Home | About | Donate

The Reduction of Muslim Americans


#1

The Reduction of Muslim Americans

Raed Jarrar

On August 31, Nazma Khanam, a 60-year-old Muslim woman, was stabbed to death while walking near her home in Queens.

The culprit was charged with second degree murder and robbery. But Khanam’s family believes the killing was a hate crime, noting that no personal possessions were stolen.


#4

The War on Terror it's self is a very real and ongoing hate crime. The ongoing wars that were set off by the treasonous demolitions of 9-11 is the fraud, and the PNAC Neocons that apparently plotted it are yet to be even officially investigated for their mass murder destruction, and as 'officially' planned it was blamed on innocent Muslims. There is overwhelming proof that none of the WTC buildings came down as a result of any alleged airliners that supposedly crashed into the building or by building contents or aircraft fuel ol fires. Supposed suspects had to be torture over a period of years to obtain confessions that don't even fit, but still with no conclusive proof the U.S still continues it's for Zionist Israel gain Wall Street Mafia profits of war we are still finding fraudulently justified reasons to attack countries of the Middle East and blame Muslims for our corrupted leadership's crimes against humanity. We need a non-partisan world body to hold a war crimes tribunal where they are placed safely out of reach of U.S. persons of power so that the world can a real and honest investigation, and hold those really responsible with proper due process of law. We do that and we can again began on a road toward peace, and clear up the lie of Muslim terrorism, when the real driver is Zionism and Wall Street profit.


#5

Stop. I know personally one of the fire scientists who investigated why the towers fell. Pull that link out of your Jenga pile, and the whole thing topples. No big gov't conspiracy needed, just construction that didn't contemplate such an attack. And you don't help Muslim Americans any by your fictions.


#7

Call me what you want, jgibsosman, but I stand by my opinion that it was the planes falling down and hitting the buildings that caused that collapse of the WTC Towers on 9/11/2001.


#8

As things stand now that is the most likely explanation. The hardest thing to explain is the collapse of Building 7 which was not hit by a plane. The most likely explanation would seem to be fire in the building eventually led to its collapse. As far as I can tell there is no hard evidence that demolition explosives were used anywhere. No one has taken claim for using such explosives. No one has confessed that they were involved in planting explosives. There is no chemical evidence that explosives were used. No one saw anybody plant explosives or saw any explosives.


#9

I have to disagree, Lrx. Both buildings of the WTC collapsed. It had to have been the planes landing on top of the planes that were filled with airplane fuel that caused the buildings to collapse from the very top on down the way they did. 9/11 happened for at least several reasons:

A) (former) President Bill Clinton's warnings of an attack by Al-Qaeda, as well as the vulnerability of skyscrapers to such an attack were totally ignored by the G. W. Bush Administration.

B) The failure of the United States and its allies to share information.

C) If the fact that other countries throughout the world had experienced international terrorist attacks of some sort or any other before the United States did, we were bound to get hit sooner or later, and we did.

D) The fact that the United States had been meddling in other countries' affairs for over half a century finally backfired on our government. Sooner or later, somebody was bound to react, and they finally did.


#10

And to @MaPol and @jgibsosman, I'll repeat that an old family friend was among the fire-science experts who examined the evidence and analyzed what brought down the towers, for the 9/11 commission. He explained it to me as, yes, a shock that the fire-retardant foam (state of the art at the time the towers were built) fell off the structural elements, and that the beams warped. I heard a survivor from tower 2, above where the plane hit, on WNYC last Wednesday, telling his story, and saying that he felt the tower wobble so far in one direction that he thought it would fall right then. I watched the film of Osama watching the coverage and being as startled as the rest of us when the towers went down. That wasn't in the plan. No one realized that the towers could be brought down from up high, but analysis of the evidence explained it. Those claiming it required explosives from below have not examined the evidence and are speculating.

Now let's get back on topic.


#11

Not too, too long after the horrifically freaky events of 9/11/01 happened, I read an article in the New Yorker (written by a native New Yorker, btw), which stated that there were some defects, not only in the materials that were used to build the WTC Towers, but in the workmanship itself. That, too, might've contributed to the collapse of the WTC Towers, but I stand by everything else that I've said.


#12

Wasn't arguing with you. My family friend, who teaches fire science at John Jay and is an eminently honorable man, said essentially the same thing.


#13

Okay. Thanks, bkswrites.


#16

Your government-conspiracy theories contribute nothing to the topic of this article.


#17

that there were some defects, not only in the materials that were used to build the WTC Towers, but in the workmanship itself.

What defects, specifically? And how could these defects result in the near-total pulverization, in seconds, of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel-reinfrced concrete? What was their contribution to the absence, at Ground Zero, of the approximately one hundred acres (or very roughly, about four million square feet) of concrete pavement, the thousands of steel trusses, and the hundred acres of steel corrugated floor pan?
That's for one tower; double it for the two of them.

Why did one firefighter on the scene state that there wasn't anything bigger than the screen from a cell phone in the rubble of Ground Zero?
This story of "defects" is just more snow in the overall snow job.
The materials of which the Twin Towers were built lasted just fine for about thirty years, and then failed all at once, supposedly from causes that have never, before or since, caused the collapse and disintegration of even one single other high-rise building in the whole world.
The official story is impossible to the point of being ridiculous.

Don't say "but the airplanes..."
Yes, they were there, and did hit the Towers. But the airplanes were irrelevant to the collapse and disintegration.
Had not demolition explosives been used those two Towers could still be standing, albeit with big holes in the side.
Only explosives could have done what was done. I suggest more research, if that is not yet understood.

I've worked in construction most of my adult life and I know very well that steel and concrete are much, much harder to break, melt, pulverize, or shatter, than seems to be generally known.

When a car hits a concrete wall it does not turn the car, or the wall, to dust and grit in a few seconds.

When an airplane hits a skyscraper, great damage is done, but the building continues standing and does not suddenly turn to dust in mid-air, as the Twin Towers in fact did- a point which is fact, and not even arguable.

No known agency can do what was done, except for high explosives, and probably also exotic explosives or incendiaries, but definitely high explosive of the same type used in typical commercial building demolitions.
The demolition was top-down for reasons of safety and containment, as well as to fool the public into believing the nonsense that the planes were responsible for the collapse, by having the collapse begin up high.

A standard bottom-up demolition could not be used due to the height of the Twin Towers.

The pulverization, too, was planned, to greatly reduce the amount of large pieces of debris falling from a thousand feet above the streets. .
. The so-called dust cloud was, in fact, "powdered skyscraper, with contents".


#18

But I didn't call you anything, except mistaken.


#19

Again, I disagree with you.


#20

If you're thinking that 9/11 was an inside job, you're wrong! It wasn't. The Saudis planned and carried it out, and the planes that were full of airplane fuel hit the WTC Towers. The "Truther" stuff is BS, imho.


#21

But you did not build the original WTC or analyze the construction records and the debris. You quote one unnamed firefighter. I know a fire-science professional who did participate in the analysis, for the record, and he says there is absolutely no basis for your argument. Please stop. And it's off topic. This article is about people.


#22

So you are entering such debate, and then deem what is being discussed as off-topic.

You've got some chutzpah.


#23

off topic


#24

yet again, you are off topic


#25

you are off topic again