They blew it all to hell!

[Pressed_Rat]

http://www.reopen911.org/images/towerexplosions2.jpg

http://nomoregames.net/911/we_have_holes/Demolition_squib.jpg

http://www.911research.com/talks/towers/docs/wtc_biggart5_24.jpg

http://www.911research.com/talks/towers/docs/wtc1b.jpg

[Pressed_Rat]

http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/cd.jpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/site1106.jpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/site1085.jpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/site1049.jpg

[Pressed_Rat]

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/nt_col5418.jpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/nt_col0865.jpg

Spire from core of North Tower remains standing seconds before disintegrating into steel dust. What could possibly cause this?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/site1066.jpg

[madcrappie]

ohhh pullleeaaaaaaasee..........

what do you think happens with all of those pounds of pressure on top of steel beams?? they arent just going to fall straight down....

this is insane.

[Pressed_Rat]

And I should listen to you because?

Have you done any research into this at all? Of course not.

Are you familiar with the work of professor Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin? I doubt it.

You talk like you know everything when you in fact know nothing.

Thanks for the waste of bandwidth.

[madcrappie]

pfft..........

it takes an ounce of common sense.......

you ever take physics??

all it takes is pressure and gravity, the rest of it explains itself.....

and if there is anyone wasting bandwidth, Im sure all fingers point at you

[Pressed_Rat]

Ever heard of Scholars for 9/11 Truth? Why should I take what a restuarant worker says over people with multiple advanced degrees in the field of physics and engineering? You are very uninformed and have no facts, so thank you for nothing. You talk like you have a physics degree, when many people who do have physics degrees can prove that you're wrong. But I guess they are wrong because you say so, not having any facts of your own.

[Pressed_Rat]

Here is a documentary you might learn something from. Whether you will actually take the time to watch it is another story....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&q=Improbable+Collapse&hl=en

[madcrappie]

heh, and I assume everything that is written by these so called doctors of physics are actually based in truth........ I assume nothing and think for myself. thank you. you ever make a toothpick bridge?? if you put pressure on the top, where do the toothpicks that are holding up the bridge end up?? they splinter and fly off every direction......... what do you think happened to the beams?? they flew every which direction.......

bodies werent found?? umm hello?? the towers were smouldering for weeks after they fell......

all Im saying it is common sense.

I dont need a fuckin physics degree. plus everything can be manipulated online..... I just dont understand how you believe everything that is written on these conspiracy sites. its beyond me.

[Pressed_Rat]

Um, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth symposium in LA was aired on C-SPAN. You were probably too busy watching Ghost Hunters, though. Stop making everything out to be the product of internet conspiracy websites. Former members of the Bush administration have went public saying 9/11 was an inside job. The father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts (a Republican) has went public, saying he believes 9/11 was an inside job. Why do you try to marginalize everyone asking questions as "conspiracy theorists," using the same dirty tactics the government uses to attempt to discredit people with valid concerns.

I think for myself. I take all kinds of facts and pieces of evidence that don't add up and apply them accordingly. I am not going by what one person says, but dozens and dozens of people who have taken the time to study this and inform others.

How can you compare toothpicks to steel beams hurtled with the forces seen in those pictures. THAT is absolutely ridiculous!

Do some research, then mock. Watch the video I provided above, then mock.

[madcrappie]

of course this was an inside job. I know this, and Ive told you this long before you got into your little conspiracy crap.......

but exploding the wtc?? that is ridiculous. all it took was two planes with enough jet fuel to bring it down.......

of course we helped train these guys to hijack those planes, of course our air force jets flew over the atlantic ocean to search for missles from the soviets, instead of looking for planes that were headed towards the nations capital..... of course our government knew that the planes were going to strike the WTC. duh!! but having controlled explosions on the buildings by our government?? get real.

[madcrappie]

Um, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth symposium in LA was aired on C-SPAN. You were probably too busy watching Ghost Hunters, though. Stop making everything out to be the product of internet conspiracy websites. Former members of the Bush administration have went public saying 9/11 was an inside job. The father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts (a Republican) has went public, saying he believes 9/11 was an inside job. Why do you try to marginalize everyone asking questions as "conspiracy theorists," using the same dirty tactics the government uses to attempt to discredit people with valid concerns.


ohhh yeah, because it was on cspan, it must be the truth!!!!!!!!!!!

geezus.

[Pressed_Rat]

of course this was an inside job. I know this, and Ive told you this long before you got into your little conspiracy crap.......

but exploding the wtc?? that is ridiculous. all it took was two planes with enough jet fuel to bring it down.......

of course we helped train these guys to hijack those planes, of course our air force jets flew over the atlantic ocean to search for missles from the soviets, instead of looking for planes that were headed towards the nations capital..... of course our government knew that the planes were going to strike the WTC. duh!! but having controlled explosions on the buildings by our government?? get real.Well, it's good you don't buy into everything the government has told you. However, I strongly doubt you've looked into the controlled demolition of those buldings. The evidence is in your face if you would only get rid of your ego and look at the proof. You probably never even saw the collapse of Building Seven (which wasn't even hit by a plane), let alone have heard of it. So if jet fuel brought the towers down -- which is ridiculous, as fire has never brought down a steel-structure building before this -- what happened to Building Seven, which bares all the trademarks of a classic controlled demolition?

Watch the video I provided above, then watch this. You cannot watch these movies and not come to the conclusion that these buildings were blown up with explosives:

911 Mysteries: Demolitions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

[madcrappie]

controlled demolitions dont have as much pyroclastic flow, nor does it have beams shooting off 30 feet like that.......


do you ever see footage of controlled demolitions??

and I do know of building 7 falling.....

[Pressed_Rat]

Well, apparently you haven't seen Building Seven fall because it didn't feature the ejection of beams as was the case with the towers. Unlike building Seven, the towers did not fall with the implosions of classic controlled demolitions you've seen on TV. They were EXPLODED, a first in demolition history. What we saw with the towers was completely unconventional in nature. A classic controlled demolition of the towers would have been likely too obvious with the whole world watching, so they had to make it look as realistic as possible. Once you study the evidence, you realize how downright blatant it is.

Again, watch the videos I provided.

Thanks.

[LuckyStripe]

:nopity:

Its like an ongoing battle between these two....

[Pressed_Rat]

controlled demolitions dont have as much pyroclastic flow, nor does it have beams shooting off 30 feet like that.......30 feet? Try 300-500 feet!

30 feet I might be able to buy with a so-called "pancake collape," but not 500 feet. No way! These beams were ejected with enough force they lodged into neighboring buildings. This does not happen with any kind of average "collapse."

[Pepik]

Why should I take what a restuarant worker says over people with multiple advanced degrees in the field of physics and engineering... Are you familiar with the work of professor Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin?That would be David Ray Griffin, professor of theology? Why exactly do you find him to be a credible expert on engineering? And would that be the same Steven Jones that chose to take early retirement to avoid a review of his controlled demolition work, which was heavily criticised by his university's engineering faculty? The Steve Jones who thinks Jesus dropped by to say hello to the Native Americans after his resurrection? I think for myself. I take all kinds of facts and pieces of evidence that don't add up and apply them accordingly... fire has never brought down a steel-structure building before thisReally? I found an example of a steel frame building collapsing due to fire using google. Took me less than one minute. And its not the only example out there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm. You probably never even saw the collapse of Building Seven (which wasn't even hit by a plane), let alone have heard of it... Well, apparently you haven't seen Building Seven fall because it didn't feature the ejection of beams as was the case with the towers.I thought you did a lot of research on this. If you had, you would realise that WTC 7 was hit by the collapsing World Trade towers. When you say it "wasnt even hit by a plane" does that mean you think that having a 110 story tall building falling on WTC 7 and carving out a huge gouge, tens of stories high, is not relevant to the subsequent collapse? And why would a building collapsing from the bottom, as WTC 7 did, eject beams out of the top?

[Pressed_Rat]

That would be David Ray Griffin, professor of theology? Why exactly do you find him to be a credible expert on engineering? And would that be the same Steven Jones that chose to take early retirement to avoid a review of his controlled demolition work, which was heavily criticised by his university's engineering faculty?I never said David Ray Griffin is an expert on engineering. He is simply one of the more prominent 9/11 truth scholars who has done a fine job piecing all the evidence together. (Not just regarding the collapse, but in all areas regarding the "official" story.)

There are, however, dozens of structural engineers and physicists in the organization.

As far as I know, Jones took an early retirement because it was offered to him following controversy over his controversial findings, which coincided with his temporary paid suspension from the college due to outcry from students and staff who cannot handle alternative information that goes against their fragile belief system. It had nothing to do with his work being reviewed. I have not yet seen anything showing me why the towers collapsed, aside from the official FEMA and NIST reports, and those who parrot the bogus, half-baked conclusions of these corrupt government organizations.

The Steve Jones who thinks Jesus dropped by to say hello to the Native Americans after his resurrection?No idea what you're talking about, and I really don't care because this isn't about Steven Jones or his character. You're just like media lapdogs such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, who find things to attack other than the evidence they're unable to argue against. It's called a smear tactic.

Really? I found an example of a steel frame building collapsing due to fire using google. Took me less than one minute. And its not the only example out there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm.
Hahahah! We're talking about a minor roof collapse here that is common in structural fires. The building didn't collapse, it just suffered damage which is to be expected with any major fire in a building that is quite small.

I thought you did a lot of research on this. If you had, you would realise that WTC 7 was hit by the collapsing World Trade towers. When you say it "wasnt even hit by a plane" does that mean you think that having a 110 story tall building falling on WTC 7 and carving out a huge gouge, tens of stories high, is not relevant to the subsequent collapse? And why would a building collapsing from the bottom, as WTC 7 did, eject beams out of the top?Show me a picture of this "huge gouge," then I'll believe you. The fact is, Building Seven was more than a block away from the towers and didn't receive half the damage buildings directly next to the towers did. So why didn't these buildings collapse, when they received far more structural damage? Building Seven housed an emergency bunker and was over-engineered to withstand bombings and just about anything else you could expect.

There is no way a person can watch the collapse of WTC-7 and say that it wasn't a controlled demolition.... unless they're in denial or are a government plant. Which one are you?

Hell, even Dan Rather said it looked like a controlled demoliton on live TV.

[Carlfloydfan]

simple as this, no engineering skills or knowledge needed:

there is no way a building of that magnitude falls in under an hour from a simple plane..it was built to withstand a boeing hitting it...when compared to other SIMILAR buildings that suffered massive fires, they took half a day or more before showing massive damage and still did not come crashing down.

a plane crashed into the empire st. building, it didn't fall. burned for about 10 hours.

there were explosives no doubt.

[madcrappie]

actually I think it was martians........

[Charise]

actually I think it was martians........:saucer: :1eye: :alien: :ears:

[Grim]

According to some of the real theories, that's not necessarily far off. ;)

[~peace~]

simple as this, no engineering skills or knowledge needed:

there is no way a building of that magnitude falls in under an hour from a simple plane..it was built to withstand a boeing hitting it...when compared to other SIMILAR buildings that suffered massive fires, they took half a day or more before showing massive damage and still did not come crashing down.

a plane crashed into the empire st. building, it didn't fall. burned for about 10 hours.

there were explosives no doubt.Oh there is a way.....
Jet fuel burns at 825 degrees C.
Steel melts at 1525 degrees C. HOWEVER, steel looses a lot of its strength at 648 degrees C.

This fuel that was ignited had enough heat energy to weaken the supports sufficiently to cause them to give way from the weight from above it.

The reason the buildings fell so fast is because the supports are only made to withstand the static weight of whats above it. And after the load of top stories fell, the whole building is going down. This is physics. Objects accelerate at 10m/s^2. So once this top block fell on to the floor below it, it easily broke the steel supports and so on.


Oh and to the original poster, these steel rods flying out were helped along by the fact that lots of air was forced out of the buliding as it collapsed. This is effectivly how a air compresser works, compress enough air, and it will come rushing out. along with anything else.

[Ironcore]

Small yield hydrogen bombs makes more sense to me. Blown all to hell indeed. Supposedly they perform these acts in such an obvious manner so that it would seem too ridiculous to even conceive that it occurred in an planned manner to most of the thinking population. So the idea even though apparently obvious is dismissed immediately, even subconsciously, because you are too intelligent and observant to be fooled in such an obvious manner. Sort of like magicians and illusionists. The trick you by doing it right before your eyes, making you think that it would be impossible to trick you in that exact manner.

Pure evil I tells ya.

[MikeE]

"Small yield hydrogen bombs" ?? Ain't no such thing.

[DQ Veg]

"Small yield hydrogen bombs" ?? Ain't no such thing.Well if there is, I want one to committ suicide with.....:anger: :behead: :boat:

[Pepik]

I never said David Ray Griffin is an expert on engineering. He is simply one of the more prominent 9/11 truth scholars who has done a fine job piecing all the evidence together. (Not just regarding the collapse, but in all areas regarding the "official" story.)So actually his only real qualification is that he agrees with you. Maybe you think the 9/11 commission should have been made up of professors of theology instead of engineers? There are, however, dozens of structural engineers and physicists in the organization.Really? Name a dozen structural engineers in the organisation. No idea what you're talking about, and I really don't care because this isn't about Steven Jones or his character. You're just like media lapdogs such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, who find things to attack other than the evidence they're unable to argue against. It's called a smear tactic.So smearing means you can't argue against evidence? "You talk like you know everything when you in fact know nothing. Thanks for the waste of bandwidth. You are very uninformed and have no facts, so thank you for nothing." Those are Rat quotes. One rule for you, one rule for everybody else I guess. outcry from students and staff who cannot handle alternative information that goes against their fragile belief system.I think their fragile belief system is called actual engineering expertise, and they didn't like quacks embarassing their school by catering to conspiracy theory cults. Hahahah! We're talking about a minor roof collapse here that is common in structural fires. The building didn't collapse, it just suffered damage which is to be expected with any major fire in a building that is quite small.So first you say fire has never brought down a steel structure building, and now you are saying that steel girders buckling from the heat of a fire is "common". Keep in mind this factory hadn't been hit by a 757 and wasn't supporting 20 stories and massive weight on its roof, and you can see why your attempt to laugh this off falls flat. The fact is, Building Seven was more than a block away from the towers and didn't receive half the damage buildings directly next to the towers did.I'm going to take the word of numerous firefighters whose eyewitness testimony said that the building was heavily damaged and looked like it could collapse over your claims pulled from thin air. There is no way a person can watch the collapse of WTC-7 and say that it wasn't a controlled demolition.... unless they're in denial or are a government plant.Apparently lots of engineers and demolitions experts can watch the collapse and say it wasn't a controlled demolition, and that's why the 911 truth movement has to rely on philosophy professors at community colleges for membership.

[Ironcore]

"Small yield hydrogen bombs" ?? Ain't no such thing.
I was referring to this post: http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204623

[MikeE]

I was thinking that the Hiroshima bomb is tiny by current standards. If the twin towers were taken down by a bomb, it was smaller than the Hiroshima device, because it didn't leave a city sized hole behind. My understanding of the physics of nuclear bombs is that any H-bomb needs to be more powerful than Fat Boy. I am aware that my knowlege is no where near the state of the art.

The referance you gave says that small fusion devices, suitable for demolition work, have been developed. The advantages of a teenie tiny itsy bitsy fusion device over dynamite was not made clear. (i.e. why develop the tiny nuke in the first place, or was it a special project for 911?)

I had not realized that the 911 consipiricy theories had developed a network of interlocking nut theories.

I leave with this thought about conspiracy theories in general - If they have the secret devices, the secret operatives and the will to maintain silence after the event, opposing them is futile. But I can see where fereting out their deepest secrets would be an amusing hobby.

Have fun. (Does aluminum foil work as well as tin?)

[MonCul The Baboon]

Good post pepik

[Airfern1313]

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

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."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that 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.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

whole thing at : Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1)

[Free Mason]

That wasn't caused by bombs. Its was caused by the buildings falling. We know you are a Russian-Iranian agent.

[Free Mason]

What really happened with the jet fuel.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

http://tinyurl.com/p25rc

[SourceoftheForce]

two little fleas were jumping out, one said good riddance one said I'm out. Seems like you little biters are in a battle for clout, one for the north the other for the south. Either way what do you think the impact of the words you say will be, the answer is not a gawddamn whiff of damage gee. One little guy scared to see the other little flea convinced that the bad guy is me. Shall the people remain toothless or will the biters draw blood? This time I destroy the globe with fire fuck a flood. Information dissemination is like mastubation for recreation, you can beat away but you still ain't gettin no pussy. If you want real action you got to hit the skins, i.e. make targets fall down(pay for their sins) You want impact? pick a target, knock it down, try to survive, if you are captured then spit your diatribe. People listen to men of action even when they dissagree in principality entirely, the marketing value of violent citizens is about to go exponential. Now cypher that shit like two fleas on the differential.

[Free Mason]

I'm beggining to think that these 911 conpiracy theorists are held prisoner somewhere in a secret Iranian jail and forced to write anti-western propaganda all day on the internet. :nopity:


Here's absolute indisputable proof that its all true.

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.activistchat.com

----------------------

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/islamist/islamist.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/ani/am/AMQ01.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/ani/ucows/ax/hmax1a.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/shitlist/shitlist.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/dustbin/dustbin.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/darkages/ida01.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/darkages/ida06/ida06.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/regress/regress.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/brains/shit-head.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/traitor/traitor.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/bushkham/bushkham.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/lop/jannkhat/jannkhat.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/ax/cards/clubs.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/ax/beaut/beaut1a.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/inani/ax/passion/pass1.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/pages/ipc/azi/Azi.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/ani/lop/cat/stupid.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/ani/lop/azi/azi-PL.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/ani/lop/azi/azi-P.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/polgr/ani/lop/cat/where-home.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/pages/ipc/Persian.htm

http://www.pcpages.com/ani/pages/polls/polls.html

-----------------------

http://www.apostatesofislam.com

http://www.faithfreedom.org

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/index.php

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/index.php

http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.activistchat.com

http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/default.aspx

http://islam-watch.org


http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2829059.stm

http://www.islam-watch.org/

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

http://www.atcoalition.net/

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/pages/6-Mein%20Kampf_jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/moslem.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://atheism.about.com/cs/islamandviolence/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/17/martyr.culture/index.html

http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html

http://www.domini.org/openbook/home.htm

http://www.persecution.org

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9583

http://www.danielpipes.org/

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/kafirdomunity/action.htm

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/BTaliban/Bangla_Taliban_Photos.html

http://www.bwoi.cjb.net

http://www.chechentruth.cjb.net/

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

http://www.arabsforisrael.com/pages/1/index.htm

http://www.rotter.net/israel/

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/Islam.html

http://www.geocities.com/milkmandan2003/TalibanOnline1.html

http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/posts/755.html

http://www.isralert.com/archives/2005/03/deceit_thy_name.php

http://www.factsandlogic.org

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d191/zakirnaik/zakicaptured.gif

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/toc.html

http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/quotes1.html#terrorism

http://www.pmw.org.il/

http://tinyurl.com/ydc9qj




According to these links the Quran has been changed over time.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-koran-manuscripts.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/3.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/

http://www.jodkowski.pl/re/MBright.html

http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm

---------

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5197

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5237

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5258


"Modern Liberals, With Some Exceptions, Are Fascists. They Preach Peace At The Expense Of Liberty, Diversity At The Expense Of Common Sense, Equality At The Expense Of Fairness And Choice At The Expense Of Life. They Are The First To Speak About Rights, Yet They Seek To Deny You Yours If You Disagree With Them. They Vociferate The Importance Of Free Speech, Yet Do Everything In Their Power To Stifle Yours. They Demonize The Very System Which Allows Them The Freedom To Criticize In The First Place, And They Are The Last People In Line When It Comes To Defending The One Country On Earth That Would Ever Tolerate Their Hypocrisy. They Are Divisive, Immoral And Utterly Incapable Of Understanding Why Everything I Just Wrote Is The Truth." - Edward L. Daley



"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell

“Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism.” – Thomas Sowell

“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” – G. Gordon Liddy

------------------


The book Islam and Terrorism by Mark Gabriel:
http://cbw.strang.com/c.cgi?ProdID=8847&Source=CNSITE

The book Islam and Terrorism by Mark Gabriel:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0884198847/qid=1140213202/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5269966-1274325?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
http://tinyurl.com/fbtv7


Some pages from Mark Gabriel's book (need Adobe Acrobat Reader):


http://home.ripway.com/2005-6/328030/Mark%20Gabriel/Chapter4.pdf 206KB

http://home.ripway.com/2005-6/328030/Mark%20Gabriel/Chapter5.pdf 124KB

http://home.ripway.com/2005-6/328030/Mark%20Gabriel/DeceitChapter6.pdf 101KB

http://home.ripway.com/2005-6/328030/Mark%20Gabriel/MuslimPastorCh7.pdf 100MB

http://home.ripway.com/2005-6/328030/Mark%20Gabriel/3StagesJihadCh11.pdf 88MB



(free ripway accounts allow a maximum of 10MB transfer per day. If links don't work, try back later)

[hyperborean]

well thats coz u are one of da okes whose supporting da big guys at the top, right? so obviously u dont want people to think for themselves, put evidence together and come up with their own freaking, though probably more accurate truths! or am i wrong? whats your agenda Free Mason?? if u against free-thinkers why u even on this thread, neaver mind this entite forum? or u just here to spin some more evil propaganda for your evil buddies:H he, he, i definately think so...

[Columbo]

This is clearly the worst research I've seen done on any conspiracy theory its just a bunch of photo's that someone drew some arrows on and wrote a few words on with no Expert qualifications, in, engineering, ballistics, explosives, fuel combustion, aerodynamics, physics, and 10 or 20 other disciplines necessary to make such judgements.
I would expect that at least a multidisciplined team of scientists would be required to refute or testify to each claim made in the photo's

Someone with an opinion and photoshop dont really count unless they also are the spokesperson for a whole heap of scientists who made a deep study of the evidence - usually such bodies would have serious I would like to see the actual qualifications and a link to the persons academy or office so I could research the background of that person or peoples career

[Roct]

I think for myself. I take all kinds of facts and pieces of evidence that don't add up and apply them accordingly.
Um, ok. So you take facts and PIECES of evidence that DON'T add up and you come up with a theory that the US Gov't is responsible for 9/11?

Can you show your work on this? I'd like to know which PIECES of evidence you chose to look at and how you were able to add them up to equal US involvment when you say that they don't add up.

Without taking pieces of evidence and instead looking at the whole evidence, I see that it adds up to a bunch of people that just don't like the US. And guess what, since you're an American, they don't like you either. This world is not a warm and fuzzy place. Sometime people just don't like other people for reasons we'll never understand.