The biggest problem in the middle-east is the Israeli Zionist Regime.

You state you need no understanding about engineering to prove your point about 911 has merit because thousands believe as you do. Yet when millions believe in a religion you think it has no merit. That is flawed logic.

There I fixed it for you.

No, it's not.

Here is why.

Concerning the 9/11 subject, the comparison is the official so-called scientific account vs thousands of professionals, scientists and engineers in the growing "truther" movement.

If the scientific official account is right and "indisputable" then there would certainly not be so many people disputing it. I need no understanding of engineering or science whatsoever to decide that there are obvious flaws in the official account. To add to that, I have read the official reports and several other books on the subject and I have drawn my own conclusions that the official report is a fraud for many reasons that you are unaware of. Therefore you are in no position to make the statement that my "logic" is flawed.

There is not much competition for evidence on the side of the official report. The evidence weighs heavily against them because of so many unanswered questions and suspicious circumstances. Also because professionals in the field of engineering and science have pointed out flaws and possible fraud.

Comparing that to religions is a bad analogy because "millions" of people do not all believe the same thing. One of the reasons there are so many different sects of religion is because they all tend to disagree. While we have one Bible, we have three major religions that are Bible based. To add to that, each of those religions are infinity divided into thousands of of different churches or denominations who viciously disagree on stupid things like what day to worship.

Number of Catholics over 1 billion and don't argue on religion as Catholics beliefs are based on Vatican law. The number of people who think 9/11 is a conspiracy is tiny in comparison. There is science for 911 it just goes ignore because most people that believe as you do don't have a back ground in science. Thus both points of your counter argument fail.

Also not all truthers believe the same thing about 911

One subject has nothing to do with the other Chaster.

A larger percent of the people polled believe 9/11 was an inside job than believe the official report.

There are scientists on both sides of the 9/11 debate. I don't need a background in science or engineering because there are plenty of scientists and engineers who have found flaws and fraud on the part of the official report. In reading both sides, and many different opinions, my conclusion is that the official account is not the truth.

It's very simple and uncomplicated. I don't know why you have such a problem with it. You can think whatever you want. I have a right to think what I want and decide for myself.

They all have one thing in common. The don't believe the official account is the truth.

Hotroddelux said:



When someone posts a link to a website for "evidence" or defends it, for whatever reason I would think they would at least look at it.



No, I don't. One cannot be anti-Semitic against a non-Semitic European people.

The world 'Semitic' does not apply to people but to languages of the Middle Eastern and East African region such as Arabic, Amharic, Tigrina, and Hebrew.

For someone who claims to be a historian you should know that. The expression "anti-semitic" dates back only about one hundred years and it was an expression of European people's biases against their very own European Jews.

European Jews do love the expression of "anti-Semitic" because the word 'Semitic' is related to the Middle Eastern region, and anything that would hopefully connect the European Ashkenazi Jews to Palestine is highly desired by Euro-Jewry.




I appose Zionism mainly because of the oppressive regime that seems to practice racial discrimination. There is something dark and corrupt (even evil) operating and in control of the government of Israel.

They pretend to be frightened and innocent. They are not. They are aggressors.

And religions all believe in there being something more after death. Something greater than ourselves. Just about any argument you make for 911 a similar argument could be made with religion. Especially if you focused on 1 group. Comparing all religion would very like comparing every conspiracy theory and not just 911

OK please provide a scientific paper steating flaws that is published in a scientific journal and is thought to be even mildly credible.

Why?

Like I said, you can think whatever you want, believe whomever you want and I will do the same.

If our scientific community has been compromised, a "scientific Journal" is not going to mean anything.

The Basic Problem in the Middle East is the simplest problem to describe.

Israel would like to exist and recognizes the right of the
Palestinians to have a state.

The Palestinians however and many other Muslims and Arabs do not
recognize the right of a Jewish state of Israel to exist.

Same problem as before 1948.

No recognition, no peace, no negotiations - this is the policy of
the Palestinians. The motto of Hamas is "We love death as much as
the Jews love life." Here is a concise and straightforward video
discussion of this central issue.

http://youtu.be/63hTOaRu7h4

1. Well the fact is, Israel does exist.

So what's the problem?

2. So what Israel really wants is to be "recognized" or "acknowledged" as existing by the "Palestinians."

But at what point did Israel Jews acknowledge that there were other people living there?

And how many of those people were killed in the process of creating the state of Israel?

Wiki:

"A land without a people for a people without a land" is a widely-cited phrase associated with the movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Although usually assumed to have been a Zionist slogan, the phrase was used as early as 1843 by a Christian Restorationist clergyman and it continued to be used for almost a century by Christian Restorationists.[citation needed]

It is thought by some scholars that this phrase never came into widespread use among Jewish Zionists.[1][2] On the other hand, Anita Shapira wrote that "The slogan 'A Land Without a people for a people without a land' was common among Zionists at the end of the nineteenth, and the beginning of the twentieth century.

1. The problem is that Hamas, Al-Aqsa, Hezbollah and other Palestinian
terrorist organizations would rather kill innocent people than accept
a peaceful permanent coexistence alongside a Jewish state of Israel.

2. The people who lived in Israel and accepted Israel were always
acknowledged and in fact are now Israeli citizens and they are still there in Israel with full rights of citizenship.

Israel wishes to have peace and not be attacked.

That's it.

If the Palestinians and Arab states surrounding Israel stopped
attacking Israel today then there would be a durable and permanent
peaceful coexistence tomorrow.

Every time the terrorist attacks stop there has been long periods
of peaceful coexistence.

Israel always starts the wars. They strike first out of their own paranoia. That does not look like people who want peace.

False. Israel only fights when directly threatened or attacked by
terrorists and when they do fight back they always try to
minimize the effects on civilian populations as much as they can.

That is not what I have heard. They believe in preemptive strikes. They send in spies. The engage in black Ops. They attack with unmarked planes etc. etc.

You have missed the build up to the 1967 war where Israel was
explicitly threatened by troops from 4 armies amassing on their
borders. But it is all well documented:

=-=-=-=

Background and summary of events leading to war
Main article: Origins of the Six-Day War

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[11][12][13] In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.[14]

Soon thereafter, in response to Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) guerilla activity,[15][16] including a mine attack that killed three Israeli soldiers,[17] the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank, killing 16 and wounding 54.[18] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[19] Israel's attack was condemned by the Security Council, which emphasized to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated. King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts".[20][21] The Samu raid shattered the fragile trust between Israel and Jordan,[22] leading the Jordanian leadership to believe Israel's strategic goal was to occupy the West Bank. This fear that in the event of a regional war, Israel would invade the West Bank, led to King Husayn's decision to sign a joint defense pact with Egypt.[23]

In May 1967, Israeli officials began to publicly threaten military action against Syria if Syria did not stop Palestinian terrorists from crossing the border into Israel.[24] Nasser received reports from the Soviet Union that an Israeli attack on Syria was imminent. While Soviet reports of Israeli troops massing on the Syrian border were inaccurate, the assessment that Israel was about to launch an attack was well founded. [25] [26] Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[27][28] UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel despite U.S. pressure.[29]

Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[30][31] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 27, he stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."[32]

On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[33] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

=-=-=-=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”


In the three weeks before the war, the Jews of the world truly believed, because (like Israeli Jews) they were conditioned by Zionism to believe, that the Arabs were poised to attack and that Israel’s very existence was at stake and much in doubt.

The Jews of the world (and Israeli Jews) could not be blamed for believing that, but it was a big, fat propaganda lie. Though Egypt’s President Nasser had asked UNEF forces to withdraw, had closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and had reinforced his army in the Sinai, neither his Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any intention of attacking Israel. And Israel’s leaders, and the Johnson administration, knew that.

In short, the offensive Israel launched at 0750 hours (local time) on Monday 5 June was not a pre-emptive strike or an act of self-defence. It was a war of aggression.