Posted on 04/19/2015 5:23:00 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
9/11 COVER-UP? The latest claim isn’t from conspiracy theorists--it’s from a former top US Senator. He says documents prove Saudi Arabia helped pull off the attacks, and that the FBI hid the truth. Shep has details:
Interesting clip pulling together a lot which has been said here and there since the horrific event.
I’m not an engineer, architect or a pilot, so can’t speak from personal expertise. However, what to me seems very odd & unusual is the ‘terrorists’ ability/skill in flying those planes. Particularly the one that hit the Pentagon - for the latter, I think it would require a pilot who has had a great of deal ‘actual’ practice, not only in a simulated environment. As far as I recall the official story was that those terrorists only learned to fly several months prior to the attacks? Fast learners with exceptional skills!
The core of the towers turned to dust, so even if the 'pancaking of the floors had happened as told by the agents of government psy-ops, the core should have been standing there without floors attached. The box columns were massive and would not have melted away. They were truned to dust, somehow.
Flying is not that hard once the planes are in the air. Even I have flown a plane.
Actually, plane have been known to land on the ground. It happens more than you think.
Nice try, but they don’t land at 500 plus ,iles per hour because the aerodynamic pressure will not allow the mass to get down far enough under controlled flight. If you fly that’s one of the first things you should have learned. To control flight close tot he earth you must reduce speed so the aerodynamic pressure decreases sufficiently to maintain control. You would do well to watch the video of pilots for 911 truth. ... That’s your cue to change the focus to something which you can then ridicule.
>>>”Actually, the aerodynamics are not going to allow a plane that size to fly that low along the supposed path to impact the Pentagon at ground level..........”<<<
Again, to my unexpert/untrained eyes, it looks like it’d be very hard to hit a low level building such as the Pentagon, with a plane of that size (a Boeing 757?) and with that degree of accuracy, as it was done.
>>>”Flying is not that hard once the planes are in the air. Even I have flown a plane.”<<<
AppyPappy, Am sure flying the planes once they are airborne isn’t hard. Takeoff, landing and hitting something at such a low level (not the towers) & accurately are different though.
“You would do well to watch the video of pilots for 911 truth”
You’d do well to try to be an American instead of a terrorist sympathizer.
If that wasn’t such a blatant insult (I’ve noticed you doing that more lately; health issues?), it would be funny, since you not only do not know me personally but have zero credibility when you make such stupid accusations with zero facts in evidence.
caww Cronos I understand better but even so it just seems from your posts the Imams have more control....since they could turn the people against the Sauds using “religious reasons for doing so”.... But would they do so? What reason would they have?
I prefer using the term Mufti or mullah in context of Sunnis -- as Imam tends to have more of a messianic tone for Shias (though an Imam is a leader of a mosque so technically also a muezzin etc. in Sunni Islam).
In Saudi Arabia there is very little difference between the religious leaders and the government leaders. The Saud family married into the Wahabb family and vice-versa.
The religious aim is simple -- Spread purist Islam -- pure Islam is that of the Koran literally, with a direct view of the Hadiths if at all. That is Salafiism of which the Wahabs are a part
If the Saud "government" does not spread Wahabbi Islam, then the "religious establishment" will push it. I enclose both in "" because there is no difference between the two
That's because you're comparing Saudi rule to that of a Western country. The only comparison you can make is to the Roman Empire in 370 AD -- a Christian Empire with zero separation of Church and State -- The King (or the Emperor) is the head, but there are multiple factions IN the "highest level of government" with no real checks and balances. HOWEVER, the core aim is spreading of the religion. At least in Rome there was the check taht Christianity does not support spreading by force, but Islam openly says "that be good -- do it!"
If I view this just from a geo-politcal sense, then the US should only support the Sauds when they are of use to us. But I view this from a Christian point of view and in that point of view we should oppose the Saudis specifically because their aim is spreading Islam. Christian leaders have allied with Moslems like the French kings did and it led to Christianity losing out. This should not be repeated
What exactlyd o you mean by "moving party"? The Iranis took the opportunity of a Sunni collapse in Iraq to move in and reacted tot he SAudis and Qataris trying to topple Assad with their own move (Assad's Alevis are imho not even Moslems, though they brand themselves as such, they are a religion between Islam and Christianity with a little Gnosticism put in)
I wouldn't use those words -- Wahabbism is about taking Islam back to it's "pure" state under Mohammad -- so removing the Sufi saints, the teachings of Shia Imams/Ayatollahs and implementing strict Shariah and forcing jaziyah on Christians (killing the others). This is not "making it more radical" but returning it to its original virulent form before the Abbassids
The Saudi-Wahabbis used their oil money to make earlier "softer" (relatively) forms of Islam into clones of their own -- they created the Taliban, etc.
Caww is correctly about “softer sides uniting” — Shias, Sunnis, Ibadis, Ismailis etc. would unite against Christians.
Not radicalize — remove softer portions that had developed ove rhte centuries.
My thoughts are similar to odds as expressed in post 278
>>>”Caww is correctly about “softer sides uniting” — Shias, Sunnis, Ibadis, Ismailis etc. would unite against Christians.”<<<
There is more than “one side” to everything; and as far as most Iranian (ruling) mullahs are concerned, there is No “softer side”. Though the Iranian Mullahs are willing to make deals within their limits, just as the Saudi regime is http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3280974/posts?page=278#278 (presumably others in non-Islamic world too!)
The above is as much about politics & power struggle as it is about religion and religious ‘denomination’ in the Islamic world.
I’m going to take a raincheck on Caww’s claim for now, way I see it. As I believe bringing in a “softer side” & “uniting against Christians” (real, unreal or surreal) will take more than the Islamic world; and, it is not country specific.
What do we know... it could even take what is said in this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3280974/posts?page=266#266 — personally, the words in this link are what I infinitely prefer - it was once, was progressing quite well, and can be again.
There are witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon. A freeper even saw the plane heading to the Pentagon. So your ridiculous statements to the contrary can only be taken as “The Islamic terrorists are blameless”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.