Two Muslim religious leaders removed from flight because pilot refused to fly with them - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29706748] it makes no sense for me to accept stuff from one side of the argument and not the other, does this not make sense?[/QUOTE] if one side of the argument is completely wrong about everything then, no, you shouldn't accept it

[QUOTE=Hruhf;29674351]Way to stereotype[/QUOTE] I would do the same. Why would i risk my life for two potential terrorists. No. I think not.

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714360]I would do the same. Why would i risk my life for two potential terrorists. No. I think not.[/QUOTE] i am a "potential terrorist" and so are you

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714360]I would do the same. Why would i risk my life for two potential terrorists. No. I think not.[/QUOTE] So muslim = potential terrorist? That must mean christian = PT too, or jewish, or american, or irish, or japanese, or any member of any group that has ever had someone in that group commit terrorism?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29714385]i am a "potential terrorist" and so are you[/QUOTE] No your just annoying. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29714424]So muslim = potential terrorist? That must mean christian = PT too, or jewish, or american, or irish, or japanese, or any member of any group that has ever had someone in that group commit terrorism?[/QUOTE] Facepunch cannot handle opinions, they all have to be liberal and pro immigration. Lol. I don't know why i bother posting in the news section. All you do is whine and complain.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29714385]i am a "potential terrorist" and so are you[/QUOTE] Him? Terrorists might not be the brightest bulbs on the tree, but even they have standards.

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714558]No your just annoying. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] Facepunch cannot handle opinions, they all have to be liberal and pro immigration. Lol. I don't know why i bother posting in the news section. All you do is whine and complain.[/QUOTE] That was completely unrelated to anything either of us said. Would you care to acknowledge the flaws in your belief or would you just like to say it's your "opinion" and thus idk it's like untouchable. e: Like that's totally off any political scale, I don't think either left or right wing implies xenophobia. And it also has nothing to do with immigration, it's just not racial profiling. I mean really how was that even a response?

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714558] Facepunch cannot handle opinions, they all have to be liberal and pro immigration. Lol. I don't know why i bother posting in the news section. All you do is whine and complain.[/QUOTE] "boo hoo people don't like it when i post idiotic racist opinions. you have to respect my freedom of speech q_q"

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714558]Lol. I don't know why i bother posting in the news section.[/QUOTE] yeah i don't know either

[QUOTE=thisispain;29714708]yeah i don't know either[/QUOTE] This.

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714729]This.[/QUOTE] I'll ask again, would you like to justify your profiling of a specific racial/religious group despite the acts of dozens of other groups that you don't profile? Do you think of Aum Shirinkyo whenever you see a japanese person in the subway? How about the IRA any time you see an irish person near, well, anything? e: The acts of hindu terrorists when you see an indian person? Timothy McVeigh or the Hutarese (whatever the name of the christian militia) when you see a WASP?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29714742]I'll ask again, would you like to justify your profiling of a specific racial/religious group despite the acts of dozens of other groups that you don't profile? Do you think of Aum Shirinkyo whenever you see a japanese person in the subway? How about the IRA any time you see an irish person near, well, anything? e: The acts of hindu terrorists when you see an indian person? Timothy McVeigh or the Hutarese (whatever the name of the christian militia) when you see a WASP?[/QUOTE] No because the majority of terrorists are from the middle east and are Muslim. Profiling by majority.

[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;29707298]The government planned 9/11 so we could go to Iraq and to distract us from the secret Muslim Kenyan who was set up with a fake birth certificate from Hawaii while he became president while Osama Bin Laden faked his death so we could reelect the secret Muslim Kenyan president! Conspiracy theories! Tah-dah![/QUOTE] the theories are actually more like, 9/11 was a motivation to justify invading the middle east for oil. your just as bad as the conspiricy theorists when you compare the rediculous ones, to the ones with some sense.

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714898]No because the majority of terrorists are from the middle east and are Muslim. Profiling by majority.[/QUOTE] Show me some statistics on this please, because I think you're pulling it out of your ass that most terrorists are Muslim.

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714898]No because the majority of terrorists are from the middle east and are Muslim. Profiling by majority.[/QUOTE] You're utterly missing my point. Out of billions of muslims and millions of middle eastern people (fun fact: Indonesia has the highest muslim population out of any other country, at ~202 million), the very small percentage that has ever been involved with terrorist acts or groups leads you to discriminate and profile all of them? And if that doesn't work for you, how about this: Why would someone that would actually want to successfully go through with a terrorist attack look like the stereotypical image of a terrorist, at least to you. Not very well thought out on their behalf, is it? [QUOTE=Mattk50;29714912]the theories are actually more like, 9/11 was a motivation to justify invading the middle east for oil. your just as bad as the conspiricy theorists when you compare the rediculous ones, to the ones with some sense.[/QUOTE] Afghanistan isn't very oil rich, so far as I know, and we only recently discovered something valuable (lithium). As for Iraq, why in the fuck would we lie and say Saudi terrorists connected to an Afghani group attacked our country if we wanted to invade Iraq? It literally makes no sense.

alright, so in the spirit of argument i went back and found some stuff that makes me think that the news hasnt been completely truthfull about 9/11. not saying aliens did it, or the US goverment did it, or some bullshit NWO, but there is more to it than meets the eye. They claimed they did not expect terrorists to use planes as missiles, when they had simulated both an airplane crash into the pentigon in 2000 and trained pilots in what might need to be done in the event of a plane heading twords the twin towers. the 3 members of al-qaeda who were identified to be living in brooklyn before the attack a year before. they "could have" been involved. im not sure what happened to them after 9/11 7/19 of the hijackers list are still alive for some reason. the fbi refuses to revise their list. Osama was treated in a US hospital in pakistan not long before 9/1, 1FBI was ordered to back off from investigations. er... what else. was there was ever any evidence linking osama to 9/11? if you can show some that would be awesome. whoever the real pilot of the plane is, was no who they claimed to be. that guy didnt know how to fly not long before the accident, but somehow knew how to do complex manuvers in an airliner. also, they found his passport blocks away. so the fire weakened steel but couldnt burn a passport? or the human bodies they claim they found? many many video recordings were confiscated by the FBI of the pentagon strike. they refuse to release them, and ive been told there is no evidence it was a plane crash and not a bomb, or anything else. in addition, shanksville smells of being false. vaporized upon impact just doesnt happen, there has to be a wreckage. also, peices of te wreckage found 6 miles away? people prevented from going there? sounds more like some kind of storage for whatever they used to fake the blast. (if shaksville was fake) the claim that weakened steel caused the floors to collapse and then caused a chain reaction. cant be true, because then there would have been the steel core still standing in the beginning phase of the collapse, and perhaps fell later.. instead, the whole building fell down at once, in opposition to this theory. the actual core of the building twin towers came down at freefall speed, the only way that could have happened without resistance is explosives at the base. the progressive collapse that is most common provides no explenation for how this is possible, it actually suggests the opposite in fact. whoever in this thread claimed you cant cut a columb horizontally is correct. what they do, is use thermite/explosives whatever at an angle. this is used in demolition everywhere google it if you dont believe me. a pattern clearly seen in the remaining supports of the WTC [img]http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/Cut%20beam.jpg[/img] the molten metal found was at 2000 degrees, enough to melt steel. while ti could have been aluminum, at that tempurature we can assume some steel was also able to be melted. what could get that hot? not jet fuel, as others stated in this thread. this was found 5 weeks after the collapse. (this is me assuming) aluminum should have cooled by then, but hotter steel would make sense. an active thermitic material was discovered in the dust from 9/11. was this because this active material is also found in other materials that would be in a collapsing building and plane? building 7 did not get hit by a plane, how did it collapse at nearly free fall speed so neatly? fires? from what, no plane hit it!??! the computer model used to calculate that the towers were brought down by planes, never had their parameters released. they could have had the towers made out of foam in those models :v:, they have not said. the law of conservation of momentum, look it up. 8:46 there were explosions in the basement, before the plane hit. after the plane hit, while people were still escaping, the lobby looked like it was hit by a bomb. how did that happen!? this is eye witness accounts of people escaping. people injured and dead in both basements, before the planes hit. while in every other case it takes 10 mins to scramble jets, instead it took 80 minutes to get them off the ground. how did norad fail so spectacularly when the time they are needed actuallly occurs? well, there were actually multiple conflicting military exercises going on. this does not happen normally. this excercise involved placing false radar beacons for the exercise, at the same exact time they were doing an exercise (this is from NORAD) which was a live fly hijack drill. so with 8 planes, (which have to travel in pairs) they could not tell on their radars between 22 possible hijackings, 18 (20 if you think the pentagon and shanksvillle were fake) of which were exercises. because of this, nobody knows if there were actually 4 or 2 planes in the air that day past eye witness accounts. thismay be correct, they may not be. we simply dont know. the point is that we dont know, and that is troubling. american authorities claim "the money used for the 9/11 attacks is of little practicle significance". the possible reasons that it did not matter are if they were funding it themselves, or if they were trying to save face by claiming what they couldnt do was unimportant anyway. 50/50 chance. why did bush and Cheney refuse to speak to the commisison separately? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9AoaU7LlTk[/media] more importantly, the 9/11 commission wanted to question them, and they refused to do so on their terms. Terrorist is a buzzword that appeared after 9/11. this word served as a revenge for 9/11 it was used as the enemy image to invade other contries. faked or not, everyone with sense agrees, that there was massive motvation to fake it. you can see it today with terrorism being thrown everywhere. disregarding 9/11 how many terrorists deaths actually happen yearly to warrant all this insanity? there are audio recordings of the old FBI cheif directly talking their informints in terrorist groups about a fake bomb in the basement of the towers. the audio then goes on to say, "then he was told, no, were going to put a real bomb". We remember the london train station terrorist act/bombing? well, the police were running the exact same anti-terrorist bombing scenario, at the exact same train stations, at the exact same time. did terrorists take advantage of the exercise times? maybe, but how did they find out about it, and not get caught? (if its time to move to a chat thread, let me know, mods. i dont think its worth another thread) im not trying to proove there is a NWO or some shit. im trying to say that the towers could have been brought down by either alquada infilitrating the building, or some kind of conspiritors. i just dont know, i dont pretend to know, but there is more than meets the eye here. you idiots calling throwing "conspiricy theorist" around dont even know what a conspiricy is anymore... do you... yeah, my grammar is crap, i typed this all up fast and there was alot of it. please forgive me.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29714982]:words:[/QUOTE] Here's a fun challenge: Cite every single claim you just made without referencing a 9/11 truther site or a site connected to Alex Jones. e: Also you never gave a way in which your "theory" is falsifiable.

[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;29698418][citation needed][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr.Thorn;29714898]No because the majority of terrorists are from the middle east and are Muslim. Profiling by majority.[/QUOTE] as a man you're much more likely to molest a child so i hope you're ok with me not letting you into public parks [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mattk50;29715021][URL]http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11[/URL][/QUOTE] you just linked to an article which uses 911 conspiracy sites as it's citations. nice try

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29714997]Here's a fun challenge: Cite every single claim you just made without referencing a 9/11 truther site or a site connected to Alex Jones.[/QUOTE] so, i gave you what evidence i would need disproved. go ahead, disprove it man. i was hoping you would do it like you said you would. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29715025]you just linked to an article which uses 911 conspiracy sites as it's citations. nice try[/QUOTE] we all know that the twin towers were built to withstand at least a same size plane going at a slower speed. i did a quick google and link to the people who refused to accept it despite the people arguing against me agreed. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] heres a better link. i dont understand, they cite the federal emergency management agency in 2002. they have sources, dont be thick just to annoy me. [url]http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29715030]so, i gave you what evidence i would need disproved. go ahead, disprove it man. i was hoping you would do it like you said you would.[/QUOTE] Do you not have the slightest bit of reading comprehension? I never said I was going to get into an argument and disprove your things (for which you've provided no evidence except your word and a site that cites conspiracy theory websites), I said I wanted a bit of evidence that you would say would disprove your theory. I'm not claiming to have anything here, this is all on your side. I know how much you're dying for an argument, but i'm not going to waste time picking away at your claims.

its really sad, i spent all that time writing that up, then you buffons dont even read it.

[QUOTE=amute;29674400]What the fuck is wrong with everyone that watches Fox News?[/QUOTE] Fixed that for you.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29715060]its really sad, i spent all that time writing that up, then you buffons dont even read it.[/QUOTE] We've already read it more time then we care to count over the last ten years.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29715030] [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] heres a better link. i dont understand, they cite the federal emergency management agency in 2002. they have sources, dont be thick just to annoy me. [url]http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html[/url][/QUOTE] Um... that site argues directly against you, they say the impact and fire caused the fall of the towers. [quote]Another design shortcoming that made the ensuing fire even more destructive was the use of weak floor trusses which spanned abnormally long distances (Ashley 2001). In the Twin Towers the steel trusses spanned nearly sixty feet without any support and were only four inches thick (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The extremely high-temperature fire heated the relatively thin floor rapidly, making the floor almost flexible because it lost most of its rigidity and consequently buckled. [B]Since the floor buckled, the extra support needed to come from the remaining exterior perimeter columns, but many had been destroyed by the planes’ initial impact. But those columns also depended on the core steel columns for support, but these columns were being subjected to extremely harsh conditions of the fire and were failing themselves. The exterior columns began to buckle onto the floor which buckled on the floor beneath and started a gigantic domino effect of the plunging stories. So, in effect, the fire caused all structural supports to weaken and fail within the Twin Towers.[/B] Fire was the Achilles heel of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, for they did not have sufficient fireproofing nor fire-suppression systems. Designers of future skyscrapers may install retrofitted aqueous film-forming foam extinguishers, similar to those used for aviation fires, to enhance fire safety in future projects. In addition, new high rises may have plans that have more evacuation sites as well as possible external ways like giant escape tubes or parachutes (Ashley 2001). In the future, architects, engineers, designers, and builders will look to further the safety and security to all those in skyscrapers and learn from the events of September 11.[/quote]

thats not even what i was linking it for. dont be thick. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] its getting really old [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;29715070]We've already read it more time then we care to count over the last ten years.[/QUOTE] and has all of it been disproved in one place? link?

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29715098]thats not even what i was linking it for. dont be thick. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] its getting really old[/QUOTE] So you're linking it to back up the fact that, yes, the structural engineers did say that it was built to withstand the impact of a slightly smaller plane going much slower? I accept this, this is common knowledge. You seem to ignore literally every other part of the page you linked which actively disproves the very notion you're trying to put forth. [QUOTE=Mattk50;29715098] and has all of it been disproved in one place? link?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.debunking911.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29715118]So you're linking it to back up the fact that, yes, the structural engineers did say that it was built to withstand the impact of a slightly smaller plane going much slower? I accept this, this is common knowledge. You seem to ignore literally every other part of the page you linked which actively disproves the very notion you're trying to put forth.[/QUOTE] someone said that it couldnt withstand the impact of a slightly smaller plane going much slower. i dont disregard some evidence someone has because the rest of their views, thats a fallacy. you should avoid that.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29715135]someone said that it couldnt withstand the impact of a slightly smaller plane going much slower. i dont disregard some evidence someone has because the rest of their views, thats a fallacy. you should avoid that.[/QUOTE] No one said that here, I don't know what you're trying to prove. We/I accept that, but it's irrelevant. And that's... just no. Goddamn it. It's not disregarding evidence, it's totally ignoring every thing but maybe the first paragraph because it fits your worldview. Also [url]http://www.debunking911.com/[/url] [url]http://www.debunking911.com/[/url] [url]http://www.debunking911.com/[/url] [url]http://www.debunking911.com/[/url] [url]http://www.debunking911.com/[/url] And you can stop rating us dumb now, we get the point. e: And I really don't know what you expect us to do when you post some gigantic mess of poorly written, uncited conspiracy? Were we supposed to read it and just kind of trust you or suddenly become enlightened? We've heard every one of these conspiracies before, and they've all been debunked. This is on the level of creationism now where it's just easier to link to talk.origins rather than engage in any real argument.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;29715135]i dont disregard some evidence someone has because the rest of their views, thats a fallacy. you should avoid that.[/QUOTE] This is generally true, but it tends not to apply when the view you're saying we shouldn't judge is directly related to the view you're saying we should trust.