

What do white people have to do with this?! Seriously... some of you guys freak me out with the white obsession...

where the heck is latifah when I need her!

lol, i think he meant 'non-muslims', since Lilsis linked Muslims to the conspiracy theories or whatever...

Newbie, why can't you just leave it at "Allahu A'alam"? people died. do you or do you not agree that they were innocent civilians? such futile arguments over who killed them isn't going to bring them back, and neither is it going to bring back the dead in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. do something proactive. arguing on an internet forum doesn't help anyone.

"Newbie" wrote:

9-11 is the root cause of all our problems, since 9-11 the world has changed and the way people see Muslims has changed.

That is an illusion. There were problems before it, there are problems after it.

9/11 in itself while being vile is not really that major a world event. (as an American event it is... probably only second after pearl harbour for an offensive attack against the country).

Stuff happens. The people at the bottom always pay.

The only difference here is the illusion that is changes the real politic of the world. It does not.

9/11 was a catalyst. It accelerated certain reactions. It did not start them.

"Newbie" wrote:

9-11 is the root cause of all our problems, since 9-11 the world has changed and the way people see Muslims has changed.

'the West' has never been Muslims' best friend. the rate of conversion to Islam has increased since 9/11, and Western Muslims who may have fully 'integrated' into society like their parents did looked into Islam and started practising, is that a problem?
yes Muslims are suffering around the world. but israel is not suddenly going to pull out of lebanon if it hears Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. neither is this tidbit of info going to get the US to pull out of Iraq, or prevent it from attacking Iran, because guess what: these wars have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda! they are part of the wider 'war on terror' remember?

Muslims themselves are the cause of their problems. we need to talk less and work more, as a community. we need to educate ourselves on what our religion requires of us, what it really means to be a Muslim.

btw you didn't answer my question: do you or do you not agree that those killed on 9/11 were innocent civilians?

"*DUST*" wrote:

"Newbie" wrote:

9-11 is the root cause of all our problems, since 9-11 the world has changed and the way people see Muslims has changed.

'the West' has never been Muslims' best friend. the rate of conversion to Islam has increased since 9/11, and Western Muslims who may have fully 'integrated' into society like their parents did looked into Islam and started practising, is that a problem?
yes Muslims are suffering around the world. but israel is not suddenly going to pull out of lebanon if it hears Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. neither is this tidbit of info going to get the US to pull out of Iraq, or prevent it from attacking Iran, because guess what: these wars have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda! they are part of the wider 'war on terror' remember?

Muslims themselves are the cause of their problems. we need to talk less and work more, as a community. we need to educate ourselves on what our religion requires of us, what it really means to be a Muslim.

Cudnt have said it any better sis, the west have always had a problem with the muslims and 9/11 may have highlighed the haterd more, however since 9/11 many people have embraced islam.

i cant believe people still tryna prove who did 9/11 :?

only Allah knows, why cant people leave it at that

coz end of day....innocents died and it was a tragedy

no-one would care about conspiracy theories if it were there own who died

"Sirus" wrote:

i cant believe people still tryna prove who did 9/11 :?

only Allah knows, why cant people leave it at that

coz end of day....innocents died and it was a tragedy

no-one would care about conspiracy theories if it were there own who died

i dont think any1 will be able to prove who did what whilst we have the likes of bush and blair in power and even if some1 did, they would either twist ther words, bribe them, blackmail them are kill them! ther capable of anything!

Just realised there is a film just released in the US about the world trade towers.

Also to be released soon in the UK.

At the same time I see alot of conspiracy theory discussions on a few different forums.

Conspiracy? hype?

"Admin" wrote:

Just realised there is a film just released in the US about the world trade towers.

Also to be released soon in the UK.

At the same time I see alot of conspiracy theory discussions on a few different forums.

Conspiracy? hype?

IMO i do think 9/11 was all a set up, the twin towers were built so that they could hold up through storms, hurricanes etc etc, before they were made. If u look at how the twin towers came down when the plane crashed into them, they both came tumbling down....
if the plane hit them form the top, surly only the top part of the building would have come off, as they were bulit so strngly, the bottom shud have styed fine, the way they came down looked as if a bomb had been set of from the bottom of the towers.

there were also rumours that no israelis were working on that day...

also, a man form american actually discoverd the truth about the twin towers and that it was a set up, 3 days before he was going to estblish the truth he "apprently" commited suicide... and they didnt even find the gun which he allegedly killed himself with.

a little fishy if you ask me...

one of us are structural engineers.

However I did do chemical engineering at uni. It did have some insight how the even smallest error can have massive repercussions.

That is not to say nothing was up, but its not a certainty by any means. And lets be clear... unlike the pentagon, everyone clearly saw the planes hit the twin towers.

Buildings normally topple in a cascading effect. where when one floor fails, then the next followed by the next followed by the next. Exactly how they toppled. Now that can be done by explosives, or explosive airliners...

people died. the attacks were planned by someone. My bet is on terrorists.

I know how it can be hard for Muslims to believe it. Afterall it's a bastardisation of our beliefs. But I will also be clear I can think dark. Almost as dark as someone capable of such events. So I cannot deny the possibility.

Allahu Aalam

He only knows who did it...

i dont for a second buy the official line on 911.. i don't think half the world does either. im probably being generous there.

i think the crackpots are those who believe they found the passports of the hijackers in the rubble... tweak on the cheek for anyone who says its possible.

regarding Afghanistan, the US was was gonna bomb and kill them anyway. Taliban were willing to hand over OBL provided they gave evidence of his involvement.

7/7 now that was sad. i was one of those who said it could have been a conspiracy.. hands up to that I was wrong.

cant say the same about 911 tho.

salam borvs nd sis jst wnted 2 add dese on

here is the airplane........that crashed into the
Pentagon.........?
Where are the airplane parts?
Go to this website and watch this film.........
do it quickly as it has already been pulled off
several web sites already........

>http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

salam sis nd brovs jst wnted 2 add dese bit of detail along

Where is the airplane........that crashed into the
Pentagon.........?
Where are the airplane parts?
Go to this website and watch this film.........
do it quickly as it has already been pulled off
several web sites already......

>http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

When did this all happen?

Was it in the news???

I'm shocked! :shock: