Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Nile_Salafy

911 Another Point Of View

Recommended Posts

faithi , you are challenging established fact .The conclusions reached regarding 9/11 are not rumor .

 

 In a previous post you demanded I produce evidence . That burden does not fall on me , but rather on you .  I am not challenging established fact - YOU are . You produce any video of proven authenticity of buildings collapsing or damaged or destroyed in NYC on 9/11 ,and they will prove to be the same all have viewed .

 

That being the case , your posted videos contain no new footage , but they are laced with the opinions of conspiracy theorists that have already been thoroughly debunked and proven patently false .You can put up  all the links you like , they contain no new evidence , they merely place their opinion of the same existing evidence the world has known for 13 years .

 

YOU , faithi are the one who has brought no evidence , you have just brought your opinion on existing evidence and that existing evidence has concluded WHO , WHY , and HOW the damage resulted on that day .

 YOU and a small minority of conspiracy theorists wish to refute or cast suspicion and doubt on what the world in general already knows .

   I need not produce anything , no more than I would the Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing , we know who did it , we know why they did it and we know how they did it .

  So far you have proven nothing , you have not even cast reasonable doubt on the events of that day . The only thing you have  proven, and this quite clearly , is that you can not accept the conclusion regarding who did it and why .

 To date , there is no new evidence showing that all the destruction in NYC on 9/11 was caused by anything else than 2 airliners , hijacked by fanatics ,and intentionally crashed into WTC 1 and WTC 2 .

 You must produce new evidence . I need not produce anything .

 

  The " How " is just the mechanism you use for the dance of words .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

I never posted any videos Einstein.  You need to go back and see who you are responding to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW faithi , in case you hadn't already been told , there is no flaw to the crash at the Pentagon . Your relative's narrative may contain flaws , for it is more or less cut and dry , hundreds of eye witnesses say the jetliner  hit the Pentagon , not only but they Identified its company markings . In addition the parts found at the scene were not only identified positively for that airliner but they had the company markings . There was no missile , there were no strange "blue makings on the tail of the jet " .

 This has all been debunked .

 Please have your relative precisely describe what 'flaws " she perceived , and put that evidence up on the thread . The reason no one is "trying to assert  " this new evidence ,is because there is none .

 

 Put up your evidence faithi .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1You're correct that was Nile_Salafy , and since your both birds of the same feather I would imagine you base your erroneous conclusions on the videos of the collapse .

 But at any rate , put up your proof or evidence that contradicts known accepted conclusions .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof faithi and Nile_Salafy, not hearsay , or what  you think , or maybe this or that , or what could be possible  ,  PROOF .

  Hard Facts or Evidence . Keep your opinions or how you perceive US Government ., they are fairy-tales until proven otherwise , and so far neither one of you have brought forward any .

 

If you choose to live by rumor , that's your business , I discard rumor and innuendo .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are truly living in Orwellian times where the "official" establishment view has been turned into a dogma and the burden of proof is always on those who dispute it but never on the government to prove their version!

The burden of proof issue is nicely illustrated by an article from The Daily Mash today.

 

Sellafield using stolen Pope blood to make super-villain

THE Sellafield nuclear plant has been closed so the reactor can be used to make a super-villain out of stolen Pope blood.

Experts said it was ‘no coincidence’ the plant was suddenly off limits just days after a vial of Pope John Paul II’s blood was stolen from a castle on top of a mountain.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: “When I heard the Papal blood had been stolen I said to my wife, ‘next stop Sellafield – I wonder what excuse they’ll come up with’.

“A teaspoonful of the Pope blood will be combined with the nuclear reactions to create a diabolical megalomaniac who will stop at nothing. It’s really bad.”

Professor Brubaker added: “I warned the government about this, but they wouldn’t listen. I think they might be in on it."

 

Some may call this assertion ridiculous but it has been made. Where does the burden of proof lie. As the government has been accused of complicity, should we therefore doubt any denials?

 

Full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually considering all the leaks that have come out showing our government to be one of many deceits I think the burden of proof should be on them and the proof should be made public.  If these were solely the actions of terrorists groups (backed by Saudi investors) then the proof needs to be publicized where all can access and evaluate for themselves instead of simply dismissing.  I would post links on here but for some reason the links button is not working for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was about the controlled demolition of WTC buildings. Does anyone really have to prove that something, for which there is no evidence, didn't happen? How would one go about doing that?

 

The issue of backing, motive, etc is more complicated as levels of involvement and separation can manifold and murky. However, the claim that gov't agencies were directly and deliberately involved in the planning and execution of the attacks needs more than suspicion. As you mention in your last post, there have been an unprecedented volume of leaks, disclosures, admissions and confessions but none have pointed to US involvement in the attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, are you one of those that not even a year ago said everyone was nuts when they said that the government was listening in on everyone's phone calls and monitoring emails. 

 

What I do know personally is that I have seen buildings brought down in Las Vegas and the Twin Towers collapsed in the exact same manner.  As I have said before the primary financer of Al Qaeda in history was the CIA.  If we are so worried about national security why are there no major security efforts to secure our northern border when the terrorists supposedly came in through the Canadian Border?  That is the official story.  Why was an individual who was already on a most wanted list seen flying off on a plane?  Are you suggesting that our military, and intelligence organizations are so stupid that they didn't realize any of this was going on?  Personally I at least believe that our government is smarter than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I was not here a year ago , besides I knew NSA was monitoring phone calls at least since 2002 , and quite possibly before that as long as the technology was possible . \ Did you know Google and Yahoo are also monitoring not only your e-mails but where you are surfing . Did you know that THIS website has similar tracking mechanisms ?

 

On those building in Vegas - where they of the same construction ?   I don't think so  , do your architectural homework and you'll find that the WTC Towers were of a unique construction , unlike anything in Vegas . I doubt any controlled demolition you saw regarding a building in Vegas has any comparable characteristics . Therefore your example is irrelevant .

 Yes the CIA financed AND supplied Bin laden and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan whilst fighting the Soviets , what you fail to mention is that AFTER that conflict , and the Soviets abandoning Afghanistan , Bin laden turned his interests elsewhere , he was a friend who became an enemy of the US for several reasons which he stated himself . Non-muslim forces based in Saudi Arabia , US Support for israel ,and Western Interests in general in Muslim lands .

 He proved his animosity with several bombings the first of which was the First attack on the WTC in 1993 , the Bombing of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia ,  the bombing of the TWO African US Embassies  as well as the attack in Yemen on the USS Cole .  So to bring up CIA support fir the Mujahadeen years earlier in Afghanistan proves NOTHING as to the changed relationship between the US and Bin Laden and Al Queda in the years that followed . That point is INVA:ID if you wish to use it as a proof that

a) Bin Laden was not behind the planning and execution of the 9/11 attack  and B) Al Queda was not under his command .

 

 If you know anything about our government , you know as well as I that the fact that 11 Saudis were already in the US , some took

flying lessons , some were here on expired visas , did you also forget that there was no " NO FLY LIST " at the time before 9/11 .  What this proves is the lack of interagency co-operation and gross incompetence on the part of our intelligence agencies . As to any doubts as to WHO were the hijackers ? There are no doubts , they were video-taped boarding the airliners , they were described by some of the passengers in their cell phone conversations before they were murdered , DNA from some was collected , passports /id from other were found ...and of course none of those hijackers listed has been seen or heard from since , yet a few were even celebrated in their hometowns .  In addition several were positively identified as those who were residing in Florida , and those who were taking flying lessons .

 

 And did you forget the one captured Moussoui ? Whose computer had the information on it , who also confessed and is now sitting in a Federal Prison ?

 

 You have nothing inn the way of proof or evidence to contradict existing facts and conclusions ....except your own doubts and denial .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, are you one of those that not even a year ago said everyone was nuts when they said that the government was listening in on everyone's phone calls and monitoring emails. 

 

What I do know personally is that I have seen buildings brought down in Las Vegas and the Twin Towers collapsed in the exact same manner.  As I have said before the primary financer of Al Qaeda in history was the CIA.  If we are so worried about national security why are there no major security efforts to secure our northern border when the terrorists supposedly came in through the Canadian Border?  That is the official story.  Why was an individual who was already on a most wanted list seen flying off on a plane?  Are you suggesting that our military, and intelligence organizations are so stupid that they didn't realize any of this was going on?  Personally I at least believe that our government is smarter than that.

Anyone with any intelligence assumed that security agencies the world over have been monitoring communications for decades (in fact, they have always done this, since the beginning of city states and written communication).

 

The reason that tall building look similar when they collapse is because of the laws of physics. Once the supporting structure fails, gravity, mass and momentum take over. It is no mystery.

 

History has repeatedly shown that government organisations have a tendancy towards inefficiency and incompetence. The bigger the organisation, the bigger the failings. Again, no mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you do believe that the U.S. government is too stupid to realize that known terorrists are crossing our borders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you do believe that the U.S. government is too stupid

It's not that they are stupid. It's more a variety of issues; left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, LH knowing what the RH is doing but thinking that they should be doing it and taking offence, LH worrying that the RH may be getting some of their budget, head of LH having personal animosity towards head of RH, etc, etc. Having worked in a large, government organisation I can guarantee that this kind of thing goes on all the time.

 

I am not familiar with the particular case of the Canadian boreder so I cannot comment specifically. I will try and look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't shoot people when they cross our borders faithi , in addition , there is 3,500 miles of border between the US and Canada .  But why are you bringing up borders ? That is not the topic .

 

No border is fullproof , you as an American should know that . It was only after 9/11 that we had to suspect those that cross illegally are tying to blow something up .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andalusi either you really are the half wit that I thought or you are denser than Paris Hilton.  It was called illustrating a point.  If you bothered to read the conversation in full instead of trolling for some way to post responses maybe you would understand why I was talking about borders.  Only after 9/11?  Are you serious?  Why do you think we arrested the Blind Sheik?  Someone tried to blow up the World Trade Center in the 90's and was captured.  Do you think they magically appeared in the U.S.?  Did Captain Kirk beam them down?  Stop being a troll and try to come up with meaningful responses for at least one of the threads that you are in. 

 

[at] QED I guess you could say my suspicions of 9/11 are that I simply do not think that little of our intelligent agencies.  Put in the simplest terms, I mean. Not to mention I do not see the motive for Al Qaeda

Edited by fathi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOLOLOLOLOL......you do not see a motive for Al Queda?

  

That's the best I've heard yet .

 

 

Good luck faithi , in your "endeavor " for the truth . There is much that you do not see .

 

 

Bye bye ....game over .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[at]aligarr: 

 

1.  Notice that part was addressed to QED, not you.

2. Thank you for proving how much of a troll you are

3.  There are many places that would have had the impact of the twin towers without all the trouble

4.  Unlike you I am not some bigot blinded by what they have been told in mainstream media.  I try to think for myself and evaluate all sides of it.  That is why I have previously said that I believe either side of the 9/11 argument is possible.  Unlike some I do not limit myself but remain open to theory that I then evaluate. 

 

In closing, nowhere on this entire forum have you contributed anything useful but instead are a constant troll that simply looks for something to post.  You also seem to have the tendency of looking for the most asshole way of posting your thoughts as if your very objective is to agitate.  Personally if I were a Christian I would be ashamed that you were part of the same faith. 

 

Keep waving your flag though and watching Bill O' Reilly and tooting the horn of whatever you are told puppet.  I have seen people like you all my life.  You have giant sized balls when you are online but are always a coward in person.  If you are not going to actually contribute facts and meaninful discussion do both the Christian and Muslims on this forum a favor and disappear.  I am sure everyone here will applaud. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[at] QED I guess you could say my suspicions of 9/11 are that I simply do not think that little of our intelligent agencies.  Put in the simplest terms, I mean. Not to mention I do not see the motive for Al Qaeda

I see no obvious motive for Al Qaeda either (as in, what positive effects could come from it) other than to spread fear in the hope of swaying public opinion against the policies that inspire the attacks, but then I see no motive for suicide bombings on Tel Aviv busses, Baghdad markets, Russian train stations or the London Underground (although it would appear that the attacks in Iraq may be sectarian in nature). It plainly goes against normal, human impulse as well as the teachings of the Quran. There is no doubt, however that there is a brand of Islamic fundamentalism that is being used to inspire at least some of these attacks. I think it is also fair to say that the people doing the radicalising are never the people blowing up themselves and innocents (and thereby closing the doors to Paradise, as I understand it).

 

If 9/11 was an isolated case of senseless extremist violence with no obvious motive or aim, it may be a different matter. In reality it the same as so many others, different only in scale and audacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the other attacks it is typical method in the manner they are practicing.  Blowing up buses and crowded market places (not suicide bombing) was learned through watching many Christian sects such as the IRA.  They are simply imitating.  (disclaimer: not saying that those that did that accurately represent Christianity.)  As for the suicide bombing this is likely something that they learned from eastern influence as it was a practice in certain Asian cultures such as Japan. 

 

Now I am about to say something that will likely get me in a lot of trouble on this board but it needs to be said.  The ideology of Salafi and Wahhabi are the leading movements behind a lot of these individuals.  Look up any random terrorist leader from the Blind Sheik to Osama Bin Laden and so on and you will see this.  The Salafi and Wahhabi ideology are both relatively new in terms of history and a lot of trouble can be led back to these mindsets.  In all fairness I do have to also say there are plenty of those that follow these ideologies that are not blowing each other up.  However, those that are not are also the same ones that tear apart McDonalds over a cartoon depicting the prophet (saw).  Meanwhile when the prophet (pbuh) was struck by a man and his uncle went and got vengeance on his behalf the prophet (pbuh) told his uncle that this did not please him, that he would rather have seen the man take shahada. 

 

Back to point, however,  it is the scale of the event that throws it into question.  Also the history between the government and Al Qaeda and the circumstances surrounding it.  Blowing up the twin towers would allow the government a reason to enter the Middle East to increase presence and better secure oil areas.  It would also allow for further expanding powers of the National government.  (Not saying that this is what happened but it would appear that the national government would have more to gain from it, especially the U.S. military and the C.I.A. who were quickly losing financing before this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you chose to insult me and call me a bigot  , I will see to it to advise the Admin. , since the same was done to me .

 

 So anyone who acknowledges the facts of 9/11 and says that the people who committed the act were Muslims good or bad , is a bigot ????

 

 

 

 

  So bye bye again .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you have said since you have gotten on these forums has shown you to be a bigot.  If Dot or one of the others wants to give me some imaginary warning points because I called you a bigot so be it.  I will say it again, bigot.  I know what you are and I call it like I see it.  You want to try to indirectly go after Islam and Muslims, the difference between me and others on this board is I have the balls to call you out.  What's more is I won't back down from it.  You are a troll who has proven that he has nothing worth contributing to this board.  Every single one of your posts is pointless. 

Edited by fathi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted facts , you have posted conspiracy theories and fractured fairytales of wishful thinking . You don't like the facts . For that you falsely accuse me of being a bigot .

 

I could easily say the same of you since every word out of your mouth is an accusation that Americans somehow contrived 9/11 . YOU ARE THE BIGOT .

 

 You can't accept the facts so you lash out and call me a bigot  ?

 

 I did not denigrate Islam or Muslims , I merely state what has been confirmed and known worldwide for 13 years , and that is that 4 airliners were hijacked , 3 of which were intentionally crashed into occupied buildings in the United States and all accomplices were Muslim fanatics .

  That doesn't sit well with you , you have trouble accepting the truth . So you respond with disrespect , and false accusations .  You behave the same way on other threads on this blog , and not just with me .

 

YOU have got the problem , not me .  YOU are bigoted against  anyone who disagrees with your ill-informed theories and world view .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......and yes , you should be given a warning , it is well overdue  . You have insulted Americans  [even though you claim to be one ] and you have insulted Christians [ even though you claim to have been one ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recent studies by
psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that
contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy
theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official
versions of contested events.



The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists
Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK).
Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.



The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more
conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than
conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded
as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among
people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government
accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber
believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy
commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while
the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered
minority.



Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer
represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed
anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the
official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to
persuade their rivals.”



Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not
only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories
as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy
theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any
proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a
guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The
so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a
theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who
think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a
specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”



In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the
negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic
wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the
people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute
it.



Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss
historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent
for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the
so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or
“conspiracy theorists.”



Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy
Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published
earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor
deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy
theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the
CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The
CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make
conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited,
unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda
initiatives of all time.”



In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and
“conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a
well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to
cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was
completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the
CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law
to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to
assassinations.



DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official
explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He
points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out
to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between
many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious
example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both
paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According
to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations”
in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of
the same larger crime.



Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that
the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function.
She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist
(2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about
such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their
inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing
belief.



In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven
Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong
“confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms
their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as
the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.



The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories”
has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and
Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article
entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:





“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little

whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether

you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling

you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech,

debate, and conflict occur.”



But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories
are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old
campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly
worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles,
pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than
anti-conspiracy ones.



No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.



PressTV - New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists

Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK).

Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

 

PressTV - New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Here, the author of the actual report (Dr M Wood) explains that the author of the article you linked misrepresented and misunderstood his work.

http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/

The truth is out there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×