They are hijacking all the muslims who are keeping their mouths shut. It does not matter what a judeo-christian position is, the muslims have to be in charge for the clean up FIRST...

How you can say that they all are muslims  or most of them are muslims....
Let me clear you......Terrorists have no religion....

And if i say all terrorists belongs to your religion...?? Then what is your thinking..?

Isn't strange??

Those things happening on the same day just proves that they have a bigger leader and faction.
(I already found someone saying that those things are just a few retards)

And this scares the shit out of me to ever be travelling to Europe, srysly

AAARRRRRRRR WHAT EVER
I DON,T CARE IT WAS NO PLANE  
NO MORE FOR ME COZ YOUR BORING ME NOW
av a nice day you sheep

Yes, if you're disputing something, the onus is on you to provide the basis for your claim. Making vague statements that could be interpreted any number of ways and then refusing to explain them upon request is to be regarded as an automatic admission you don't have a point.

What about witnesses or victims who are also muslims? Do their voices count or not?

Let me remind you this thread is not about terrorism as you can see in post #2.

thanks bud I REST MY CASE     MISSILE  just what i always thought
never seen that video in such slow motion
 i tried slowing it down on me ps3 in the past but not quite like that TOTAL PROOF a MISSILE 
plus why on earth would the FBI try and confiscate all the video evidence around the pentagon even the petrol stations video
if plane hit the pentagon then you would just show it to the american people not try cover it up
you would say
here is the video from the petrol station and here is the plane hitting the pentagon
the towers i knew blew up 97% sure    just a little thought thinking hmmm fire 3% fire

but i was 99% sure a plane never hit the pentagon
but after seeing that video i am 100% sure now no plane hit the pentagon

thanks bud 

I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration.

Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time.

2.3 trillion dollars sounds good to me not crazy
plus planes never hit both towers i could go on like you why this and why that
your a sheep i am not
i have seen and lived to much to get bullshitted
any 1 who gets in power will line there own pockets before the peoples pockets its human instinct to make sure your family ok before any 1 else

see if a poor man gets in power he steal 1 million of tax payer to fund his family
if a rich man gets in power he steals 100 million to fund his family

not the real figures but you get my point
your trust for government is crazy

plus in the video did you here the fireman he says malting steel now who know more about fire him or you   i mean he is a fireman after all   how many fires have you put out

Spendulus
so do you think the towers come down by fire forget about the thermite
 DID YOU THINK THE TOWERS COME DOWN BY FIRE   PLUS BUILDING 7 did that fall because of fire

SO JUST SAY FIRE OR BLEW UP
because if you say fire wow

 goodbye and av a nice day

Some of the stories are just fabrication or speculation, yet, those are taken as facts by medias and when the truth is discovered, medias bury those truths.

---

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

WASHINGTON — In the 14 years since Al Qaeda carried out attacks on New York and the Pentagon, extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States, explaining their motives in online manifestoes or social media rants.

But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.

The slaying of nine African-Americans in a Charleston church last week, with an avowed white supremacist charged with their murders, was a particularly savage case.

But it is only the latest in a string of lethal attacks by people espousing racial hatred, hostility to government and theories such as those of the “sovereign citizen” movement, which denies the legitimacy of most statutory law. The assaults have taken the lives of police officers, members of racial or religious minorities and random civilians.

Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants have taken place in the same period.

If such numbers are new to the public, they are familiar to police officers. A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University.

“Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists,” said Dr. Kurzman, whose study is to be published by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security and the Police Executive Research Forum.

John G. Horgan, who studies terrorism at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, said the mismatch between public perceptions and actual cases had become steadily more obvious to scholars.

“There’s an acceptance now of the idea that the threat from jihadi terrorism in the United States has been overblown,” Dr. Horgan said. “And there’s a belief that the threat of right-wing, antigovernment violence has been underestimated.”

Counting terrorism cases is a subjective enterprise, relying on shifting definitions and judgment calls.

If terrorism is defined as ideological violence, for instance, should an attacker who has merely ranted about religion, politics or race be considered a terrorist? A man in Chapel Hill, N.C., who was charged with fatally shooting three young Muslim neighbors had posted angry critiques of religion, but he also had a history of outbursts over parking issues. (New America does not include this attack in its count.)

Likewise, what about mass killings in which no ideological motive is evident, such as those at a Colorado movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school in 2012? The criteria used by New America and most other research groups exclude such attacks, which have cost more lives than those clearly tied to ideology.

Some killings by non-Muslims that most experts would categorize as terrorism have drawn only fleeting news media coverage, never jelling in the public memory. But to revisit some of the episodes is to wonder why.

In 2012, a neo-Nazi named Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and opened fire, killing six people and seriously wounding three others. Mr. Page, who died at the scene, was a member of a white supremacist group called the Northern Hammerskins.

In another case, in June 2014, Jerad and Amanda Miller, a married couple with radical antigovernment views, entered a Las Vegas pizza restaurant and fatally shot two police officers who were eating lunch. On the bodies, they left a swastika, a flag inscribed with the slogan “Don’t tread on me” and a note saying, “This is the start of the revolution.” Then they killed a third person in a nearby Walmart.

And, as in the case of jihadist plots, there have been sobering close calls. In November 2014 in Austin, Tex., a man named Larry McQuilliams fired more than 100 rounds at government buildings that included the Police Headquarters and the Mexican Consulate. Remarkably, his shooting spree hit no one, and he was killed by an officer before he could try to detonate propane cylinders he drove to the scene.

Some Muslim advocates complain that when the perpetrator of an attack is not Muslim, news media commentators quickly focus on the question of mental illness. “With non-Muslims, the media bends over backward to identify some psychological traits that may have pushed them over the edge,” said Abdul Cader Asmal, a retired physician and a longtime spokesman for Muslims in Boston. “Whereas if it’s a Muslim, the assumption is that they must have done it because of their religion.”

On several occasions since President Obama took office, efforts by government agencies to conduct research on right-wing extremism have run into resistance from Republicans, who suspected an attempt to smear conservatives.

A 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security, which warned that an ailing economy and the election of the first black president might prompt a violent reaction from white supremacists, was withdrawn in the face of conservative criticism. Its main author, Daryl Johnson, later accused the department of “gutting” its staffing for such research.

William Braniff, the executive director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, said the outsize fear of jihadist violence reflected memories of Sept. 11, the daunting scale of sectarian conflict overseas and wariness of a strain of Islam that seems alien to many Americans.

“We understand white supremacists,” he said. “We don’t really feel like we understand Al Qaeda, which seems too complex and foreign to grasp.”

The contentious question of biased perceptions of terrorist threats dates back at least two decades, to the truck bombing that tore apart the federal building in Oklahoma City in April 1995. Some early news media speculation about the attack assumed that it had been carried out by Muslim militants. The arrest of Timothy J. McVeigh, an antigovernment extremist, quickly put an end to such theories.

The bombing, which killed 168 people, including 19 children, remains the second-deadliest terrorist attack in American history, though its toll was dwarfed by the roughly 3,000 killed on Sept 11.

“If there’s one lesson we seem to have forgotten 20 years after Oklahoma City, it’s that extremist violence comes in all shapes and sizes,” said Dr. Horgan, the University of Massachusetts scholar. “And very often, it comes from someplace you’re least suspecting.”

http://nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Agency destroyed e-mails after telling Congress they couldn’t be found.

....

In light of Koskinen’s public defiance and the agency’s continued stonewalling of the investigation, some lawmakers favor impeachment, because it doesn’t require cooperation from President Obama’s Justice Department. “Any civil officer is liable to be impeached,” the lawmaker says. “If the IG reports that evidence has been destroyed deliberately, that would be clearly a misdemeanor.” “It’s really a test of whether Congress is going to defend its institutional prerogatives,” the Oversight Committee member says. “If you have a situation where it’s fine for people to come misrepresent the facts, not produce documents, and just do that with impunity, then why are we even conducting oversight?”


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420277/irs-scandal-house-republicans-impeaching-commissioner-koskinen

i have studied 9/11 for at least 10 years because when they said it was fire that brought down those buildings i thought no way government are liars.
 i just become addicted to find out more and more because i knew they where lying FIRE

if they would of said planes hit then there where terrorist in the building with bombs i would of believed that story... but the buildings blew up because that is what happened they blew up NOT FIRE
i would not be even bothered about 9/11 so much i would of felt sorry for victims but then just carried on with my life never to be interested again
but because they said fire that is when i become very interested why is USA government lying to there people THE LAND OF THE FREE WOW
plus the best one was
 one of the terrorist flew the planes into to buildings the planes blew up in a ball off fire brought down the towers and they found the terrorist passport on the floor after all that WOW
 but here is your evidence for malting iron plastic wont glow like that and wood don,t drip
 but watch this for proof

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

why would people who where in the buildings tell lies?
if they worked for the government they say it was just fire like there government said

plus this is my last post on the topic i sick to the back teeth of it all
 if you think your government telling you the truth about 9/11 then your a plant pot

all i know now after this event .. governments are really shady and i don,t trust them as far as i could throw them..never thought like that until this event IT OPENED MY MIND

only government ass licker or a total plant pot would say they where brought down by planes
malting iron not plastic and office stuff  you joker.....

and your own opinion and "gut feeling" based on your worldview is more legitimate than data produced by the advanced scientific community.  

Since it clearly needs to be asked, in what sense is she not an "average lady?" You've disputed a term without justifying or explaining what you're talking about, then want to know why your throw away comment wasn't addressed? Because there's no substance to address.

Now we have 6th graders explaining Twin Towers architectural construction? It's a wonder that the buildings lasted as long as they did.

....

"There isn't anything complicated about explaining pools of molten metal days later.  There isn't anything complicated about "orange liquid," either." - You really believe that? Then you haven't been paying attention... you're just desperately holding on to the story that "must" make sense in your mind.

Except for those two ideas, spot on, yep.



Well yes sure, but from my perspective it's obvious that you are "a gullible fool who bought into the government story"... well, really the media story. You talking about "magical mystery nanothermite" does not make that theory any less plausible, and certainly does nothing to "cement" the media's "hijacked plane impacts + kerosene + gravity did it" conspiracy theory... which is the point, really. You don't have to believe in nanothermite or anything else whatsoever. The only real question is why do you believe the media story -- which is not only one of the most ridiculous "conspiracy theories" ever concocted, but is told and presented as if uncontrovertably true by the biggest liars in the world (whom you agree are not really benevolent leaders)?

"There isn't anything complicated about explaining pools of molten metal days later.  There isn't anything complicated about "orange liquid," either." - You really believe that? Then you haven't been paying attention... you're just desperately holding on to the story that "must" make sense in your mind.