Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?

Seventh anniversary of 9/11, and justice still nowhere to be found (unless big brother’s invasions, murders and resource theft satisfy some twisted demonic war-mongering enthusiasm).

This article is quite long, but some here may want to dive in and understand some of the lies purported by the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

McCain and Obama have both sold out to the official conspiracy theory - regardless of the fallacies or ramifications. I seriously doubt either of them could lead an America awoken to the internal lies and betrayal of the real 9/11 perps. Interestingly enough, independents Nader and McKinney both admit a new and truthful investigation is absolutely required into those fateful attacks.

[quote=“David Ray Griffin”]
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?


The assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 also lies behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New Yorker.

As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11 developments, including as spying, torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, America’s new doctrine of preemptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending, the assumption that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative consequences for both international and domestic issues.1

Is it conceivable that this assumption might be false? Insofar as Americans and Canadians would say “No,” they would express their belief that this assumption is not merely an “assumption” but is instead based on strong evidence. When actually examined, however, the proffered evidence turns out to be remarkably weak. I will illustrate this point by means of 16 questions.

  1. Were Mohamed Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims?
  2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden’s Responsibility for 9/11?
  3. Was Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners?
  4. Was the Presence of Hijackers Proved by a Radio Transmission “from American 11”?
  5. Did Passports and a Headband Provide Evidence that al-Qaeda Operatives Were on the Flights?
  6. Did the Information in Atta’s Luggage Prove the Responsibility of al-Qaeda Operatives?
  7. Were al-Qaeda Operatives Captured on Airport Security Videos?
  8. Were the Names of the “Hijackers” on the Passenger Manifests?
  9. Did DNA Tests Identify Five Hijackers among the Victims at the Pentagon?
  10. Has the Claim That Some of the “Hijackers” Are Still Alive Been Debunked?
  11. Is There Positive Evidence That No Hijackers Were on the Planes?
  12. Were bin Laden and al-Qaeda Capable of Orchestrating the Attacks?
  13. Could Hani Hanjour Have Flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon?
  14. Would an al-Qaeda Pilot Have Executed that Maneuver?
  15. Could al-Qaeda Operatives Have Brought Down the World Trade Center Buildings?
  16. Would al-Qaeda Operatives Have Imploded the Buildings?


All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be enormous. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. The most immediate consequence, however, should be to reverse those attitudes and policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11.[/quote]

Just as well. Or you’d have to pick a new hobby. :laughing: Them girders wuz CUT, man! By ALIENS from outer SPACE! They got 'em in a desert compound out in Arizona, I’m TELLING you! The facts are THERE, man! Think about it – do they have them Muslims out there in space? NO SIR, they do NOT! You see? I rest my case.

Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?

Yes. The attackers were Islamic extremists.

Was there a 9/11 conspiracy?

Yes. 19 Islamic extremists conspired to fly plans into buildings, and their plans mostly succeeded.

[quote=“Chris”]Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?

Yes. The attackers were Islamic extremists.

Was there a 9/11 conspiracy?

Yes. 19 Islamic extremists conspired to fly plans into buildings, and their plans mostly succeeded.[/quote]
Spoilsport! Or does this mean that they’ve GOT to you, too? You know there are all kinds of mobile phone towers out there in the boonies where you go hiking. You don’t honestly believe that they’re only used for cellphone coverage? :loco:
They’re filling your head with Bush’s nonsense every time you go out there, man, I’m telling you. The White House has this massive underground facility housing this huge thing that interferes with mobile phone signals and implants false memories in people’s heads! It’s true.
Think about it, man! How many times have you ever seen pics or video of the White House basement? Never, right?
Have you NEVER wondered WHY that is? It’s fucking OBVIOUS! Cellphone implantation technology! Straight from the bowels of George Bush!

Was Iraq attacked by Christians?

Goddamn right. Godfearing ones, too! Wielding the sword of righteousness.

Now I’m completely freaked out. Eslewhere Sandman “predidcted” j.scholl would be back with such talk! How’d he “know” that? And how does he know about the aliens?


All this talk about a Bush conspiracy to attack the Towers is just plain foolish. Bush isn’t even a ral lizard, he just likes to think he is.

any anunakin worth even a drop of lizard spit knows that it was all set up by the grand council, and that the ‘muslim terrorists’ were of course 100% pure fuckin’ lizard, just like the rest of the best of us.

not you, though, you’re just a lowly human. get off my planet.

Aw jeez, not this shite again. Look, pie is way better than cake, okay? You’ve got the different textures of pie, just for starters. You’ve even got sweet and savoury pies, too. Let’s see cake do that, eh? And get this: you can eat pie hot or cold. No one ever ate a hot cake, no way, never happened. There is simply nothing better than a fresh fruit pie, with ice cream. Cake has all that sickly sweet icing on it, too. Blech.

And when did you ever eat a fruit cake? Put the two words together and you get that awful Xmas monstrosity, fruitcake. So you see, it’s no contest. Pie wins.

There are cakes which are quite good hot, such as coffee cake, and pineapple upside-down cake. And hotcakes. :moon:

Mooncake has not been mentioned in this thread. It is a conspiracy!

Pie is wa-a-a-y better than mooncakes. Though I would submit that mooncakes are closer to pie than cake, anyway. It is semantics which is causing the confusion here.

Like with hotcakes, which are not cake because they’re not baked, they’re cooked (fried? grilled? help me out here) in a pan. They’re not “cake,” per se, so they don’t count.

Though it’s all academic anyway, because pie is better than cake. My logic is unassailable on this point.

Who really planned and executed the attacks on 9/11 will remain a serious topic, regardless of the jokes pinned on us who want to know.

McCain wrote the forward to Hearst’s latest false flag Popular Mechanics fairytale. Obama justifies pulling US forces out of Iraq to hunt for the ‘real’ (accused) 9/11 culprit.

Should we accept the official fairytale because the authors are noble, straight-forward, honest with nothing to gain except a clean conscious? Of course, belittling those who even question the holes, contradictions and outright impossibilities of that tale actually does give credit to the administration. Good on ya.

Just because this group of meek-minded popularly charitable leaders gleefully brought us the unPatriot Act, solid proof of Iraq’s WMDs, Brownie’s Katrina horror, reams of unethical actions to protect itself against scrutiny, why in the world would someone who loves his country want to promote a new investigation into what really happened?

Is this why f.com’s IP crossfire has become the default spittoon for alcoholic alien hunters and betty crocker pansies?

For every post about inquiring into what really happened, I’d just like to see a straight-up discussion. If I can’t accept the topic, what good is it to me to post some bola posing as a drunk or scared heavy weight attempting to maintain posture?

Admittedly, a few conversations have transpired about why parts of the official fairytale are plausible. And there was even someone on here who said, when there is actual evidence of wrongdoing on the part of US insiders, he’ll join us in DC demanding justice or something.

We know history is written by the victorious. But when the masses who demand justice outnumber the power brokers, change can occur. If the truth about how the 9/11 attacks is really as it has been told to us, the story wouldn’t contradict itself or have so many holes. All we want is a new investigation, because really, every investigation so far has been a sham… from the towers mysteriously imploding, the anthrax origins, norad standing down, the unprecedented put-options that weren’t claimed, and so on.

However, given the popularity of belittling the topic, I have to believe that its easier for people to complain about what we don’t like than actually considering we each have role to play in effecting change. But I know there are more American citizens on Taiwan who do care about the truth of 9/11 coming to light.

You’re an alky? There are groups, you know. 12-step programs and that. Take CHARGE, man. It’s YOUR life!

That was me. I meant it too. It was “if” not “when” though. I haven’t had to make those reservations yet, and don’t expect to. I don’t suppose Bush attacked the WTC the first time around, khobar towers, african embassies, us cole etc etc after all, so you can’t say it’s a huge leap that just maybe the same people were responsible for 9-11.

The OP mentioned one inconsistancy that got my attention a few yrs back and that is the put opions which can’t be conveniently ignored. Maybe someone here could read through these links and explain the suspicious nature of this pre 911 event just for the record.

rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar … read=73104


I have a feeling that if 911 did not happen on American soil, more people would be inclined to not to believe the “official story” in which I have growing doubts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_ … stigations

Market Activity Investigations

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the “9/11 Commission”) investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

New photo–look at the confusion on the firemen’s faces

Doesn’t look confused to me at all. He’s obvious demasking in order to have a piece of that yummy cherry pie falling from the sky.