Creepy Facts Of 9/11

[CrazyHondaOwnR]

9:11 in the quran

If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), then they are your brethren in religion. We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

beat you to it ..... mines a slightly dif translation tho eh same thing tho

[sackingz123]

And i do have to say, when you chop a corner out of a tall, free-standing, object, it usually compromises integrity and that structure usually falls in the direction of the compromised corner. Not straight down.

I aint no engineer but thats what I thought too. Its strange they dropped within a couple of minutes from each other.

beat you to it ..... mines a slightly dif translation tho eh same thing tho

yes same meaning, just the english translation is different. the quran in arabic is translated differntly from the english translated quran.

[deevergote]

aww im sorry i didnt realize my caps lock was on. 11 days huh,thats cute.i wont do it again .and i love you too.

I figured it was a good way to fit it in.


And while I'm whippin my banstick about... CrazyHondaOwnR, makadasiggysmaller. (reduce the size of your signature, or I will...)

[CbSmEeZaY]

And while I'm whippin my banstick about... CrazyHondaOwnR, makadasiggysmaller. (reduce the size of your signature, or I will...)

and spell heaven correctly please.

[deevergote]

and spell heaven correctly please.

Who misspelled heaven? I'm avoiding this religious conversation altogether (though I AM reading it... and will ban accordingly if it gets out of hand)

[texasvtak]

I bought Final Fantasy 8 on 9/11!!!!!! Weird!!!!!!!

[wrichards2005]

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/wingdings-911.html

[owequitit]

Well, first of all it wasn't "middle easterners" it was Al Qaeda, a terrorist group, who just happens to run their operations out of the middle eastern region. To say that it was all "middle easterners" is ignorant.

Secondly, its not all the far fetched to say that Bush had his hand in the attacks, its not like he wouldn't have financial gain with his hand in an oil company, however the fact still remains that there is no solid proof. So its not insulting its speculating. Go rant to your mommy.

So I guess the Clintons must have had a hand in it as well. Afterall, they were also involved with an oil company, and Bill Clinton was President while Al Qaida was mobilizing...

I scratched my balls 11 times yesterday, and now they are sore. It must be a sign!

[starchland]

it was the taliban cause you know the government would never make anything up considering bin laden has been dead for over 20 years.

[owequitit]

I didn't say he wasn't involved, but I didn't say Bush WAS involved either. However its a possibility you really can't dismiss because no one knows all the facts of what happened leading up to that day.

It is a fact that actually can be pretty dismissed. Innocent until proven guilty.

Also, I find it highly suspect that certain people who clearly stand on one side of a clear partly line always point fingers in one direction, until they are called on it, and then they just try to play it down, and pretend that those little details might not be crucial. It is like a Red Herring.

A true bipartisan person (i.e. someone's who's position is actually valid) would point out the possibility on both sides. But alas, they never do. It is always just "oil monger Bushy that did it." Which is odd considering his "oil" holdings aren't that large anymore (the Clintons had almost as much prior to her running the primary), and MILLIONS of people hold stock in oil companies, not all of whom are evil or Republican. And yet, somehow, the Republicans are always slave to oil.

I can tell you for a fact from an economics standpoint that the current record oil profits have NOTHING to do with Bush, Iraq, Afghanistan or 9-11. The profit margin is the same, but volume and many other factors have altered the equation enough to make it look bad. Of course it doesn't help when all the misinformed liberal haters do nothing but point out the profits and don't address the entire equation. But why would they do that? It doesn't make their agenda look as impressive. The average oil company's profit margin is SMALLER than Wal-Marts. Why no run on Wal-Marts evil practices? The average profit margin on Honda's is higher, and yet that doesn't seem to bother you? Why is that?

[GHOST 2.2]

on 9/11 i went to get gas.

tuned into channel 11 and it had the twin towers on

there were plenty of kids who turned 11 that year

my old car was 11 at the time

11inches off the floor is how long my wang hung off the ground.

[owequitit]

So now you're saying that my opinion isn't valid?


I'm biting my tongue on everything else I was going to say because I feel sorry for you...

There is no need to bite your tongue or feel sorry for me. I don't need you to feel sorry for me. I clearly am standing more in the middle than you are, and thus have a better understanding of reality.

Don't put words in my mouth. You know that isn't going to work. I never said your opinion was invalid, but I DID imply it. As long as you are skewed to one side or the other, you are presenting partial truths, facts and information. It is the nature of being biased. Sorry, you will just have to accept that fact. As such, I discount your opinion further than I would neutral opinions, because not only is it biased, which means it is not 100% trustworthy, but you are making baseless claims.

You show me something other than speculation, and something that implicates one side more than other beyond a reasonable doubt, and I will buy into it 100%. But you and I both know that you can't do that. Until that point, I give BOTH sides the benefit of the doubt.

And honestly, you saying that Bush could have had a roll in it is entirely possible. However, it isn't any more possible than Clinton having a roll in it, or you or I having a roll in it. Afterall, we don't know each other, so how can you say for sure? Just because it has a non-zero probability, DOES NOT mean that it is has a likely probability.

[owequitit]

Implying that its invalid is just as good as saying it...

Not exactly no. By implying it, it was left open to interpretation. I also did NOT disagree with what you said about Bush. I disagree with it only because you presented it in a biased lopsided one way fashion.

This is all I was trying to get across to the OP who said Bush had nothing to do with it, nobody knows the details, I highly doubt any one individual knows 100% of everything that went into planning such an extravagant attack.

This is true. However, I am disheartened to see such a one sided approach to the things that make this country great. You would not be happy if people accused you of doing things that weren't true without having some substantiation, and yet here you are serving it out.

Of course nobody knows 100% what happened. I would even extend that statement to include Bush. Which is why in the absence of some kind of hard proof, there is nothing at all. Since there is no proof either way, then both avenues are equally possible, and equally likely, whether you WANT to believe it or not. Anything else is nothing more than a false use of logic, reason and openmindedness.

In fact this reminds me of a religious discussion we recently had where there is absolutely ZERO evidence either way, and yet some claim that implies there was no God. It is blind, ignorant, close minded, and unfounded to accept a theory without proof for OR against said theory. Even if you want to believe it is true.

[bcjammerx]

oh good lord...that is the stupidest video that anyone has ever posted...I would rather watch a life story on american idol sanjaya...can we delete this entire retarded waste of a thread please?

OOO there were 'faces' in the smoke...get a freakin' life people