129 Comments

• maloney | Sep 19, 2010, 09:41 AM EDT

  But not with yourself dennis, it will make you go blind.

• Monsoonman | Sep 18, 2010, 11:53 PM EDT

  Dennis, me fine friend....Give it a rest. Surprise suicide attacks can work wonders especially when domestic aircraft are used as weapons of mass destruction. NORAD was looking for an outside enemy, not our own domestic aircraft in our own airspace used against us....now run along and play.

• DennisQ | Sep 18, 2010, 11:21 PM EDT

  You aren't asking enough questions, Monsoonman. It wasn't ingenuity that allowed the terrorist to penetrate NORAD's defenses. Those hijackers were up in the air from 7:59 in the morning until 10:03. That's more than two hours of air time for enemies to be flying around in well-defended American air space.
  
  That fact alone should make you curious about what happened. But for some reason you've lost any sense of skepticism. Will the real Monsoonman please come forward? How long have you been on this planet that you're so trusting? Two HOURS!!

• Monsoonman | Sep 17, 2010, 09:53 PM EDT

  The ingenious terrorists started the fire then set the "silent" demolition charges to go off EXACTLY 7 hours after the fire started. The building was brought down exactly according to schedule, perfectly planned and executed.

• hancock | Sep 17, 2010, 10:51 AM EDT

  I saw it. The whole building was on fire at 11, when I got there, ans continued to burn until about 4. What happened DENNIS?

• DennisQ | Sep 17, 2010, 02:52 AM EDT

  Not everyone agrees that the fire was as big as you say it was, hancock. Photographs don't show 40 floors of fire. But even if there were a raging, all-consuming fire, the building collapsed in a really improbable way. The roof kept its integrity throughout the collapse and fell straight down at an accelerating rate of speed.
  
  You've never addressed the improbability of this collapse on cue. The support columns had to give way in just the right sequence and at just the right time in order for the building to collapse the way it did. This non-random result of a random process is the main reason skeptics believe the collapse was intelligently directed. I haven't speculated on what the nature of that intelligent direction might be, but it can't be ignored.

• hancock | Sep 17, 2010, 01:43 AM EDT

  It was 40 fls of fire that weakened the steel structure bldg. I watched it burn for 7 hrs. The bldg collapsed because of that. Now if you think that's impossible, show some guts for once and tell us your theory.

• Monsoonman | Sep 17, 2010, 12:52 AM EDT

  A high rise makes a perfect chimney...think about it boy....think.

• DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 10:12 PM EDT

  What are the odds that a randomly selected key will open a given lock? The fire hypothesis relies on just this sort of improbability. NIST's analysis stops at a point where collapse, it says, is "inevitable." But that's not the entire question.
  
  Aside to hancock: Aviation fuel doesn't burn especially hot, nor is it especially volatile. It's just kerosene. In Japan they get it delivered to their homes for heating oil. However, the point is moot. Building Seven was not hit by a plane.

• Monsoonman | Sep 16, 2010, 09:03 PM EDT

  Dennis you should come out to Cali when we have our Santa Ana firestorms that sweep through housing subdivisions. NOTHING is left as the temperatures of the fires skyrocket into steel melting temperatures. Even the concrete foundations are crumbled and the steel inside of them melted. Get a grip lad you really are barking up the wrong tree. You know not what you speaketh.

• DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 05:53 PM EDT

  You haven't addressed the more important problem, the apparent "choreography" of the failure of the support columns. They all failed just at the right time and in the correct sequence to bring the building down into its own footprint.
  
  This is a more serious problem than the acceleration because each separate failure is a non-trivial event by itself. The sequence of these failures suggests that they did not occur randomly - which would have happened if they were caused by fire alone. The collapse of Building Seven was too orderly to have occurred at random.

• hancock | Sep 16, 2010, 11:42 AM EDT

  Miles of commercial carpet, thousands of computers. miles and miles of wire, a lot of stuff that will burn hot. Especially when coated w aviation fuel stretching 400 feet. Dennis show some guts and tell us what you think happened.

• DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 05:21 AM EDT

  There are several problems with the theory that Building Seven collapsed because of fire. The first is finding a source for combustion temperatures that will cause steel to fail as extensively as supporters of that theory claim. What was in that building that would burn that hot?
  
  A second, more important problem is that fire is too random a process to produce the choreographed failures that had to have occurred so that the roof maintained its integrity while falling at an increasing speed. There's no question about the acceleration - you can see it on a time-lapse montage photograph. What you don't see are the solid objects apparently disintegrating a moment before. These 24 interior columns and 57 exterior columns had to have failed simultaneously. The anomaly is greater than the collapse itself; it's that the collapse appears to have been directed.

• hancock | Sep 16, 2010, 12:56 AM EDT

  So the 40 fls of fire were a diversion?

• DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 12:28 AM EDT

  Forty floors of fire don't cause eighty-one supporting columns to collapse all at once, which is implied by the uniformity of the collapse. If there was a roaring fire as you suggest, it may indeed have caused local failures. But eighty-one columns collapsing at once suggest a choreography that NIST hasn't even attempted to explain. Their refusal to allow scholars to analize their calculations does not work in their favor.
  
  It seems to me very improbable that all the components would fail at exactly the same time. Without committing myself to one conclusion or another, it certainly looks like there was some intelligence that guided the collapse.
  
  In addition to NIST's unusual behavior in declaring the inputs into its computer model a state secret, there is also the highly irregular rush to clean up the site. There were no bodies in the rubble, nor did any debris block the street. Why the hurry to remove everything of value to a forensic investigation?
  
  There are too many open questions; indeed, too many serious questions, to allow the present state of knowledge to be the record of events. Let's re-open the investigation so we get some real answers.

• hancock | Sep 15, 2010, 03:00 PM EDT

  What about 40 fls of fire for 7 hrs?

• DennisQ | Sep 14, 2010, 01:58 PM EDT

  You don't have to explain the acceleration, guys. But your refusal even to see it suggests you're jumping to conclusions.
  
  There's definitely an acceleration, no question about it. If you weren't so committed to not seeing it, it would be as plain to you as any other acceleration. Step off a train, and as it leaves the station, the last car is moving a lot faster than the ones before it. That's what you would see if you weren't so invested in not seeing it.

• hancock | Sep 14, 2010, 12:35 PM EDT

  I saw a bulding completely consumed in fire burn for 7 hrs with my own eyes, and I saw it collaspse with my own eyes. Before it collapsed we heard glass popping and saw it crumple slightly then fall. We heard no explosions before it fell and were waiting it for it to fall. Thats what I saw on September 11.

• Monsoonman | Sep 14, 2010, 10:35 AM EDT

  OK Dennis, so you are saying it is the hand of G*d that smites our buildings on 911. allah is displeased with the USA and is on the side of the jihadis. Thanks for coming out, I hope you feel better now. I liked it better when I thought you were just a run of the mill, bush hating, government conspiracy theorist. Rather than a sycophant of the violent religious freaks of 911.

• DennisQ | Sep 14, 2010, 01:36 AM EDT

  Do you see acceleration, hancock?

• hancock | Sep 13, 2010, 02:52 PM EDT

  No guts Dennis, come on go all the way.

• DennisQ | Sep 13, 2010, 02:04 PM EDT

  You talked me into it, hancock. There's only one explanation for the miracle collapse of Building Seven - the greatness of God. Ground Zero is truly holy, for God changed a solid into a fluid that day.

• DennisQ | Sep 13, 2010, 02:00 PM EDT

  Maximum velocity through a solid is generally zero, Monsoonman, but it could be, as Jesus says in Matthew 12:39, a sign of God's power. I'm going back to the miracle hypothesis, because we are talking about instantaneous transitions between states of matter.
  
  The Israelites escaped the Pharaoh because God parted the waters of the Red Sea as if a fluid were a gas. And Jesus walked on water as if a fluid were a solid. So perhaps the "sign" this unbelieving generation is refusing to see is God's ability to change a solid into a fluid.
  
  You're welcome to look at the video of Building Seven collapsing. It does indeed accelerate up to a discernible speed which could be measured in miles per hour. This certainly raises the possibility of a new kind of physics. Imagine calculating parasitic drag through a solid. God is great! Allahu Akbar!

• Monsoonman | Sep 13, 2010, 11:37 AM EDT

  Hmm Dennis, I am an aviator and do skydive on occasion, so I am somewhat familiar with flying objects, parasitic drag, angles of attack, etc. My maximum free fall speed before I pull the cord is 114 mph. Did the falling building get a chance to reach that speed?

• hancock | Sep 13, 2010, 11:20 AM EDT

  What happened Dennis? No guts?

• DennisQ | Sep 13, 2010, 03:10 AM EDT

  Hammers fall faster than baseballs, hancock, but only because of air resistance. If there isn't any air, then they fall at the same speed.
  
  Collapsing buildings are ordinarily pretty slow, but that's because they generally run into parts of the building on their way down. For some reason, that didn't happen to Building Seven on September 11th, although it did seem to have encountered air resistance.
  
  Check out the video! Tell me what you see.

• hancock | Sep 12, 2010, 06:27 PM EDT

  No guts.

• DennisQ | Sep 12, 2010, 05:58 AM EDT

  I'm developing an animation program that will simulate freefall, and use it as a template over the video of the falling towers, esp. Building Seven. It turns out that air resistance is an important factor limiting maximum velocity. For example, an object thrown from the height of the South Tower will take about 10 seconds to hit the ground. Compare this to the 9/11 Commission's statement that the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds. That's a remarkable statement, don't you think, hancock?
  
  I don't want to to think I'm make anything up. Google "911 PDF" and type in the string "ten seconds." There's only one such string.
  
  The proposed animation program will compare say, a baseball thrown from 1,337 feet to the roofline of the South Tower. Which do you think will hit the ground first - the baseball or the roof?
  
  I know you're a sport, hancock, but don't bet a lot of money on the baseball.

• hancock | Sep 12, 2010, 03:58 AM EDT

  No guts.

• DennisQ | Sep 11, 2010, 08:04 PM EDT

  You sound like a sporting fellow, hancock. So before you commit yourself further, you should at least investigate the properties of a falling body. Wikipedia has a nice composite photograph of a basketball dropped from a stationary height. The picture shows that it picks up speed the longer it falls.
  
  The roof of Building Seven looks like the basketball in the Wikipedia photographs - it picks up speed roughly as the square of the time it falls. In other words, the speed of gravity.
  
  Here's the thing about physics - these things are discovered, not invented. There would still be an Archimedes' principle even if Archimedes hadn't discovered it. Similarly, when things fall according to Newton's laws, it's not out of obedience to Newton. That's just how the world is.

• DennisQ | Sep 11, 2010, 06:48 PM EDT

  Monsoonman, you're accusing me of conclusions that seem inevitable to you, and then beating me over the head with them. Hold on. I didn't say anything about Bush or Cheney, or about planting explosives - you did.
  
  I said that buildings don't fall into themselves at the speed of gravity because it's a physical impossibility. If it appears that the towers are collapsing at freefall speed, it is an anomaly. It's the equivalent of a 50º ice cube which is an anomaly becuase ice melts at 32º.
  
  The "pancake theory" has been abandoned because the towers are collapsing too fast. In its place, the government has substituted an average velocity but won't tell us how it arrived at that figure. It's top secret. But it's obvious how the government came up with a plausible average - it simply started early. That's what the big secret's about.
  
  Scientists have responded to this subterfuge by taking their own stopwatches a measuring for themselves. Sure enough, the towers are collapsing at the speed of gravity, a contradiction of the law of the conservation of momentum. It's an anomaly.

• Monsoonman | Sep 11, 2010, 11:55 AM EDT

  Actually Dennis you are the bizarro superman to my superman. A conspiracy freak when it comes to anything negative towards the USA, a jihadist loving, socialist/communist whose public stances on everything are based on faulty logic. You have not convinced anyone that Cheney or Bush had a hand in the destruction of the buildings on 911. Because for your "logic" to even have a hairs breadth of credibility, pre-planted explosives would have to be used and that would mean a cospiracy of thousands to hide this fact. My scientific conclusion sir, is that you are f.o.s.

• hancock | Sep 11, 2010, 11:18 AM EDT

  No guts.

• DennisQ | Sep 11, 2010, 02:40 AM EDT

  Monsoonman prides himself on keeping his own counself; why, just because the government says something, there's no reason to believe it!
  
  Except he's not skeptical at all when it comes to doing his own measurement of the time it took for each tower to hit the ground. Monsoonman can't be bothered with taking out a stopwatch and measuring the intervals at each stage of the collapse. It's not that it's difficult; it's just that it's too upsetting to think that people high up in government might not be telling the truth.
  
  Be gentle with people like Monsoonman. They're very special in God's sight.

• DennisQ | Sep 11, 2010, 02:32 AM EDT

  When Dr. Judy Wood first saw the towers coming down, she knew right away that there was something bizarre about the speed at which they fell. She says she first thought it was science fiction and that the writers got it wrong.
  
  Later on, the silly notion that buildings can fall into themselves at the speed of gravity became the official version of events. There are still a lot of people who believe that earlier, now revised, "pancake" theory of the collapse of the buildings. The new theory relies less on an obvious breach of the law of the conservation of momentum than it does on fudged numbers. If you want to say a process took longer than it actually did, just start the timer early!
  
  And that's how things are today. If you want access to the government calculations so you can check them for yourself, you're out of luck. Those figures are now a state secret . . . presumably because finding out the extent of government fraud might promote disaffection, perhapse even disunity. However, if you want the truth, do your own calculations. Measure the time from the start of the collapse to any arbitrary point at all, and compare that number to the speed of gravity. It's called Do-It-Yourself science, and it certainly beats being spoon-fed what government wants you to believe. Gosh! You'd think the Tea Baggers would get on board.

• hancock | Sep 11, 2010, 02:00 AM EDT

  No guts.

• DennisQ | Sep 11, 2010, 01:11 AM EDT

  Sorry, guys. Reality is the laws of motion, not whatever the Bush committee says it is. And the laws of motion say that an object falls at the speed of gravity only when there's nothing in the way. There aren't any exceptions.
  
  You do not have to come up with an alternative hypothesis - all you have to do is acknowledge the anomaly of freefall speed when there are objects in the way. If you can't explain it, don't fudge the figures the way the National Institute of Standards and Technology did.
  
  The original "pancake theory" has been replaced because the collapse of each building was too fast. The "new" government theory attempts to eliminate the freefall issue by adding time to the start of the process. That's the reason they're calling their calculations a national secret. But you can plainly see each building pick up speed as it collapses - an unexplained breach of the law of the conservation of momentum.
  
  It's your choice to believe in 50-degree ice cubes, especially with the open encouragement of the government to do so. However, if the government story depends on anomalies like 50-degree ice cubes or buildings falling through themselves at the speed of gravity, the truth lies elsewhere.

• hancock | Sep 10, 2010, 11:35 PM EDT

  Crazy and no guts.

• Monsoonman | Sep 10, 2010, 11:13 PM EDT

  There is no sane alternative to your hypothesis, sorry. Reality is that fire does melt and weaken steel and when one floor collapses on another it builds up a momentum that the structure was never designed to withstand. That's the facts jacques.

• DennisQ | Sep 10, 2010, 10:36 PM EDT

  I didn't say anything about explosions - I talked about anomalies. So far as I'm concerned there's probably a very good reason the towers fell at the speed of gravity, but I just don't happen to know what it is.
  
  An honest 9/11 report would take note of the same anomaly that hundreds of legitimate scientists have noted, not fudge the data the way the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did. It's fairly straightforward - when you don't know an answer, don't make one up!
  
  Dr. Judy Wood has expanded the anomaly even farther than the other skeptics. Instead of wondering how anything encountering resistance could fall at the speed of gravity, Dr. Wood wonders where the falling material even went, because it seems to have disappeared from the photographs she's looked at. She won't use the word "collapse" because that suggests the material fell to the ground; she says the twin towers "went poof."
  
  You do not have to offer alternative hypotheses to question the official hypothesis. But you should have the good grace to acknowledge that it is anomalous for a falling building to come down as fast as a lead weight in a vacuum, or nearly so.
  
  Then again, you can choose to carry on as though the anomaly weren't there. But by doing so, you're warping what we know of science; i.e., you're believing in 50-degree ice cubes because that's what the government told you to believe.

• Monsoonman | Sep 10, 2010, 08:46 PM EDT

  So lets play along with the theory, that explosives were pre planted, strategically for a straight down demolition...There's a few problems with this theory if you are sane> 1. Hundreds of dogs were used to search the area for survivors, these dogs were also trained to find explosives...no hits. 2. NO ONE heard any explosions, the nation was fixed on this site, every camera & microphone in the world was there, millions were watching, but no one claims to hear explosions. 3. NO ONE reported any teams of workers entering the buildings in the days/weeks/months before 911 that would have been setting explosive charges. 4 All explosives make a lot of noise. Your theories are claptrap, sorry.

• seanomelbourne | Sep 10, 2010, 02:13 PM EDT

  Sorry Dennis S/R 32.2ft per second per second or 9.81mtrs.

• hancock | Sep 10, 2010, 12:16 PM EDT

  Like a true crazy left winger you won't accapt that two airlpanes and forty fls of ire for 7 hrs can weaken steal to the point that it will collapse pancake style to bring down even the biggest buildings. If you can't accey this tell us your theory of what ACTUALLY happened that day.

• DennisQ | Sep 10, 2010, 11:26 AM EDT

  Sean, Freefall speed is not 32 feet per minute squared. It's around 9 meters per second squared.
  
  The buildings should have met resistance on their way down, but they apparently didn't. The fact that they collapsed with no resistance is anomalous.
  
  I'm disappointed that it's a guy with an Irish name who signed the order making the official calculations a national secret. Patrick Gallagher, the new director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has decided that nobody should know how his organization came to conclusions that are now being derided as "fanciful" and "fraudulent."
  
  The buildings collapsed way too fast. Here's a name you can Google for a clearer explanation of the physical principles involved - David Chandler. He's actually a high school science teacher, and he says he made his measurements from publicly available information - the heights of the buildings, etc.

• seanomelbourne | Sep 10, 2010, 01:46 AM EDT

  DennisQ are you saying that the building fell at a rate of 32ft per minute per minute as if (for e.g.) a piece of masonry falling from a great height?If that is so why did the floors underneath not impede the momentum.

• DennisQ | Sep 10, 2010, 01:29 AM EDT

  9-11 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
  
  Question. Why don't buildings collapse at freefall speed?
  
  Answer. Because they encounter resistance on the way down. Even if there's enough momentum for falling floors to push through lower floors, the rate of descent slows down.
  
  Question. On September 11, did we see the rate of descent slow down as upper floors pushed through lower floors?
  
  Answer. No, we did not.
  
  Question. What is the significance of the absence of slowing down as upper floors descended onto lower floors?
  
  Answer.It means that the upper floors were unimpeded by the lower floors. By the law of conservation of momentum, it means that something else moved those floors out of the way.
  
  Question.Would you care to speculate what that something else might be?
  
  Answer.Are you kidding? I want to keep my job.
  
  

• DennisQ | Sep 10, 2010, 01:08 AM EDT

  Like a true right winger, hancock, you've fallen back on your old standby, name calling. You've done what right wingers always do when they can't keep up with an argument.
  
  You need to know what a scientific anomaly is. That's what happens when the data simply doesn't makes sense, although you've ruled out measurement error. For example, ice turns to water at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. If you come upon ice at 50 degrees, it's an anomaly - because everything we know about ice says it shouldn't exist at 50 degrees.
  
  There are many anomalous data points in what we know or believe about September 11th. For instance, there should be small hesitations in the rate of collapse of the buildings as the falling mass encounters resistance. But we don't see that. We see the falling mass gather speed as it falls. It's an anomaly because there's no explanation for that. It contradicts the law of conservation of momentum.
  
  The official reports of the September 11th attacks are full of fifty-degree icecubes - things that don't behave according to the known laws of physics. If you say that the towers collapsed because of divine intervention you risk being called a crackpot. However, if you say the towers collapsed for reasons that are known to be impossible, there's a job waiting for you at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

• hancock | Sep 09, 2010, 08:30 PM EDT

  Maybe it was the microwaves which turned you into a crackpot.

• DennisQ | Sep 09, 2010, 01:31 PM EDT

  No, ah, you didn't read my posts correctly. I haven't endorsed any of the counter-theories except the belief that God has the power to suspend Newton's theory of the conservation of momentum. Yes, it is only a theory, but Newton wasn't in it for the money, and he already had made a name for himself . . .
  
  Nobody has dealt effectively with Building Seven, especially not the way it fell at freefall speed into a neat pile. Fire doesn't behave that way. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) came up with a way to deal with the freefall speed issue - they fudged the numbers! That's called the triumph of politics over science.
  
  My position remains that the 9/11 Commission did what they were expected to do - push something out the dcor and get the families off George Bush's back. It was a botch job that reflected the political pressure they were under. However, that report should not remain the official record of what happened that day. Take a deep breath, swallow hard, and admit it's time to take another look.

• Monsoonman | Sep 09, 2010, 10:20 AM EDT

  ...Thanks for fleshing out your conspiracy theory Dennis. So not only were the jet aircraft loaded with fuel and passengers, walloped into the exact floors to do maximum damage, the delayed charges set up in clandestine operations were timed to detonate at just the right time to cause maximum catastrophic damage, brilliant execution. Wonder why the rest of the plan went awry, crashing the planes into the congress and the whitehouse...What's the theory on that one Dennis?

• hancock | Sep 09, 2010, 09:58 AM EDT

  Its official, conspiracy nuts and microwave technology.Dennis you finally stepped up to the lunatic plate.

• DennisQ | Sep 09, 2010, 06:45 AM EDT

  The most damning criticisms of the goverment reports are the ones that walk the findings back to the original data. In many instances it's clear that contract agencies have reached conclusions in advance, then fitted the data to support those conclusions.
  
  For instance, NIST knew they'd have trouble explaining free-fall speed, so they started the count early. Seconds go by, and you can see that the top of the building hasn't moved. However, NIST adds those seconds to a total that is clearly bogus.
  
  Real scientists are appalled by such blatantly unethical research methods. If the word kook belongs in this discussion at all, it's to the people who support the government's unethical research "findings."

• DennisQ | Sep 09, 2010, 05:28 AM EDT

  The 9/11 Commission did a botch job because they weren't supposed to get at the truth. They were appointed because the families of the victims demanded some closure. But the fact remains that the story they put out is full of holes . . . not the least of which is that buildings don't fall into their own footprint at freefall speed.
  
  Unfortunately, the critics who denounce the official report aren't equipped to mount an alternative investigation. For the most part, people simply don't want to revisit the horrors of September 11th and don't want those issues brought up again. However, that won't end the controversy. The people who sense they're onto a cover-up aren't easily deterred.
  
  Prof. Judy Wood, a materials scientist, has a truly novel theory of the events of the day. She says the buildings were brought down by completely new technology, something akin to the use of weaponized microwaves. She makes a pretty good argument for it, too - to the chagrin of both the government and the critics who have by now reached a kind of orthodoxy.
  
  In twenty years maybe we'll know more. It often takes a whole generation before people are not so enamored of the received wisdom of the generation before them.

• hectorfromTG4 | Sep 09, 2010, 02:27 AM EDT

  9/11 was an inside American job,why do so many of you idiots believe that a bunch of cave dwelling arabs could have done this?? Wtc 1,2 and 7 collapsing at free fall speed form jet fuel??? Only pre-planted explosives could have brought those buildings down!!

• hancock | Sep 09, 2010, 02:03 AM EDT

  Alright , you won't go the last lap to kooky town.

• seanomelbourne | Sep 09, 2010, 01:37 AM EDT

  I need another source of inf before I can accept your theory.DennisQ also may be correct at least he quotes other sources. I am not qualified to make a definitive statement as to what happened. Mind you I did watch the second tower come down and hoped none of my American cousins were nearby.

• DennisQ | Sep 09, 2010, 12:13 AM EDT

  I've already said what I think brought down the building - divine intervention. It certainly didn't come down at freefall speed into its own footprint without some help. Collapsing because of fire is less plausible than divine intervention, because we know that God has the power to bring down 47-storey steel frame buildings. However, fire alone does not have that power.
  
  Some of the theories of what did happen sound pretty far-fetched. But the official story is equally far-fetched. I think we should have a new investigation into the events of that day. Instead of focusing on how to excuse government incompetence, the new investigation should focus on ascertaining the truth.

• hancock | Sep 08, 2010, 11:08 AM EDT

  Spit it out Dennis. What brought down the building?

• maireadinmelb | Sep 08, 2010, 08:45 AM EDT

  America has a history of not wanting to know the truth, look at the Warren COmmission as long as you are willing to accept a sloppy job they will keep dishing it up. Thanks Dennis for the additional information not just inflammatory fox headlines.

• DennisQ | Sep 08, 2010, 08:14 AM EDT

  All throughout the 9-11 narrative there are examples of divine intervention. Nothing else can explain why the laws of physics were apparently violated in the collapse of Building Seven. Until the government agency responsible for the official theory of the collapse admits it can't explain what happened, the most likely explanation is that an angel smote the building.
  
  It's true that angels don't go around smiting buildings, but that's only to say they don't do it very often. However, on September 11th, the angel who smites buildings took down Building Seven. Requests for clarification from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have been denied. Frankly, it's very odd for a government agency to put out some implausible theory and then refuse to answer questions about it. But there you have it. The suspension of the laws of physics that resulted in the free-fall, symmetric collapse of Building Seven was caused by the angel-who-smites-buildings.
  
  Don't argue with me; it's unpatriotic.

• DennisQ | Sep 08, 2010, 04:46 AM EDT

  The collapse was too neat and too fast to have occurred as the result of a fire on one side of the building. The building would have been pulled in the direction of the fire, and the process would have taken a lot longer than five and a half seconds from onset of collapse. The side of the building that was not on fire would have resisted collapse, causing deformation and slowing the process.
  
  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a computer model of the collapse of Building Seven which shows both the slowing of the process and the deformation that would have to have occurred. However, this computer model doesn't resemble what actually happened on September 11th.
  
  There was no deformation and there was no slowing of the process. The NIST version of events is the official version. However, NIST refuses to discuss its findings with scientists and engineers who say the official explanation is inadequate. This is no way for a government agency to act - they refuse to answer questions about their work!

• hancock | Sep 07, 2010, 11:50 PM EDT

  It fell down because it burned for 7 hours and the whole one side of the building was on fire. Forty fls of fire weakened it and it collapsed. Now if you can't accept that, tell us what you think brought it down.

• seanomelbourne | Sep 07, 2010, 11:42 PM EDT

  Hancock building 7 is gone I believe it was destroyed 9/11 what's your point? How it fell down? I do not know it's a strange one.

• DennisQ | Sep 07, 2010, 09:12 PM EDT

  The 9/11 Commission report was a slop job; it needs to be done over again. The burden is not on me to come with plausible alternative theories of what happened. It's enough for me to say that for reasons X, Y, and Z the official theories - and that's all they are - are inadequate.
  
  The United States government has vast resources for discovering the truth. Why would they put out something slapdash instead of something that addresses and attempts to answer legitimate questions? Building Seven is a good example of official malfeasance - they refuse to address Newton's law of the conservation of momentum. Because the building fell at free-fall speed, the official findings should either call it miraculous or admit they don't know the reason.
  
  Building Seven is one issue, but there's a whole host of others. For instance, the area around the Pentagon has to be the most defended airspace in the world - why wouldn't it be? However, on September 11th, Flight 77 was able to penetrate those defenses a full half hour after the second plane had hit the World Trade Center. This has to be the biggest security lapse of all time! America's mighty defense system - with a half hour warning - couldn't protect its own headquarters.
  
  You're correct, maloney. Over and over again I'm trying to make some kind of point that I think is important. It's certainly important to me that the people responsible for protecting us did not do so; their failures have been excused; and they've actually been promoted.

• maloney | Sep 07, 2010, 07:33 PM EDT

  seano...Let me know when you actually have something to say instead of twittish childish comments. DennisQ...over & over your trying to make some kind of point that you seem to think is important. Bottom line is anytime all throughout history, if you are willing to commit suicide, you can usually kill alot of people in the process. It's not complicated. It is fanatical & insane, nothing more or less. It has nothing to do with luck, God on your side or not or beeing good at what you do or being prepared. Nazis did it Jappo's did it & so on. How did it turn out for them?

• hancock | Sep 07, 2010, 07:04 PM EDT

  Sean are you vilifying me? What do you think happened to Bldg 7?

• seanomelbourne | Sep 07, 2010, 06:59 PM EDT

  Hancock and Maloney you a legend in your own lunchtime.

• maloney | Sep 07, 2010, 12:47 PM EDT

  Just because you happen to live in the U.S. does not make you an American. I hear you liberals saying the U.S. should re-investigate 9/11. Sounds like the same tactics obummer & crew use every day to distract from the treason they commit daily. Look at this, look at this hand, while I try to slit your thoat with the other. Waste more time & money for nothing while they try to destroy the most powerful & free country in the world.

• hancock | Sep 07, 2010, 07:28 AM EDT

  Bldg 7 was 40 fls of fire for 7 hrs. I was there. If you believe it couldn't collapse after that, say what you think happened.

• maireadinmelb | Sep 07, 2010, 06:00 AM EDT

  Just a hint about WWII firstly - Stalin was responsible for the murder and disappearance of 250 MILLION people not 6 like the german amateur! Secondly, it is thought that there were some in USA who knew Japan was going to attack west coast of USA and wanted it to happen to give roosevelt reason to join the war! THirdly, UK and USA knew about the death camps and chose to bomb Dresden and other civilian cities instead of bombing the train lines and interupting Hitlers scheme!! Who were the guilty parties in WWII? not just the Japs and germans! But eventually everyone needs to move on and a muslim cultural centre 2 BLOCKS from ground zero is probably a good start at teaching americans forgiveness and understanding of other americans who just happen to practice a different religion!!

• WatchingMedia | Sep 07, 2010, 05:01 AM EDT

  The Muslims want to name the place "Cordoba" House. This sends a message of conquest to radical Muslims all over the World. The Quoran teaches Muslims to evangelize - by force if necessary. In Muslim Countries if a Muslim wants to change his Religion, he is put to death.

• DennisQ | Sep 07, 2010, 02:07 AM EDT

  I don't know what happened, and I don't have a working theory either. However, I do know that nobody charged with defending America that day was punished. General Myers, the commander with overall responsibility for defending America that day, was actually promoted. General Eberhard, who directed NORAD that morning, gave slippery, evasive answers to direct questions about the failure of America's defenses. General Myers went so far as to claim it wasn't his job!
  
  This is what the official record shows. We need to get these people back in front of an investigation committee, but this time, we demand answers. There are holes throughout the September 11th report - things that contradict other known information, and things that simply couldn't have happened, period. I've said before that Building Seven didn't catch fire and burn to the ground like an old barn - but that's still the official view of what happened. There are many other similar issues. The 9/11 Commission report is a political document whose purpose was to suppress the truth, not reveal it.
  
  At the very least, we should get the names of the people who failed us on September 11th, and we should know the nature of those failures. Why are we protecting these people?

• hancock | Sep 07, 2010, 12:11 AM EDT

  Yes. Now tell us what you think happened.

• DennisQ | Sep 06, 2010, 11:07 PM EDT

  OK, hancock, I'll be very plainspoken. We need a new 9-11 investigation because the last one let the guilty parties off the hook. Philip Zelikow, a White House insider and personal friend of Condoleezza Rice, abused his position as Executive Director of the Commission to steer the inquiry away from anything embarrassing.
  
  Since then, government agencies have dodged citizens' legitimate inquiries about what happened that day. In some cases, bureaucrats cut the microphones of people asking impolitic questions.
  
  On September 11th, nineteen guys armed only with boxcutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in the world. We're told that they got lucky that day. Is that enough of an answer for you?

• DennisQ | Sep 06, 2010, 10:48 PM EDT

  Every American war film has a happy ending because God won't let the Americans lose. No matter how dark it gets, we can always rely on God to intervene so that truth, justice and the American way prevail. Sometimes it takes a few foxhole prayers, but God always comes through, especially when you need Him.
  
  September 11th was an exception. God seems to have been working for the terrorists, because they got all the breaks, and they had the happy ending.
  
  If we allow Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero, why then, it's a monument to the day God turned his back on us. We're trying to cut God some slack; after all, everybody has an off day once in a while. But we can't allow the Muslims to start making inroads into our God. Sure, he occasionally slips up, but he's still ours, not theirs. (/sarcasm off)

• hancock | Sep 06, 2010, 10:32 PM EDT

  Give it a rest Dennis. If you got something to say, say it.

• DennisQ | Sep 06, 2010, 10:09 PM EDT

  Given the fact that the terrorists succeeded on September 11th, was that success the result of luck or skill? For instance, how could they have known that NORAD was unprepared to defend America that day?
  
  In some cases you can't posit a third alternative such as complacency. We're told that the inexperienced Hani Hanjour was such a lousy pilot that an airplane rental company wouldn't let him up in a Piper Cub. However, on September 11th, the same inept Hani Hanjour turned into a flying wizard, skillfully executing maneuvers that few pilots would even attempt.
  
  Was Hani Hanjour lucky or skillful? The official report comes down on the side of luck. Perhaps that's just to cover up the full extent of government negligence. But if that's the case, what else are they covering up? These are important questions.

• Monsoonman | Sep 06, 2010, 08:58 PM EDT

  What gave us 911 was clinton not retaliating for all of the previous terrorist attacks meted out to us by radical islam. Our embassies in africa, the uss cole, the first world trade towers and many many others, got no response and no repercussions. I will add that clintons do nothingness gave us the iraq war too. He let saddam hussein thumb his nose at the sanctions against him and rearm his aggressive armies...but of course the kool aid drinkers don't remember anything that far back it is too inconnnnnvenient.

• hancock | Sep 06, 2010, 07:18 PM EDT

  They got us just like the Japanese got us, complacency. Hopefully it doesn't happen again.

• maloney | Sep 06, 2010, 03:25 PM EDT

  9/11 was not luck & had nothing to do with allah, USA was asleep but they woke up somewhat. As for iraq, the USA had to fight islamic terrorists somewhere & it worked, no succesful attacks after. Still not where I would have chose to fight.

• maloney | Sep 06, 2010, 03:20 PM EDT

  dennisq...your post from 1:36AM. Yea that pretty much sums it up. bad as I hate to admit it you got most of this one right. I never said we were perfect. One thing I haven't said is GW made many mistakes, He did many things that pissed me off. But then you go back to the lesser of the evils, he was a saint comared to obummer & crew. Thank God for terrorists like Washington. I've never had much use for brits. current or thoughout history. Better than the spanish, lesser of the evils.

• DennisQ | Sep 06, 2010, 02:16 PM EDT

  People who would not for a moment entertain the thought that Allah helped the hijackers hit their intended targets have no problem attributing their success to luck. But everything we know about luck suggests it's something that humans cannot control; only God can. To the extent that we say the attackers were lucky, we are saying that God had a hand in the 9-11 attack.
  
  Muslims don't believe in luck. They believe that nothing happens unless God wills it to happen. But even among Western skeptics who deny that luck has any spiritual significance, it's difficult to accept how incredibly lucky the attackers had to be to succeed on September 11th.
  
  Mindy Kleinberg, widow of Alan Kleinberg who was killed in the north tower, testified before the Commission about the attackers' extraordinary luck:
  

  Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when 15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when Airline Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top government officials on a timely basis?

  
  Mindy Kleinberg's testimony was not addressed in the Commission's final report, which did, however, make note of Osama bin Laden's appeal among Muslims. But by not being sufficiently skeptical about the attackers' amazing luck, the Commission left open an interpretation that Allah was responsible for the unusual circumstances that Kleinberg detailed in her testimony.
  
  The issue has still not been addressed. If anything, the opponents of Park51 have emphasized the religious aspect of the events of the day. To hear them talk, the god of the Muslims is indeed powerful.

• Monsoonman | Sep 06, 2010, 01:00 PM EDT

  Can you imagine if the axis powers won WWII?(no it's not world wrestling, its world war 2) Who would have been the war criminals then? roosevelt, churchill, stalin, patton, montgomery, nimitz, doolittle,eisenhower....all would have been publicly tried and hung....But if the lefties of today will just study his/her story, they will see that Adolph was a leftist socialist whose humane goals for the world were in very close synch with what they want today: After war, the world would be restored to peace and order, the government would be in charge of everything, we would want for nothing, all able bodied humans would have work, socialized medicine for all workers, government housing for the able bodied, etc....See how history is so fun?

• Monsoonman | Sep 06, 2010, 12:40 PM EDT

  I spoke with my cousin last night who is a lifelong NYC resident. She said the smell from the 911 terrorist attack smoke is something she will never forget: Jet fuel, plastic,paper,wood and human beings. She will be at the anti mosque rally this coming 911, she is not going to forget and she can't wait for November to get rid of the devils who have seized control of our country.

• hancock | Sep 06, 2010, 11:46 AM EDT

  USA , USA, USA. Washington was a terrorist or a traitor in the scheme of things at that time. A funny thing happens when you win though. USA, USA, USA.

• jakeleg | Sep 06, 2010, 09:59 AM EDT

  The nerve and the leader not even paying his taxes..I guess we'll be afraid to order him to pay them or give him 10 years to pay.Why don't we check for illegal muslims in this country;like we do mexicans.I admire any of our leaders who speak out against the way they are taking over our country.and stop it. Why are we afraid of them??I know they will cut your head off first chance they get.

• maireadinmelb | Sep 06, 2010, 05:13 AM EDT

  How can you live in the USA Molney and Hancock, for wasnt america founded by terrorists, you know Washington, he used weapons to overthrow a legitimate government!

• DennisQ | Sep 06, 2010, 01:36 AM EDT

  Whether the 9-11 attackers encountered bad security or inadequate or not, they still hit their targets. They took enormous risks and whether we like to admit it or not, they accomplished what they set out to do. It's difficult to argue that they didn't.
  
  Let's just acknowledge reality here. The hijackers saw an opportunity, and they capitalized on it. I hope, maloney, that you're not suggesting that American defense was unprepared for treachery. Are you?
  
  I think it's a reasonable question to ask. You seem to imply that it wasn't so much that anybody dropped the ball, but that these nineteen Arabs simply outfoxed us. Which is it, maloney? We knew they were up to something, but we never suspected they'd do anything clever. Is that what you think?

• hancock | Sep 06, 2010, 12:23 AM EDT

  Sean stop vilifying me.

• seanomelbourne | Sep 06, 2010, 12:04 AM EDT

  I think Maloney is Hancocks dummy or maybe hancock is maloneys foil. I made a point and they ignore its veracity because they know it to be true. You two!! carry on with your diatribe of ignorance and bliss and be a happy pair of attack dogs

• maloney | Sep 05, 2010, 10:25 PM EDT

  dennisq... you confuse piss poor security & job performance for treachery. The key word is terrorists no matter what the reason, If they don't blow themselves up I got a 357mag for them, among other things. It is boring to blow people back to the stone age(terrorists) who live there already. I suspect you'll blame that on the USA also. islam muslim jihad sharia blow myself up!!

• maloney | Sep 05, 2010, 10:11 PM EDT

  Poor poor old melbourne, whining pissing & moaning again. Have a shot or three & pretent your at the top of the world. I got one finger for ya.

• hancock | Sep 05, 2010, 07:38 PM EDT

  Sean stop crying and start arguing.

• seanomelbourne | Sep 05, 2010, 07:15 PM EDT

  The commonality between the U.S. North Korea and Cuba is they all execute innocent people (including minors).No other western nation has the death penalty. Mairead!Hancock cannot conduct civil discourse.he has to vilify and abuse to make a point thereby he loses the arguments before he taps his one-fingered keyboard

• hancock | Sep 05, 2010, 08:18 AM EDT

  Yeah, we're right up there with Cuba and North Korea. Schmucks like you would have got a bullet a long time ago if the govt approved things as you say. Patriot Act? I'm still waiting to hear what that exactly has done to fill gulags.

• maireadinmelb | Sep 05, 2010, 08:09 AM EDT

  The US has free press and free speech!! Ha ha ha Your news channels can only show government approved pictures from IRAQ and afghanistan and cuba! The patriot act restricts your right to privacy and speech let alone the right to associate!! Your dreaming hancock!!

• DennisQ | Sep 05, 2010, 02:33 AM EDT

  McNabb . . . The U.S. withdrew its troops from Saudi Arabia in 2003.
  
  The latin expression you're looking for is not res ipsa loquitur but more likely a fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos. It certainly was an unfriendly act, I'll grant you that. As to whether it was entirely unprovoked . . . that's another discussion.
  
  We're talking about the fortunes of war. If you think that the victims of war are the ones who deserve it, you don't know much about war.

• DennisQ | Sep 05, 2010, 02:24 AM EDT

  maloney, If Dr. Pape is correct that suicide terrorism is more about nationalism than about religion, the September 11th attacks by 15 Saudis appear to have accomplished their goal. While George Bush rattled his sword at Iraq, he simply withdrew American troops from Saudi Arabia. Later, Bush and Abdullah were photographed kissing and holding hands.
  
  Here's what Dr. Pape actually said:

  “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”

  
  
  The 9/11 hijackers were extremely lucky. They seemed to get one break after another - from being allowed to board the airplanes carrying box cutters, to successfully hijacking the planes, to avoiding military intercept, and finally to actually hit their intended targets. That luck is part of the official record of the events of the date, but the September 11th Commission never mentions it. It's probably a good thing they didn't mention it, because people might have gotten suspicious and started asking questions . . .

• hancock | Sep 04, 2010, 08:42 PM EDT

  Free press, religion, speech?

• seanomelbourne | Sep 04, 2010, 08:25 PM EDT

  Hancock spent 4 months in Libya and loved it. Their attitude to life same ours,that is a good standard of living.

• maloney | Sep 04, 2010, 06:17 PM EDT

  dennisQ... by chance is your full name dennis Al Qaeda? The Saudi's requested our presence in thier country to keep the bad muslims away. Oil or not. I think I'll blow myself up. Sounds like smart people to me. islam-muslim-blow myself up. jihad- sharia- blow myself up. He we might be on to something. mmm.mmm.mmm barack hussien obama

• DennisQ | Sep 04, 2010, 05:31 PM EDT

  Blaming the attacks on jihad may be the reason Islam is growing by leaps and bounds. Years ago the Muslims in New York didn't need a 13-storey building and couldn't use one. Now there are so many Muslims they need a place convenient to the five boroughs and New Jersey.
  
  A god who can knock down three New York skyscrapers has power and might galore, especially when the team sent out to do the job had only box cutters to start with. Allah might have lost the battle of Lepanto in the 16th century, but he's back! No wonder people are taking a second look at Islam.
  
  The more people play up the religious angle, the more attractive Islam becomes. What's even more significant are the kinds of people who are most vocal in their opposition - white racists. The skinheads with swastikas have a new cause - keeping America "pure" and "free" from vile religions like Islam. Even if you don't know anything at all about the issues, you can tell by who's taking sides against Park51 that racism is part of it.
  
  Maybe the 9-11 attackers got lucky, maybe they didn't. It's really important to know the difference, because if you say that luck played an important role, you're helping grow Islam.

• McNabb1966 | Sep 04, 2010, 05:12 PM EDT

  @DennisQ...To which I would respond "res ipsa loquitur." The end result of the 9-11 attacks makes it very easy to conclude that those who planned and executed the atrocity were and are "the bad guys." As for the motive, you're apparently of the opinion that the U.S. "had it coming." I couldn't disagree more with that assessment. The fact that the U.S. has military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia does not represent an "occupation." The U.S also has military personnel in Germany, Italy, England, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Greenland, Turkey, Qatar, etc, etc... Perhaps you will also remember that the first Gulf War started when Iraq invaded a neighboring Islamic country. Why aren't Kuwaiti nationals attacking the US? Are Kuwaiti citizens less Islamic than other Muslims? Of course not. So the idea that an American presence in Saudi Arabia provides a just cause for Al Quaeda terrorism is pure nonsense.

• Monsoonman | Sep 04, 2010, 12:38 PM EDT

  As a non muslim living in an islamic dominated country, let us know how you are treated and what kind of employment you will be able to get for yourself and your family. Of course try to slip in illegally and see what kind of government services and protections you will get also. Report back here after your experiment.

• hancock | Sep 04, 2010, 12:20 PM EDT

  No thanks I can see as many Arabs as I want NOW.

• JamesMurphy | Sep 04, 2010, 11:58 AM EDT

  Better still, hancock, why don't you try a visit to a country in the Arab world--I'm sure you would enjoy doing so, as I have on a number of occasions.

• hancock | Sep 04, 2010, 09:36 AM EDT

  Hey Sean, why don't you live in one and tell us how great it is, if you make it back.

• seanomelbourne | Sep 04, 2010, 01:40 AM EDT

  I advise Mike Townsend to live in a Muslim country for a while to really understand their tenets and beliefs and not rely on some "tenuous" blog site.

• maireadinmelb | Sep 04, 2010, 12:41 AM EDT

  Well said Dennis, look how Irelands issues were turned into a religious conflict to justify to the british people why their military was used that way!!

• DennisQ | Sep 04, 2010, 12:40 AM EDT

  Blaming the 9-11 attacks on Qutbism is another way of saying the bad guys did it. It completely absolves the American government for policy failures that provoked 15 of 19 Saudis to retaliate against us. In fact, it suggests that the attacks occurred in a political vacuum. "They're jealous of our freedom," said Bush, who then exploited the attacks to invade a country with a secular government and no relationship at all with Qutbism.
  
  The advantage of blaming the attacks on Qutbism, however, is easy to comprehend. In place of "bad guys" substitute the words "religious nut jobs" and continue on as before.

• krisdaly | Sep 03, 2010, 10:52 PM EDT

  Muslims don't want to be American's they want to be Muslims!! Muslims go back to mecca and STAY THERE!!

• Laura Wilson | Sep 03, 2010, 09:56 PM EDT

  DONT LET THEM DO IT BE SENSITIVE TO THE US CITIZENS FEELINGS FOR ONCE

• McNabb1966 | Sep 03, 2010, 09:14 PM EDT

  @DennisQ...No, most likely the 9-11 attacks are the most extreme example of Qutbism in action.

• DennisQ | Sep 03, 2010, 07:05 PM EDT

  The most likely reason for the attacks on September 11th is the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. That's the reason Osama bin Laden offered, and it comports with the findings of Dr. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. Religion is generally far down the list of reasons for suicide terrorism, he says - and he has data to back it up.
  
  Dr. Pape first advanced this thesis in his book published in 2005, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. The Tamil Tigers, who are completely secular, lead the world in the number of suicide attacks. By contrast, suicide attacks are unheard of in Islamic societies such as Iran and Sudan. The single variable that stands out, according to Pape, is the presence of foreign troops. However, a religious difference can add a dimension to the resistance, he says:
  
  When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways. Now, that still requires the occupier to be there. Absent the presence of foreign troops, Osama bin Laden could make his arguments but there wouldn’t be much reality behind them. The reason that it is so difficult for us to dispute those arguments is because we really do have tens of thousands of combat soldiers sitting on the Arabian Peninsula.
  
  One reason for presenting the War on Terror as a religious campaign rather than a political campaign is that it makes it easier to sell wars of choice like the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not at all interested in Sharia law, nor did he have any relationship with Al Qaeda goals. Bush made that up!
  
  In response to Mike Townsend who never wanted to learn about jihad, dhimmitude, or taqiyya, the actual reason is that it's easier to blame Islam than it is to remove troops voluntarily.

• Pbstein33 | Sep 03, 2010, 06:05 PM EDT

  If the people of New York don't want it why is Michael the BloomingIdiotberg and the New York City Council still in office, I believe the word here is RECALL

• JamesMurphy | Sep 03, 2010, 04:03 PM EDT

  Dearie me, when is this non-story, non-event going to go away?

• Marion211 | Sep 03, 2010, 02:45 PM EDT

  It's time to pull up the 'welcome mat'. We were here first and have been very accomodating to those that want to live and worship in America. Allah is not God, Buddah is not God, Muhammad is not God...there is but one God. I'm all for freedom of worship, but not at the expense of our great country. We are so politically correct in this country and it is ruining us. Lawyers are the ones getting rich as they proclaim everyone's 'rights'.

• MikeTownsend | Sep 03, 2010, 02:43 PM EDT

  So, if 9/11 was not an attack in the name of Islam, then what was 9/11 all about? Never in my life would I have thought of having to learn words (after 9/11) like jihad, dhimmitude, taqiyya (very important), Dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, and jizya (which is still going on). These are but a few words and tenets of the Islamic faith I have learned since 9/11. I urge everyone to go to jihadwatch.org and get a crash course on Islam 101. But I still would like an answer to my question--If Islam was not the reason for 9/11, what was the reason? Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one's neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy in order to further advance Islam until the "striking" is right. Now Islam wants a "victory" mosque to give Muslims the supremacy demanded in the Quran? I urge everyone to go to jihadwatch.org and view the crash course on Islam101

• kilgara | Sep 03, 2010, 02:15 PM EDT

  Most Muslims believe that our U.S.A. can be turned into a Muslim country by immigrating here in the hundreds of thousands and having lots of children.This is their ultimate objective and with current conditions and attitudes they may well achieve their goal. Wake up Americans!

• manhattan | Sep 03, 2010, 01:02 PM EDT

  Why are we opposed to the mosque being right by the World Trade Center? It wasn't Swedes who bombed the marine barracks inLebanon, Flight 103 over lockerbie, the first bombing of the World Trade Center, The Cole, which I might add we have never tried those responsible(shameful) the American Embassy in Africa, on 9/11 it was 19 Moslems that sent planes into the two towers, the Pentagon and if it wasn't for those brave people that fought back the next stop was the Capitol. Gee why do we feel negative about Moslems?God protect us not only from the terroirist, but the hand wringing wimps who will stop at nothing to pacify those that hate us and wish us harm.

• IrishEddy | Sep 03, 2010, 12:54 PM EDT

  But not giving 9/11 First Responders needed care is okay!?!

• pflynn70 | Sep 03, 2010, 11:56 AM EDT

  Wow! I didn't know that. Duh.

• PhlutiePhan | Sep 03, 2010, 11:25 AM EDT

  Good comments without bias. Let's also look at recent events where Mr. Bloomberg went playing golf with the "pres". There is also now a "clear and present danger" in regard to the predominant recruiting of the Irish for the Fire Department according to the so-called Justice Department.

• chesapeake | Sep 03, 2010, 10:40 AM EDT

  Gosh! I wonder why New Yorkers would feel this way.

• Searlit | Sep 03, 2010, 10:31 AM EDT

  DennisQ: I think a "more moderate option" would be for the Mosque/interpretive center to be built in a structure that wasn't hit by wreckage. New Yorkers have to decide.

• Parents | Sep 03, 2010, 10:05 AM EDT

  I am not even from NYC and yet I find the whole idea of a mosque two block from ground zero absolutely insane. I just can't think of anything more disgusting. NO, NO, NO

• blst4m4ev | Sep 03, 2010, 09:27 AM EDT

  If the entire US was surveyed, I believe the results would be the same. Muslims support the destruction of ANY unbelievers, and that includes ANYONE who is not Muslim. US needs to wake up. Our president is Muslim and will bring down the US economically.

• diannerae | Sep 03, 2010, 09:26 AM EDT

  The mosque is two blocks away and can't even be seen from ground zero. This country is based on religious freedom and it wasn't American-Muslims who did the attack.

• DennisQ | Sep 03, 2010, 04:58 AM EDT

  The headline New Yorkers don't like Muslims or Ground Zero mosque is not supported by the findings of the survey. Given how intensely local tabloids have campaigned against the project, it's not surprising that a number of respondents are opposed. However, it is surprising how small the number who are (37%) strongly opposed. A much large number agree that Muslims have the right to build there, and a similarly large percentage (64%) believe that this is a local issue, one that national politicians should avoid.
  
  A very large percentage (76%) never have feelings of animosity toward Muslims because of the September 11th attack, while a somewhat lesser percentage (65%) say that this issue will have no effect on their vote for Governor this year.
  
  The survey might have had considerably different results if the questions had been asked about an Islamic center in lower Tribeca - which is exactly where the center will be. Calling it the "Ground Zero mosque" introduces a bias into the survey. However, the results as they are don't support the headline. If anything, the results show that New Yorkers, like other Americans, will triangulate a controversial issue. Given contradictory alternatives A or B, they'll choose a third, more moderate option C.