certifired_img

Books and Documents

The War Within Islam

192 - COMMENTS

  • does ascending to heaven on horse back and sitting on the right hand side of god count as miracle?

    one who will believe this can believe that 9/11 whatever, whatever?
    By hats off! - 11/15/2018 5:57:20 AM



  • The questions have never been answered nor can be answered since honest answers incriminate Uncle Sam in the 911 plot.

     

    The fig leaf that the US cannot harm its own citizens is blown away by the Operation Northwoods plan. 

     

    What is truly insane and absurd, is to believe that events took place that defy the laws of physics (unexplained and unexplainable cause of the collapse of the three buildings at free fall speed), or that the terrorists had any chance of success in a plan that required the following for its success:

     

    1. The President being away. He alone could give the order to shoot down a passenger plane as per a rule framed shortly before 911. Why this rule was made shortly before 911 is anyone’s guess. This order was not given, according to the President himself, until after the third plane had struck the Pentagon. Whether it was given at all or not we will never know because no plane was brought down.

     

    2. The Défense Secretary remaining “out of loop” during the most crucial 30 minutes while the third plane was tracked all the way till hit the Pentagon.

     

    3. The joint chief of armed forces was too busy in his breakfast meeting to be disturbed

     

    4. No attempt made to shoot down the plane using the protective shield of the White House /Pentagon consisting of ever-ready ground to air missiles. Since the capital is under the prohibited airspace, any hostile aircraft is meant to be brought down but the Vice President, by his very presence in the WH, prevented the shooting and confirmed that the “stand-down” order stood. This after two planes had already struck their targets! It is not the argument of the government either that this plane was not shot down because they did not have the President’s clearance. No attempt was made to contact the President and get his clearance during the 30-minute window available, because such clearance was not necessary for shooting down a hostile aircraft violating the capital’s prohibited airspace.

     

    5.  Four dummy exercises the same day and during the same period involving all the available air force jets leaving only four available in distant locations from where they could not have reached the hijacked planes in time. The games were not called off until “Mission Hijack” was declared closed!

     

    6. The Dummy games added to the confusion and when the hijack was reported, it was first thought that it was from the dummy exercise causing precious loss of several minutes

     

    7. Key members of FAA and NORAD were either new in the assignment or missing without a replacement causing delay in issuing necessary orders which added to the reasons why the four planes ultimately scrambled, could not reach their targets.

     

    8. The agencies (FBI, CIA and NSA) turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the several warnings of the imminence of such an attack.

     

    The terrorists, on their own, would not have even succeeded in hijacking the planes and would have been arrested much before. Even if they had succeeded in hijacking four planes, they would have been accosted by an air force jet before they hit their target. They would have only succeeded in crashing the four planes with the passengers into some open field. Even if they managed to hit WTC1 and WTC2, there is no way these two buildings could have fully collapsed, leave alone WTC7 which could not be hit by a plane because it crashed in a field before doing so. The plane crashing into the Pentagon is simply unbelievable!

     

    So be my guest Ghulam Uncle Sam and believe in miracles.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/15/2018 2:38:42 AM



  • Naseer sb. keeps asking the same questions again and again and will probably continue to do so ad infinitum. I shall end my participation in this discussion with the remark that believing that the U.S. government and Al Qaeda were involved in a conspiracy to destroy American buildings and American passenger planes and to kill 3000 Americans is patently absurd and insane.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/14/2018 1:40:13 PM



  • Neither Ghulam Uncle Sam nor Uncle Sam can give honest answers to the following questions without incriminating Uncle Sam. Their lies are exposed. GUS is a shameless denier of the truth.

     

    QUESTION


     In view of Operation Northwoods plan, why do you consider the 911 plan as a crazy conspiracy theory? Wasn’t the Operation Northwoods plan an equally crazy conspiracy hatched by Uncle Sam involving hijacking of planes and acts of terrorism and loss of life of its own soldiers and citizens?

     

    QUESTION

     

    Didn’t Uncle Sam have plans that required a cataclysmic event like 911 and those plans were speedily executed after the 911 event riding on people’s anger?

     

    QUESTION

    The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for 30 minutes before it hit its target, was following it on radar, the plane was within 1 mile of the White House before it turned towards the Pentagon, had the means to shoot it down and should have done so in order to protect the capital. But they didn't. Why?

     

    QUESTION

    In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the young man can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane, as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

     

    QUESTION

     

    Why were four different games of simulated hijacks being played out with all the available air force planes leaving only four available at distant locations from New York to deal with the real hijack? Why weren’t these games called off until the last hijacked plane had crashed? When the President returned in the evening, there were 300 air force planes in the air protecting the American skies. Where were 296 of them in the morning when they were needed? The answer is - they were engaged playing 4 different games on the order of the VP!

     

    QUESTION

     

    Is it merely a coincidence that the President was outside Washington on 911, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed to be “out of the loop” during the crucial 30 minutes as the plane that hit Pentagon was tracked all the way until it hit Pentagon, and Myers was not to be disturbed from breakfast with Max Cleland? The VP prevented the plane from being shot down while it came within 1 mile of the White House and when it turned towards Pentagon, the two people who could give the order to shoot viz Donald Rumsfeld and acting chief Myers were in hiding, although two hijacked planes had struck the WTC towers half an hour before!

     

    QUESTION

    Why are private investigators such as the insurers barred from their own investigation which is normal whenever they are required to settle insurance claims?

    QUESTION

    Why is the 911 Commission  silent on the collapse of WTC7. Why did NIST not explain how WTC1 and 2 collapsed beyond saying what initiated the collapse? NIST simulation ignores observed, recorded and admitted free fall in stage 2 of WTC7 besides fudging other data. It has also withheld the data used for simulation. Why unless it fears that making the data available would expose their manipulation of data?

     

    QUESTION

    Why does NIST not make its analysis with complete data available to the Universities and let them learn how this extraordinary and miraculous event defying the laws of physics took place? Why is it depriving the world and its own universities from learning from this event?

    QUESTION

     

    Why do the reports ignore the visual, audio and eye-witness evidence of melted steel, secondary blasts and of explosives going off? Why did the NIST and the 911 Commission not ask questions to the witnesses to ascertain whether they had seen or heard anything that would point to a Controlled Demolition? Why was Controlled Demolition that was widely suspected not even the subject of inquiry? Is it not because they went about establishing the lie rather than trying to find out the truth?  Neither body examined the debris or visited the site before the debris was cleared.

     

    QUESTION

     

    Why are the first responders, the affected and the family of the killed prevented from speaking out, with clauses that prevent them for doing so as a condition for availing compensation now or in future?

     

    QUESTION

     

     

    Why is there such lack of transparency and a massive cover-up to prevent the truth from emerging? Isn’t this the behaviour of a liar?

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/14/2018 2:00:07 AM



  • The collapse of the three buildings was not assisted by controlled demolition. Anyone who claims they were is either a liar or an idiot.

    Anyone who claims that the planes were allowed to crash into the buildings and everything was done to clear all obstacles does not know what he is talking about. Such a scenario is outlandish and bizarre. One would have to be very stupid to believe in it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/13/2018 11:55:20 PM



  • The truth denier Ghulam Uncle Sam pretended that "Uncle Sam wore fine clothes" and defended as long as he could. Uncle Sam stands fully exposed and Ghulam Uncle Sam is left without an answer to very pertinent and valid questions.

    What has been established beyond reasonable doubt is:

    1. The collapse of all three buildings was assisted by controlled demolition.

    2. The planes were allowed to crash into the buildings and everything was done to clear all obstacles and nothing was done even when there was a clear 30 minute window to shoot down the plane approaching White House/Pentagon

    Uncle Sam is therefore, beyond reasonable doubt, complicit in 911 attacks.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/13/2018 11:14:52 PM



  • There is no limits to the literature that conspiracy theorists have developed in order to support their outlandish theories. Naseer sb, is welcome to enjoy all of it but I have no intention to waste any more of my time on it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/13/2018 1:21:17 PM



  • Watch this video from 40 to 55 minutes for the complete testimony of Mineta and the blatant attempts of the Commissioners to create confusion and discredit Mineta’s testimony. Not the behaviour of an Inquiry Commission seeking the truth but the behaviour of fixers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=22&v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

     

    QUESTION

    The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for 30 minutes before it hit its target, was following it on radar, the plane was within 1 mile of the White House before it turned towards the Pentagon, had the means to shoot it down and should have done so in order to protect the capital. But they didn't. Why?

     

    QUESTION

    In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the young man can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane, as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

     

     

    Secretary Mineta recounted to the Commission his experience on the morning of 9/11 from the time he was notified of the first plane hitting the WTC, to his experience at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) along with Vice President Cheney and staff. Unlike Rumsfeld who claimed to be “out of the loop“, and Myers who was not disturbed from breakfast with Max Cleland, and President Bush who was busy reading a story to kids,  Mineta was able to provide a full account of his experience that morning. Mineta testified that he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 a.m. and that Vice President Cheney was already present with his staff. 9/11 Commission Report states that Cheney himself arrived at the PEOC at 9:58, a stunning 38 minute contradiction to Mineta’s testimony and yet neither Cheney nor Mineta have been punished for perjury since surely one of them was lying. Obviously, Mineta wasn’t lying and couldn’t be punished and Cheney was giving the “official truth” which the Commission was bound to uphold as the truth even if it was a lie.

     

    Mineta responds to an opening question by Commissioner Hamilton about the events in the PEOC and an alleged shoot down order. He describes a conversation between Cheney and a young man:

     

    Mineta: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”

     

    Mineta explains that while he had not known it at the time, he had surmised that the standing order the young man asked about must have been a shoot down order. Hamilton, looking a bit confused, seeks clarification about which flight the conversation was regarding, and Mineta once again clarifies that it is the flight that hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on September 11. There was good reason for the quizzical expression on Hamilton’s face. Secretary Mineta had thoroughly trashed previous accounts of the PEOC activities that had been published in the press. In a CNN piece dated 9/11/02, the timing of events had been represented differently. According to CNN:

    “After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.”

     

    In the CNN piece Cheney aid Josh Bolton describes the same exchange between Cheney and the young man that Mineta did, but Bolton ties the exchange to “a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington”. This is the official White House legend, the one adopted in the White House produced 9/11 Commission Report, the one exposed by Mineta. Hamilton follows with a question about Flight 93:

     

    Hamilton: “With respect to flight 93, what type of information were you and the Vice President receiving about that flight.”

     

    Mineta: “The only information we had at that point, was when it crashed.”

     

    Chairman Kean then stresses that the Secretary’s time is limited. He moves to Commissioner Roemer, who, immediately prior to his questioning appears to be receiving counsel.

     

    Tim Roemer seeks to discredit Mineta

     

    Mineta responds to a condescending greeting by Commissioner Roemer by giving a timeline for when he arrived in the PEOC (9:20), and an estimate of when the conversation between the young man and the vice president occurred (9:25-26). Roemer paints a picture of chaos and conflicting decision making between the functioning of the Situation Room and the PEOC and proposes a confused scenario of how a shoot down order might have transpired, to which Mineta replies:

     

    Mineta: “That would be speculation on my part as to what was happening on that day.”

     

    At this point Roemer appears to attempt to discredit Mineta and imply that he, like Rumsfeld, was “out of the loop”:

     

    Roemer: “I know. Because you had been conducting official business and I’m sure you were hurriedly on your way over there…”

     

    Mineta: “As I was listening!”

     

    Thwarted, Roemer then tries to clarify how the order played out.

     

    Roemer: “Would your inference be that they scrambled the jets to shoot down the commercial airliner, it failed, and the commercial airliner then crashed into the Pentagon?”

     

    Mineta: “I’m not sure that the aircraft that were scrambled to come up to the D.C. area…were under orders to shoot the airplane down…”

     

    Mineta ultimately expressed the obvious, that the standing order was an open question only Cheney could answer. The fact that the 9/11 Commission Report discarded his testimony has never been explained.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/13/2018 2:12:44 AM



  • The incoming plane was identified to be hostile (hijacked, switched off transponder, not in two way radio communication, having reversed its flight path)  and heading towards the White House/ Pentagon. It was tracked all the way on radar for the last 30 minutes with foreknowledge that two similarly hijacked planes were crashed into WTC and a young officer desperately seeking the VPs orders. In the absence of the VP, they would have acted once the plane entered the prohibited airspace S56. The presence of the VP in the White House alone made them seek his orders, and it would appear that the VP was there precisely to prevent the shooting down. Shooting down a plane using the ground to air missile shield takes no effort or time once the decision to shoot is taken.

     

    A clear case of allowing the plane to hit its target and clear proof that the 911 Commissioners were doing their best to do damage control and alter the clear import and meaning of the Transport Commissioner’s testimony.

     

    Both the 911 Commission Report and the NIST report raise more question than they answer and are blatant attempts to cover up the truth and establish the official lie.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/13/2018 1:16:09 AM



  • Naseer sb. thinks that shooting down American passenger planes by the U.S. military is such a simple affair that American defense forces must be in full readiness all the time to do it!

    Operation Northwoods, (a crazy plan that was never adopted), targeted Cuban emigres many of whom were American citizens or were in transit on their way to seeking asylum in the U.S. Some parts of the plan may have gone beyond that but why keep talking about a crazy plan that was never approved? To compare it to 9/11 is just plain dumb.

    In any case if you want to believe your conspiracy theory, no one is stopping you. You do not have to produce all their crazy literature here. You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours. So why are we wasting our time trying to do that?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 1:35:27 PM



  • Why wasn't a ground to air missile fired to bring down the plane?

     

    How can there be a ground for attacking Cuba if there are Cuban casualties and not American?  The Operation Northwoods had all the elements of the 911 plan.

     

    Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés,sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

     

    The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would be perpetrated by the U.S. Government. To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidencethat would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

    The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.


    Most certainly there were revisions to justify attacking seven distant countries that were not a threat to the US and to take away the freedoms and rights to privacy of its own people. The reaction and anger of the American people to be generated was of a much higher order in view of its plans. The Cuban plan was limited in comparison.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 2:02:32 AM



  • "The position of the civil society is to accept the official findings," means that the civil society has accepted the official finding. It did not have any reason to doubt those findings.

    As I said, Cheney did order that the passenger plane approaching Washington DC be shot down. Several military planes were dispatched from the Langley Air Force Base but before they could shoot the passenger plane down, it had already rammed into the Pentagon.

    The 9/11 plan and the Northwoods Plan are vastly different. The Northwoods Plan did not involve any attack on American buildings, or crashing of four passenger planes or killing of 3000 American citizens. It could have involved some Cuban casualties. Moreover the Northwoods Plan was rejected by the Kennedy administration.

    Your asking me these questions assumes that I am as interested in the subject as the conspiracy theory loonies are. I am not interested in such details. I do not need to know such details in order to know that there is nothing more here than meets the eye.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 1:08:40 AM



  • What you said is repeated verbatim “the position of the civil society is to accept the official findings” and did not respond when I asked you whether the Civil Society should accept the official findings “even when it contradicts and/or omits the relevant evidence and defies the laws of physics”.


    You haven't answered even one question, least of all why the Vice President did not order shooting down of the plane approaching the Pentagon although his orders were repeatedly sought as the plane was 50, 30 and then only 10 miles away.

     

    If the 911 plan is crazy, it is only Uncle Sam’s admitted Operation Northwoods plan with a few changes.  Uncle Sam is capable of doing crazy things beyond anyone's imagination and use their incredulity to its advantage


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/12/2018 12:46:52 AM



  • It is not that civil society accepts all government reports. What I meant was that the civil society has accepted the report of the high-powered 9/11 Commission. There was no reason to object. The conspiracy theories are for the fringe cranky elements. No sane person would give them any credence. You just keep raising the same points that I have already answered several times. I called them idiotic and insane and I call them idiotic and insane again. 
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/12/2018 12:24:03 AM



  • I wonder why Ghulam Uncle Sam is even responding after having said “the position of the civil society is to accept the official findings”

     

    That is fine, we understand his taking such a position like many other Americans who have also said that they will accept what Uncle Sam says, right or wrong. Psychologically, a kid who is dependent on his parents, and looks upto them for physical and emotional security, will be devasted if he/she comes to know that the parents are even capable of entertaining thoughts of harming him/her.  They will therefore banish all such thoughts and reject all evidence to the contrary because the very thought is traumatic and unbearable. For them a false belief and denial of the truth is preferable to confronting the truth. The government is such a surrogate parent of grown-ups.

     

    The evidence however is unassailable that Uncle Sam is complicit in 911. That Uncle Sam can think up of such a plan is established by declassified documents on Operation Northwoods. What is ON but a conspiracy to indulge in acts of terrorism with considerable loss of American lives and blame it on Cuba and wage war on it in retaliation? That it was not executed does not prove anything. Cuba wasn’t an easy target like Afghanistan or Iraq and had the full backing of a powerful USSR and there was the distinct possibility of a nuclear war since the Soviets had deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba pointing at the US. Better sense therefore prevailed.

     

    That the US had plans to wage war on 7 Muslim countries and take away the freedoms and right of privacy of American citizens is also well established and the fact that they needed a 911 event to put their plan into action. The motivation for executing the 911 plan is established. They executed what they had planned helped by the 911 event.

     

    That all three agencies (CIA, FBI and NSA) had foreknowledge of plans to use hijacked plans and crash these into landmark buildings is also admitted. The FBI was also keeping a tab on a few of the alleged hijackers.

     

    The behaviour of all key decision-making persons on 911 is baffling to say the least. The President was away and not in Washington DC talking to school kids. He did not budge even after being told that the nation was under attack twice by an aide. The first time was when a plane crashed into WTC1 and then when it crashed into WTC2. We are told by President Bush himself, that he authorised the shooting down of hijacked commercial planes only after the third plane had struck Pentagon! To shoot down the plane that struck Pentagon did not require any prior clearance as the airspace surrounding the White House, Capitol Hill and the Pentagon is always prohibited  (P 56) and the aircraft was known to have been hijacked and not in two-way radio communication and its transponder was switched off. It had all the characteristics of an aircraft approaching with hostile intentions and it was known that two similarly hijacked planes had crashed into WTC1 and 2. And yet this aircraft, which was tracked on radar for 30 minutes until it struck the Pentagon, was not ordered to be shot down by the VP although it came within 1 mile of the White House before changing direction towards the Pentagon. This is not a case of penetrating the shield but a plane which could have been brought down by the ground to air missile protective shield anytime during those 30 minutes it was tracked but was wilfully and intentionally not brought down. Not a single missile was fired. Four hijacked airplanes went unchallenged over one hour and forty minutes. We are told that there were no fighter jets available because all the fighter jets were participating in four different dummy exercises which were a simulation of what was happening in real life! These dummy exercises were not called off until the fourth plane had crashed on its own!

     

    The collapse of the three buildings has been discussed. It defies the laws of physics to consider that any of the three buildings would have collapsed at free fall speed on their footprint in the manner of a perfectly executed demolition job without a Controlled Demolition job. Nothing, except a pre-planned Controlled Demolition, camouflaged by a plane crashing to make people think that it was the plane crashing that caused the collapse, is the proper explanation. The third building was not even hit by a plane because the plane crashed into a field and yet the plan for CD was executed by starting an office fire and blaming it on damage caused by falling debris from WTC1 while other buildings nearer to WTC1 did not suffer any great damage.

     

     

     

    Uncle Sam the accused is also the investigator and therefore what it says in its defence needs to be critically examined. What it says does not stand scrutiny and these are lies. Its reports and the way the exercise has been carried out, has been shown to be a cover-up job with evidence.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/11/2018 11:58:26 PM



  • As I said before, Naseer sb. will keep regurgitating all the stuff that a crazy group of conspiracy theorists has collected over the years. He is still asking why this did not happen and why that did not happen but he is totally oblivious of the fact that what happened has been thoroughly investigated by the 9/11 Commission and their report has been fully validated by all the respectable and reliable persons and agencies in the US and in the world. But Naseer sb.'s allegiance is to a group of crackpots who, like him, will continue to say that their loony conspiracy theory is "the obvious truth" till the doomsday!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/11/2018 2:10:53 PM



  • The Pentagon, the White House and Capitol Hill are protected by their own ground to air missile shields. Why wasn't any missile fired or the order given to fire it although the officer is seeking such an order when the plane was just 50 miles away, then again when it was just 30 miles away and finally only 10 miles away? What does the VP mean by saying the order still stands if it is not a stand-down order? If it was an order to bring down the plane, he would have been demanding why was it not brought down even though the plane had got so close. And if it was an order to bring down the plane, it would have been brought down with a single missile at any point in time before it hit the Pentagon. If the VP had given the order when it was 50 miles away, the Officer would not have come back to report anything except that the plane was brought down.  The poor chap is still seeking the order to bring it down but that does not happen. Instead the VP confirms that there is no change in the order which is obviously a stand-down order. See for yourself how the commissioners instead of pining the VP, are trying to white-wash the testimony.

     

    Watch the Commissioners of the 911 Commission doing their utmost to cover up the truth in the video below. Transport Secretary Mineta’s revelation and embarrassing elaboration make both Commissioners Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer to do their best to shut him down and up, and to blur and blunt and smother its significance. Such intervention by the Commissioners is by itself sufficient to establish the 911 Commission as committed to cover-up.

     

    Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's 9/11 Testimony

     

     

    Ghulam Uncle Sam is doing the same – trying to cover up the very obvious truth. He is in the august company of the 911 commissioners and Dr Shyam Sunder of NIST. He is a proven truth denier and Ghulam Uncle Sam

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/11/2018 2:36:10 AM



  • When Naseer sb. is losing an argument he starts calling me names such as "truth denier and windbag"! He should be ashamed of himself.

    With Cheney's orders to shoot down the passenger plane, military jets were dispatched from Langley Air Force Base but they did not have enough time to stop the hijacked plane from hitting the Pentagon.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/11/2018 12:19:39 AM



  • If GUS is referring to my calling him “The truth denier and windbag Ghulam Uncle Sam” let me say that my description of him is truthful and exact. How could he possibly deny it?

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/11/2018 12:01:28 AM



  • GUS says : "The order still stands," obviously refers to shooting down the passenger plane.

     

    Why wasn’t it shot down then? Why wasn’t a single ground to air missile fired? Do you think the young Officer while saying the plane is 50 miles away, then 30 miles away and finally 10 miles away  which considering the plane’s speed was roughly 5, 3 1and 1 minutes away, was trying to get the order to shoot down the plane reversed? Or knowing that two other similarly hijacked planes had hit the two WTC buildings, he was getting desperate because the plane was getting within striking distance of the Pentagon and yet there was no order to bring it down? And remember that they had full 47 minutes after it was known that it was hijacked to shoot down the plane and it was not shot down.

    Why is the testimony blanked out in the final Report?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/10/2018 11:35:34 PM



  • If Hats Off is referring to my calling him an enemy of Islam, let me say that my description of him is truthful and exact. How could he possibly deny it?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/10/2018 11:33:42 PM



  • while you unashamedly subscribe to the "enemies of islam" whine every time some muslim does something stupid, you consider yourself a rational, thinking human. but because you are moderate man, it does not seem to you like a crazy conspiracy theory.

    you are one who cannot see the beam in your own eye while you will point out a mote in the other's.
    By hats off! - 11/10/2018 4:53:13 PM



  • Naseer sb. is getting desperate as shown by his returning to his gutter language.

    He wants me to accept his fantastic conspiracy theory which no sane person in America or elsewhere subscribes to. He forgets that the Northwoods plan was rejected by the Kennedy administration. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is even more bizarre and more inconceivable than the Northwoods plan. To think that it was adopted and executed by the Bush administration is sheer lunacy.

    The conversation between Lee Hamilton and Secretary Mineta is normal and unremarkable. "The order still stands," obviously refers to shooting down the passenger plane.

    Bush's behavior in Booker Elementary school is not difficult to understand. He did not want to spread panic among those children. At the same time it takes a minute or two for a person to absorb the gravity of such a momentous disaster, and Bush was known to be a little slow on the uptake.

    Naseer sb. seems  determined to reproduce for us all the crazy stuff that the conspiracy theorists have gathered over the years. The one thing that he will not do is to ponder over the simple fact that such a brazen and outlandish scheme could not even be conceived, let alone implemented.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/10/2018 3:42:41 PM



  • The truth denier and windbag Ghulam Uncle Sam has no answers to any question since any answer that he gives incriminates Uncle Sam. The 911 plan is Uncle Sam's own Operation Northwoods plan which it has executed with a few changes replacing Cuba by Al-Qaeda as the fall guy.

     

                                            “stand-down” order

     

    Watch the Commissioners of the 911 Commission doing their utmost to cover up the truth in the video below. Transport Secretary Mineta’s revelation and embarrassing elaboration make both Commissioners Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer to do their best to shut him down and up, and to blur and blunt and smother its significance. Such intervention by the Commissioners is by itself sufficient to establish the 911 Commission as committed to cover-up.


    Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's 9/11 Testimony

     

    Brief analysis of Cheney’s remarks is straightforward:

    The repeated questioning of Cheney by the young man whether "the orders still stand" had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still stood.  Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached.   Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon, the anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon, would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane.  Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the young man.

    The 9/11 Commission Report discarded Norman Mineta’s testimony without an explanation. We know why. They were not investigating but doing a cover up job and Mineta’s testimony didn’t fit what they set out to establish.

    How Cheney disabled NORAD on 911 is another story..

    Bush was apparently sent off to Booker Elementary to be with the kids as he could not be trusted to perform publicly in a high-pressure domestic covert operation. He dutifully stuck to his assigned role even though an official whispered in his ear that the nation is under attack twice when the planes hit WTC1 and 2. He remained unfazed!


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/10/2018 12:04:09 AM



  • Naseer sb. says, "the obvious answers that fit the facts are what Uncle Sam is guilty of but cannot admit."

    Nothing can be further from the truth. All answers regarding what happened to the WTC towers have been answered. The fact that a few crackpot paranoids continue to be not satisfied with the answers is no justification for proposing a wild, unbelievable and idiotic conspiracy theory that no sane authority in America or anywhere else would consider even for a minute.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/9/2018 12:28:46 PM



  • You have no explanation for anything. You would rather let the questions remain unanswered because the obvious answers that fit the facts are what Uncle Sam is guilty of but cannot admit.

     

    The evidence that the collapse of the three buildings was assisted by Controlled Demolition is unassailable which makes Uncle Sam complicit in the 911 events. What exactly happened can only be answered by Uncle Sam. The possibilities are:

     

    1.     Uncle Sam did it on its own and blamed Al-Qaeda

    2.     The FBI devised the plot of hijacking of planes, trapped Muslim Youth into it, facilitated their training, hijacking etc and set up the buildings for Controlled Demolition using private contractors who can keep secrets

    3.     The FBI discovered the plot to hijack, and unknown to the plotters, made their plot a sub-plot of its own and set up the buildings for Controlled Demolition using private contractors who can keep secrets

     

    Uncle Sam had the motive to stage the 911 event as an excuse to execute their pre-planned war on 7 countries, curtail freedoms of their own citizens and empower the state to carry out extensive surveillance of its citizens. This is brought out in my comment “Why was there a 911 event?”

     

    A completely external terrorist plan had zero probability of being successful. The fact that four planes over 2 hours could carry out their plan without being challenged by scrambled air force fighter jets and the fact that even the Pentagon could be hit without a single ground to air missile being fired by Pentagon’s protective shield, is further proof of Uncle Sam’s complicity. The order to “stand-down” was not reversed by the Vice-President even though two planes had struck the WTC buildings and a third was heading towards the Pentagon and his orders were sought while the plane was 50 miles away, then 30 miles away and finally 10 miles away from Pentagon. The VP did not give the order.

     

    One has only to read about the Operation Northwoods to know that such a plan was never beyond the imagination of Uncle Sam. According to documents declassified in 1997, the US did plan something like the 911 event to create a pretext to wage war against Cuba. The plan was code named Operation Northwoods. If this plan had been executed, the US would have given us lies in explanation, and the documents containing the plan and the truth would have remained secret, and GUS would have defended those lies.

     

    Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

     

    The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would be perpetrated by the U.S. Government. To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

    The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

    Although authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the pacifist President JFK rejected the proposal. A hawkish president at the helm like Lyndon B Johmson who was JFKs successor, or someone like George W Bush may have approved it. Indeed the 911 plan appears to be Operations Northwood revised. This time, the idea may have originated from the President himself.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/9/2018 2:47:13 AM



  • Naseer sb.,

    Bush had close relationship with the Saudi royal family, not with bin Laden. I gave examples of possible secrets they may want to protect but to jump from that to the conclusion that the US government colluded with Al Qaeda  to blow up the World Trade Center, crash five passenger jets, damage the Pentagon and kill 3000 Americans is outside the bounds of sane thinking.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/8/2018 1:57:40 PM



  • Bush's relationship with  the Bin Laden family do not get exposed with the determination of the reasons of the collapse of the WTC buildings unless Bush authorized access to Bin Laden's men to set up the buildings for the Controlled Demolition. Are you suggesting he did this?

    If faulty design is the cause, then that cannot be a reason to keep it a secret. Who and why is Uncle Sam protecting by keeping the faulty design a secret? 

    Your theories are not  plausible. Try something that makes sense.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/8/2018 12:52:07 AM



  • The secrets that may be protected may be about the ties between Bush and the Saudi royal family that may be politically embarrassing or about some faulty construction of the towers. I do not know if any secrets are being protected but if there are they certainly are not about an unthinkable and insane conspiracy between the American government and Al Qaeda to blow up the World Trade Center, crash five passenger jets, damage the Pentagon and kill 3000 Americans. Only paranoids would give credence to such a plot.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/7/2018 12:14:18 PM



  • No happy Diwali, or any article on Ram. 
    Ever year when Ramzan comes its forced as festival of everybody type of articles. 
    Sick Sultan Shain of India, trying to project himself as Secluar.
    By Aayina - 11/7/2018 9:19:21 AM



  • What state secrets are being protected? Why similar state secrets were not there when a plane accidentally hit the then tallest Empire State building?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/7/2018 12:08:53 AM



  • You said, "The questions are simple and relevant and would have been answered if the answers do not incriminate Uncle Sam. "

    That is false and simplistic. It is within the bounds of possibility, as I said before, that some state secrets are being protected, but to think that those state secrets implicate the government of being involved in a plot with Al Qaeda to blow up some of America's premier buildings and to kill 3000 Americans in order to find an excuse to attack Iraq is just insane.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/7/2018 12:04:55 AM



  • The questions are simple and relevant and would have been answered if the answers do not incriminate Uncle Sam. If there was transparency, there would have been no need for any theory. I have repeatedly said to GUS to forget every theory and tell us why Uncle Sam will not or cannot answer those questions. What is his theory as to the lack of transparency?  By Naseer Ahmed - 11/6/2018 11:50:04 PM



  • Conspiracy theorists are hearing only one another as if they are in an echo chamber. They cannot hear the voices from the real world because they see the real world as being hostile and involved in a plot! They keep asking the same questions again and again but the  one question that they do not ask of themselves is how is it possible for the government of a democratic country to carry out such super-complex plot against its own people. The fact that the U.S. government has been devious on several occasions is not sufficient as an argument to explain 9/11. 

    You keep repeating the questions that the conspiracy theorists have devised and you seem to believe that since the government would not answer those questions it must mean that 9/11 was an inside job. That is a blunder on your part. Such questions always linger after the investigation of a major disaster. You seem to think that this is a live issue but here in the U.S. it is a dead issue. Nobody ever mentions it, there are no articles on it in the newspapers and no discussion of it on the television or on the internet. This in spite of the fact that the press here is the freest in the world and would not be afraid to pursue any government malfeasance to the ends of the earth. It is only a very small number of cranks who keep it alive among themselves. Nobody pays any attention to them.

    I know that you will continue to believe the conspiracy theory and that is okay with me. After all it is a harmless delusion and it may serve some psychological purpose that incentivizes you to continue with it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/6/2018 11:44:23 PM



  • This is a case of the intelligent asking questions that the criminals cannot answer truthfully without exposing their crime. The Empire State Building was accidentally  hit by a plane in 1945. There was no secrecy surrounding that event as there was nothing to hide. If the collapse was indeed caused by what  Uncle Sam says is the reason, there would have been no need for any secrecy in this case also.

     

     

    (1)  The matter has been investigated and resolved. The answer may not satisfy everybody.

    This is a lie. 911 Commission is silent on the collapse of WTC7. NIST is silent beyond saying what initiated the collapse in WTC1 and 2 and did not explain what caused the complete collapse. NIST simulation ignores observed, recorded and admitted free fall in stage 2 of WTC7 besides fudging other data. It has also withheld the data used for simulation as that would expose their manipulation of data.

     

    (2)  If private investigators feel they are being obstructed, they should go to court.

    They are prevented from going to court by legislation as well as the US government bearing the entire burden of compensations from tax-payers money.

     

    (3)  Peer review is done for academic and research papers. NIST report is a governmental agency report and the question of peer review does not arise.

    Why does NIST not make its analysis with complete data available to the Universities and let them learn how this extraordinary and miraculous event defying the laws of physics took place? Why is it depriving the world and its own universities from learning from this event?  

     

    (4) NIST concluded that the collapse of each tower resulted from the combined effects of airplane impact damage, widespread fireproofing dislodgment, and the fires that ensued. The sequence of failures that NIST concluded initiated the collapse of both towers involved the heat-induced sagging of floor trusses pulling some of the exterior columns on one side of each tower inward until they buckled, after which instability rapidly spread and the upper sections then fell onto the floors below.

     

    They concluded what they want the world to believe.

    (4)  World Trade Center Building 7 (7WTC), which was never directly hit by an airplane, collapsed as a result of thermal expansion of steel beams and girders that were heated by uncontrolled fires caused by the collapse of the North Tower and failure of the fire-resistive material.

    We have seen worse fires than the fire in WTC7 such as the Grenfell Towers which was completely ablaze for much longer and did not collapse. In the case of WTC7, with small fires on a few of the floors, it was known to all, that the building would come down hours before it did. And yet, even after 5 years, NIST said that they were not able to get a handle on what caused its collapse! They finally fudged the data to produce simulation of the collapse which bears no relationship to what we see in the video and NIST’s own recorded data.



    (5)  A non-disclosure agreement is binding on both parties.

    Why is a NDA required? Why the secrecy?



    (6)  Those who agreed to accept compensation are bound by the rules that such agreements are subject to.

    Where is the need for the rule to remain silent? The rule prevents those affected or likely to be affected by the after-effects, and the families of those killed, from speaking out, or protesting in any manner. Any movement against Uncle Sam for revealing the complete truth must have the support of those affected. Uncle Sam through their legislation, has made impossible a movement with the support of the affected. The silence of the affected and their families has been purchased by Uncle Sam.  



    (8) There was no evidence (collected by NIST or by...the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.



    The NIST and the 911 Commission did not ask the questions the answers to which they did not want to hear. They went about establishing the lie rather than trying to find out the truth.  Neither body examined the debris or visited the site before the debris was cleared.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/6/2018 11:08:05 PM



  • As I said before, a fool can ask more questions than a wide man can answer. I do not represent the U.S. government but let me say this as a layman:

    (1) The matter has been investigated and resolved. The answer may not satisfy everybody.

    (2) If private investigators feel they are being obstructed, they should go to court.

    (3) Peer review is done for academic and research papers. NIST report is a governmental agency report and the question of peer review does not arise.

    (4) NIST concluded that the collapse of each tower resulted from the combined effects of airplane impact damage, widespread fireproofing dislodgment, and the fires that ensued. The sequence of failures that NIST concluded initiated the collapse of both towers involved the heat-induced sagging of floor trusses pulling some of the exterior columns on one side of each tower inward until they buckled, after which instability rapidly spread and the upper sections then fell onto the floors below.

    (5) World Trade Center Building 7 (7WTC), which was never directly hit by an airplane, collapsed as a result of thermal expansion of steel beams and girders that were heated by uncontrolled fires caused by the collapse of the North Tower and failure of the fire-resistive material.

    (6) A non-disclosure agreement is binding on both parties.

    (7) Those who agreed to accept compensation are bound by the rules that such agreements are subject to.

    (8) There was no evidence (collected by NIST or by...the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

    These questions will continue to be asked but no reputable scientist or investigative journalist subscribes to the idiotic conspiracy theory that you believe in.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/6/2018 12:19:17 PM



  • If Uncle Sam was a common citizen and made to answer the following questions on oath, Uncle Sam would have invoked the fifth amendment and the response would have been:“ I decline to answer the questions on the grounds that the answers will incriminate me”. Uncle Sam’s refusal to answer the questions and lack of transparency is simply because an open inquiry and honest answers to the questions will incriminate Uncle Sam and show Uncle Sam to be complicit in bringing down the WTC buildings.  At least an individual accused of a crime has no control over the investigation but Uncle Sam controls that also! GM sb knows very well that there is no valid excuse for not providing answer to any of the questions except that the answer incriminates Uncle Sam. He being a dedicated blind devotee and worshiper of Uncle Sam, can deny the truth and also ignore the laws of Physics. He can do anything in the service of Uncle Sam. 

     

     

    1. Why hasn't a full and convincing explanation been found? Why isn’t anything being done to find the full explanation?

    2. Why are private investigators such as the insurers barred from their own investigation which is normal whenever they are required to settle insurance claims?

    3. Why is the NIST Report not peer reviewed? Why has the NIST not shared the data that it has used for computer simulation?

    4. Why has the NIST not gone beyond what initiated the collapse in WTC1 and 2? What basis is there in empirical or theoretical science for them to say that the complete destruction of the buildings became inevitable once the collapse began?

    5. Why has the 911 Commission left out WTC7 from its report?

    6. Why have the testimony of eye-witnesses taken under non-disclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing to others what they saw and what evidence they gave?

    7. Why are the first responders, the affected and the family of the killed prevented from speaking out, with clauses that prevent them for doing so as a condition for availing compensation now or in future?

     8. How does Uncle Sam explain the visual, audio and eye-witness evidence of melted steel, secondary blasts and of explosives going off? The answer is by denying what everybody can see even today in the videos showing the collapse!

     

    Why is there such secrecy and a massive cover-up to prevent the truth from emerging?

     

    People have good reason to believe, that Uncle Sam is behaving like a conspirator, by taking every step including legislation, to ensure that it is the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be questioned in any court while what it is trying to pass off as truth, defies the laws of physics. If Uncle Sam was telling the truth, and indeed the buildings collapsed solely because of the plane crashing into two of them and the third from falling debris, then there was no need for any secrecy. Uncle Sam would have thrown open the investigation and every University would have participated in studying this “extraordinary and miraculous” phenomenon and advanced their best explanation of it and written papers in scientific journals and won awards. But if the facts are otherwise, Uncle Sam cannot risk an open investigation and get exposed. Uncle Sam’s behaviour points to a massive cover-up of the truth and of falsehood being peddled.

     

    Once we know the truth, and if it is established as widely believed on good evidence and reasoning, that the collapse of the buildings was assisted by controlled demolition, then we will ask ‘who did it, how and why’. Let Uncle Sam answer the questions.

     

    First step is to demand for a fresh investigation into the causes of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The only way to protect democracy and our rights and liberties, is to not allow the government to get away telling us lies.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/6/2018 12:05:44 AM



  • What do you mean I am harping on conspiracy theories? You are the one who believes in them. Your explanation of 9/11 is that the American government and the Al Qaeda conspired to blow up the World trade Center and kill thousands of Americans so that the United States can justify an attack on Iraq! All I am doing is to show how idiotic your thinking is. Now you want to divert attention from your silly conspiracy theory so you want to dwell on the question of the rapid collapse of WTC7. Pedantic scientists will go on debating that for ever. Let them! My interest is in how the minds of conspiracy theorists work.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/5/2018 12:32:21 PM



  • GUS keeps harping on the conspiracy theories although I ask his to ignore them because he believes in them and his worst fear is that these will be proved right if the investigation is thrown open into the causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings. By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2018 1:07:25 AM



  • Naseer sb. is stuck with one single technical question and says that because that question has not been satisfactorily answered it must mean a massive conspiracy involving a collusion between the American government and Al Qaeda was responsible for what happened on 9/11! This is just ridiculous.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/5/2018 12:38:08 AM



  • Ignore every conspiracy theory and simply answer the questions or say why there isn't or cannot be an answer to that question. 

    GUS and Uncle Sam will have us believe that the laws of physics are "conspiracy theory" to make us accept their lies. 

    I am sure, none of the thousands of  professionals who question the official story, do so for any other reason except their professional integrity. Show me one architect, engineer, demolition expert, or scientist who has questioned the official line on the reasons of the collapse of the WTC buildings and  has also in the past subscribed to any other "conspiracy theory". You will not find one such example. These professionals are asking the right questions and what they say have a sound basis in the laws of physics.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/5/2018 12:28:12 AM



  • Naseer sb. asks, "why doesn't GUS or Uncle Sam, have an answer to any of the following questions?"

    As they say, a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer!

    Christopher French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, has this to say about conspiracy theories:

    "The attractiveness of conspiracy theories may arise from a number of cognitive biases that characterize the way we process information. “Confirmation bias” is the most pervasive cognitive bias and a powerful driver of belief in conspiracies. We all have a natural inclination to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. The real-world events that often become the subject of conspiracy theories tend to be intrinsically complex and unclear. Early reports may contain errors, contradictions and ambiguities, and those wishing to find evidence of a cover-up will focus on such inconsistencies to bolster their claims.

    “Proportionality bias,” our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracies. This is one reason many people were uncomfortable with the idea that President John F. Kennedy was the victim of a deranged lone gunman and found it easier to accept the theory that he was the victim of a large-scale conspiracy.

    "Another relevant cognitive bias is “projection.” People who endorse conspiracy theories may be more likely to engage in conspiratorial behaviors themselves, such as spreading rumors or tending to be suspicious of others' motives. If you would engage in such behavior, it may seem natural that other people would as well, making conspiracies appear more plausible and widespread. Furthermore, people who are strongly inclined toward conspiratorial thinking will be more likely to endorse mutually contradictory theories. For example, if you believe that Osama bin Laden was killed many years before the American government officially announced his death, you are also more likely to believe that he is still alive."


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/3/2018 12:45:49 PM



  • If there was transparency, why doesn't GUS or Uncle Sam, have an answer to any of the following questions? The lack of answers is proof of lack of transparency.


    1. Why hasn't a full and convincing explanation been found? Why isn’t anything being done to find the full explanation?

    2. Why are private investigators such as the insurers barred from their own investigation which is normal whenever they are required to settle insurance claims?

    3. Why is the NIST Report not peer reviewed? Why has the NIST not shared the data that it has used for computer simulation?

    4. Why has the NIST not gone beyond what initiated the collapse in WTC1 and 2? What basis is there in empirical or theoretical science for them to say that the complete destruction of the buildings became inevitable once the collapse began?

    5. Why has the 911 Commission left out WTC7 from its report?

    6. Why have the testimony of eye-witnesses taken under non-disclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing to others what they saw and what evidence they gave?

    7. Why are the first responders, the affected and the family of the killed prevented from speaking out, with clauses that prevent them for doing so as a condition for availing compensation now or in future?

     8. How does Uncle Sam explain the visual, audio and eye-witness evidence of melted steel, secondary blasts and of explosives going off? The answer is by denying what everybody can see even today in the videos showing the collapse!

     

    Why is there such secrecy and a massive cover-up to prevent the truth from emerging?

     

    People have good reason to believe, that Uncle Sam is behaving like a conspirator, by taking every step including legislation, to ensure that it is the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be questioned in any court while what it is trying to pass off as truth, defies the laws of physics. If Uncle Sam was telling the truth, and indeed the buildings collapsed solely because of the plane crashing into two of them and the third from falling debris, then there was no need for any secrecy. Uncle Sam would have thrown open the investigation and every University would have participated in studying this “extraordinary and miraculous” phenomenon and advanced their best explanation of it and written papers in scientific journals and won awards. But if the facts are otherwise, Uncle Sam cannot risk an open investigation and get exposed. Uncle Sam’s behaviour points to a massive cover-up of the truth and of falsehood being peddled.

     

    Once we know the truth, and if it is established as widely believed on good evidence and reasoning, that the collapse of the buildings was assisted by controlled demolition, then we will ask ‘who did it, how and why’. Let Uncle Sam answer the questions.

     

    First step is to demand for a fresh investigation into the causes of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The only way to protect democracy and our rights and liberties, is to not allow the government to get away telling us lies.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/2/2018 11:41:36 PM



  • It seems to be beyond Naseer sb.s comprehension that the investigation of 9/11 was a huge, extensive and transparent affair. One can expect that there will always be criticism and nitpicking of such a voluminous report, especially by the conspiracy minded paranoids, who would never be satisfied whatever the government does. To take them seriously and to ignore the fact that the report was accepted by the most reputable news organizations, political opponents and the scientific community shows Naseer sb.s  pathological gullibility. No wonder he calls me "devoted and servile slave of Uncle Sam?" Smearing and mud-slinging is all that he can do!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/2/2018 10:30:45 AM



  • Ghulam Uncle Sam says “the position of the civil society is to accept the official findings”! Even when it contradicts and/or omits the relevant evidence and what it says defies the laws of physics. Even though Uncle Sam has done everything necessary to prevent an open inquiry and did a massive cover-up job. And even though Uncle Sam has a history of deception and lies! Has anybody seen a more devoted and servile slave of Uncle Sam? Isn’t Uncle Sam greater in his estimation than Allah whose Book and word he doubts?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/2/2018 2:51:41 AM



  • If the American public, its media and its experts all accept the final report then that should mean something because if there was any legitimate doubt they, judging by their past behavior, would pursue that evidence to the ends of the earth. Not to understand that and to consider  an outlandish and preposterous  theory that alleges conspiracy between the American government and Al Qaeda to blow up the World Trade Center and kill 3000 Americans shows the ridiculousness and insanity of your position.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2018 12:43:15 PM



  • You asked for my opinion and I gave it but there is no necessity for any opinion or theory. You can ignore it.

     

    I am demanding answers to why Uncle Sam has done what it has done and neither you nor Uncle Sam will answer them because these expose the lie. The fact is that there is both secrecy and massive cover-up. Uncle Sam is lying and covering up its lies and behaving like a conspirator. As I said, once we know the truth, and if it is established as widely believed on good evidence and reasoning, that the collapse of the buildings was assisted by controlled demolition, then we will ask ‘who did it, how and why’. Let Uncle Sam answer the questions. What is the need for any opinion or theory?

     

    The first step is to demand for a fresh investigation into the causes of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The only way to protect democracy and our rights and liberties, is to not allow the government to get away telling us lies.

     

     

    You have once again provided evidence of being a devoted and committed Ghulam Uncle Sam by saying “the position of the civil society is to accept the official findings”! Even when it contradicts and/or omits the relevant evidence and defies the laws of physics? Haven’t you yourself admitted that Uncle Sam often lies? Those who value democracy and liberty say that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Willing slaves, Uncle Toms and Ghulam Uncle Sam like you alone barter liberty for their security, safety or for a few crumbs.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/1/2018 2:48:49 AM



  • The government's position and the position of the civil society is to accept the official findings. The series of questions that you ask come from the conspiracy theorists' literature which is vast and never ending. I see absolutely no demand for another investigation except in the world of conspiracy theorists. No reputable scientist or journalist or security expert shares the doubts of the conspiracy theorists. I have no interest in this conspiracy theory myself. 

    My only question to you is how can you possibly believe that the United States can be involved in a conspiracy to make such a huge and lethal attack on itself and kill 3000 of its own citizens. This is a country where hardly anything remains secret. If there is any secretiveness at all it may be about a  possible involvement of some Saudi higher ups with whom the U.S. government may have had cooperative relationship in the past and therefor does not want to publicize their involvement. I doubt it but it may be possible. But to say that the U.S. government plotted with Al Qaeda to carry out this attack in order to find an excuse to attack Iraq is sheer lunacy.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/1/2018 2:13:41 AM



  • GUS can answer the following questions:

     

    1. Why hasn't a full and convincing explanation been found? Why isn’t anything being done to find the full explanation?

    2. Why are private investigators such as the insurers barred from their own investigation which is normal whenever they are required to settle insurance claims?

    3. Why is the NIST Report not peer reviewed? Why has the NIST not shared the data that it has used for computer simulation?

    4. Why has the NIST not gone beyond what initiated the collapse in WTC1 and 2? What basis is there in empirical or theoretical science for them to say that the complete destruction of the buildings became inevitable once the collapse began?

    5. Why has the 911 Commission left out WTC7 from its report?

    6. Why have the testimony of eye-witnesses taken under non-disclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing to others what they saw and what evidence they gave?

    7. Why are the first responders, the affected and the family of the killed prevented from speaking out, with clauses that prevent them for doing so as a condition for availing compensation now or in future?

     8. How does Uncle Sam explain the visual, audio and eye-witness evidence of melted steel, secondary blasts and of explosives going off? The answer is by denying what everybody can see even today in the videos showing the collapse!

     

    Why is there such secrecy and a massive cover-up to prevent the truth from emerging?

     

    People have good reason to believe, that Uncle Sam is behaving like a conspirator, by taking every step including legislation, to ensure that it is the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be questioned in any court while what it is trying to pass off as truth, defies the laws of physics. If Uncle Sam was telling the truth, and indeed the buildings collapsed solely because of the plane crashing into two of them and the third from falling debris, then there was no need for any secrecy. Uncle Sam would have thrown open the investigation and every University would have participated in studying this “extraordinary and miraculous” phenomenon and advanced their best explanation of it and written papers in scientific journals and won awards. But if the facts are otherwise, Uncle Sam cannot risk an open investigation and get exposed. Uncle Sam’s behaviour points to a massive cover-up of the truth and of falsehood being peddled.

     

    Once we know the truth, and if it is established as widely believed on good evidence and reasoning, that the collapse of the buildings was assisted by controlled demolition, then we will ask ‘who did it, how and why’. Let Uncle Sam answer the questions.

     

    First step is to demand for a fresh investigation into the causes of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The only way to protect democracy and our rights and liberties, is to not allow the government to get away telling us lies.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 11/1/2018 1:37:42 AM



  • Naseer sb. has found refuge in questions regarding the sudden collapse of WTC7 even after I told him that  he is entitled to reject the official report and maintain that a full explanation for the sudden collapse has not yet been found. But my question is how then does he jump to a crazy and bizarre  conspiracy theory which is far far more unbelievable than anything Shyam Sunder said about WTC7? 

    To suggest that the American government plotted with Al Qaeda to attack and destroy the World Trade Center and to kill thousands of American citizens just in order to find an excuse to attack Iraq is a most idiotic, even psychotic, theory, especially since America has always found far easier and less idiotic excuses to start other wars. Since Naseer sb. does not want to admit that his conspiracy theory is totally insane he dwells  ad nauseum and ad infinitum on the technical aspects of the free fall of WTC7! How long does he think he can continue to throw dust in our eyes?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/31/2018 11:52:17 AM



  • Ghulam Uncle Sam does not have an answer to my questions nor does anyone else have. The europhysicsnews article was written 7 years after Shyam Sunder’s final Report based on an invitation by the editors who say “since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field, we considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments”. 

     

     “Some controversy” is an understatement. There is no acceptance by the scientific community but only “controversy” or more correctly rejection.  Apart from the authors of the article, the editors also therefore think that there is a need for an open discussion to establish the undisputable truth based on solid arguments. The editors are therefore of the view, that the NIST report is clearly lacking in convincing evidence and conclusions based on solid arguments and has failed to establish the undisputable truth. The NIST Report, to put it plainly, is pure fiction and has no resemblance to what happened.

     

    Europhysicsnews editors would not have entertained such doubts, if the scientific community in general, had accepted NIST’s Report as sufficient and convincing explanation of what happened. The fact is, the scientific community by its silence, has rejected the Report as unscientific.

     

    Can we first have the truth of what happened before we proceed to the next step? It is not WTC7 alone that was brought down by Controlled Demolition but all the three buildings. The focus is on WTC7 only because there are fewer fig leaves to cover up the truth in this case with accurate recording of stage 2 of the collapse. 

     

    The massive cover up and denial of the physical, visual and eye-witness evidence, and silencing of all the first responders, those affected, the families of those who died, and those who gave evidence to the government, clearly shows that Uncle Sam is afraid of the truth. They achieved this cover up through 911 event specific legislations as discussed in my comment with the heading “How the Truth is Covered and Bottled up”.

     

    Once the truth of what made the buildings collapse is established, and if it turns out that the collapse was assisted by controlled demolition, it is for Uncle Sam to investigate and tell us how this could happen. It is not for me to answer the question. My job is to nail the lies. Investigation and finding the truth is the government's job.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/31/2018 12:14:02 AM



  • Naseer sb. is still stuck with his "free fall" as if any questions about it support his crazy conspiracy theory. That's why I gave him an out and said, "Even if Naseer sb. does not accept the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 it is sheer madness to jump from that and say that the only other explanation is a bizarre collusion between the U.S. government and Al Qaeda by which building WTC7 was loaded with dynamite to undergo controlled collapse just after the passenger jets hit WTC and that the plot was hatched so the U.S. could then use it as an excuse to start a war with Iraq! What can one say about someone who believes such an idiotic scenario?"

    Would you please react to that?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/30/2018 1:38:34 PM



  • I do not see any answer to my questions. I repeat them below:

     

    Has the final report while acknowledging the free fall in stage 2 explained it? What took away the steel structure for 8 storeys below which according to Shyam Sunder’s own admission is necessary for free fall? How do you explain free fall in stage 2 except by accepting that this was controlled demolition? Why does the computer model that was used to give the conclusions not show the free fall? The conclusion then is not based on what happened but by faking data.

     

     Shyam Sunder’s explanation is not “consistent with physical principles” and he has himself dropped the pretension that it is. So, let us first have an explanation which is consistent with physical principles and observed behaviour.

     

    Anyone except one who is deaf, dumb and blind can see that Uncle Sam is behaving as a conspirator with plenty to hide and has taken every step to ensure that light is not allowed to shine on what happened. Why, if it has nothing to hide and is telling the truth?

     

    The ones  like GUS who are convinced that Uncle Sam is lying are supporting the massive cover-up and arguing against a truly scientific and impartial investigation because they fear that the conspiracy theories will be proved right.


    If Ghulam Uncle Sam did not believe in the conspiracy theories, he would have supported the call of the thousands of architects, engineers, scientists and demolition experts who are only asking for a truly scientific and impartial investigation. All that is required is to allow the sun to shine on the truth and once the truth is known, there will be no need for any speculation or theories. He is afraid that such an investigation will expose the lies of Uncle Sam. Why is the NIST report not peer reviewed by say the four top departments of structural engineering of the Universities?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/30/2018 12:42:34 AM



  • Naseer sb. thinks that his sarcastic attitude towards Shyam Sunder and me will win him some points but all that his attitude shows is that he has no way out after being shown to be full of rubbish theories. He lies when he says I did not find "the answers" from the final report.

    Even if Naseer sb. does not accept the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 it is sheer madness to jump from that and say that the only other explanation is a bizarre collusion between the U.S. government and Al Qaeda by which building WTC7 was loaded with dynamite to undergo controlled collapse just after the passenger jets hit WTC and that the plot was hatched so the U.S. could then use it as an excuse to start a war with Iraq! What can one say about someone who believes such an idiotic scenario?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/29/2018 12:54:14 PM



  • Ghulam Uncle Sam wants us to swallow the final submission of Al Capone's lawyer to the jury as proof of the defendant's innocence!

    He has read the report and did not find the answers and therefore cannot answer them. The fact is that the questions are unanswered. The computer simulation by not reproducing the observed and recorded data, does not explain what happened, but something else altogether.

     

    Shyam Sunder was told that a cow did fly and to explain as best as he could, how this happened, so that people will believe that a cow can fly. He struggled with the job for years. As late as March 2006, four and a half years after the event, he was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

     

    Finally, he cobbled together a story, and grandly announced to the world, that he had figured out how the cow flew, and that this was no longer a mystery! Why is this breath-taking discovery and explanation not hailed by the scientific community? Why Dr Shyam Sunder has not been showered with awards from professional bodies during the ten years since his brilliant finding? While he received the Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prize in 1991 from the American Society of Civil Engineers, why hasn’t he received an award for this brilliant explanation of a most extraordinary and miraculous event? Why isn’t he the most sought-after speaker in the Universities explaining his great discovery? Why has the scientific community not embraced such a brilliant analysis and explanation and giving it the cold shoulder? Because, the Report is a scientific fraud.

     

    Expectedly, the Government has rewarded him with awards, while earlier, he had received no award from the government.  He has received the Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive (2017) and the Gold Medal Award (2005) from the U.S. Department of Commerce, its highest honor, for distinguished leadership of the federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Please note that the government award is also only for the safety investigation and not for his analysis of the causes of collapse.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/29/2018 12:37:37 AM



  • Naseer sb. is now asking me to explain the final report to him! Why is it my job to explain the final findings? Why can't he study them himself?

    He says, "These are the questions that the authors of the article in europhysicsnews and thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, professors and demolition experts are asking."

    Europhysics News, which published that article, had itself posted this warning: "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation" I do not know that "thousands" of scientists are asking these questions, but I do know that an overwhelming majority of world's intelligentsia do not subscribe to any controlled demolition theory. Anyone who believes that the U.S. government had planted huge amounts of dynamite in WTC 7 to blow it up and to kill thousands of Americans because the government wanted an excuse to attack Iraq truly belongs in the loony bin!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 1:04:09 PM



  • Ghulam Uncle Sam can read whatever he wants to read and provide answers to the following questions:

     

    Has the final report while acknowledging the free fall in stage 2 explained it? What took away the steel structure for 8 storeys below which according to Shyam Sunder’s own admission is necessary for free fall? How do you explain free fall in stage 2 except by accepting that this was controlled demolition? Why does the computer model that was used to give the conclusions not show the free fall? The conclusion then is not based on what happened but by faking data.

     

    These are the questions that the authors of the article in europhysicsnews and thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, professors and demolition experts are asking.  There is no answer except by accepting that it was controlled demolition that brought down the buildings and the fires and the planes crashing could never have been enough to cause the collapse at the speed at which these buildings collapsed.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/28/2018 3:28:05 AM



  • Naseer sb. has nothing left except insults! He is using "Physics" as a weapon of war against me! The final report answers all the questions he asks, but he will not read it because he has to hold on to his silly conspiracy theory.!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 1:33:10 AM



  • For Ghulam Uncle Sam, even the laws of Physics are a conspiracy theory!

    For him the laws of physics or the laws of Allah may be doubted but not Uncle Sam! Such a devotee of Uncle Sam! 

    It is he who will not give up even against incontrovertible proof for which neither Shyam Sunder nor any other stooge of Uncle Sam has an answer.

    Al Capone's lawyer was more honourable than Ghulam Uncle Sam or maybe just helpless as there was a judge and jury. This windbag has nothing to contend with.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/28/2018 1:26:16 AM



  • Naseer sb. just does not know when to give up! He says I have still not found the answer to the question that nails Uncle Sam's lies. The lies are in your mind. I am not looking for any answers. No serious minded person believes your conspiracy theories. Only a small group of conspiracy aficionados hold on to these crazy ideas. America has a long history of conspiracy theorists and if you were living in the U.S. I am sure you would have been one of them.

    Your wise-cracks about Uncle Sam are so ignorant. America has its faults and I have often criticized them but to consider America to be some kind of Orwellian dystopia, or a super-efficient schemer who can successfully carry out huge diabolical plots without being caught is just too naïve for words.

    In any case I do not think your tendency to blindly hold on to untenable beliefs can be cured. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/28/2018 1:11:12 AM



  • Ghulam Uncle Sam, you have still not found the answer to the question that nails Uncle Sam's lies.

     And who says Al Capone's lawyer is any less honorable than Shyam Sunder? Nobody ever said that those who defend the criminals are not honorable people - not even if they lose the case and much less when they win. They are doing their job and what they do is perfectly legal as long as they do not perjure themselves or lie under an oath. Will Shyam Sunder answer the question that I have asked under an oath? Uncle Sam has passed necessary legislation to ensure that Shyam Sunder cannot be taken to court and asked any questions regarding his report under an oath. The Report cannot be used as evidence in any case. Uncle Sam is far more resourceful than Al Capone and has provided protection to SS for his misleading conclusions amounting to a lie.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/28/2018 12:43:25 AM



  • Comparing Shyam Sunder to Capone's lawyers is wrong-headed. There is nothing in his performance that would make us question his integrity and no reputable observer has ever made such irresponsible attacks on him. A very thorough examination of all available evidence by him and his team of experts came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatever of a blast or a controlled demolition.

    His findings of course do not support your absurd conspiracy theories. Your badmouthing him is disgraceful. It will not change anything.
     
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/27/2018 11:57:34 PM



  • Quoting Shyam Sunder's conclusions in the made up report is like saying, "Al Capone's lawyer, in his final submission to the jury, completely exonerated Al Capone!"

    Does Shyam Sunder or anyone has any explanation to the admitted fact in the Report  that the building experienced free fall in stage 2?

    Remember, that even the most powerful Uncle Sam could convict Al Capone solely on the confiscated books of accounts and nothing more.

    Similarly, the admitted fact of free fall in stage two is enough of an admission of Controlled Demolition as that is the distinctive signature of Controlled Demolition alone.


    There are thousands of engineers, architects, demolition experts, professors and scientists who question the Official Lie and also an article in Europhysicsnews cited earlier. They demand only that a fresh, free and open inquiry into the reasons for the collapse be allowed. Why is that too much for Uncle Sam to concede? Why doesn't Uncle Sam throw open the inquiry to academic institutions and make available its collected evidence?

    Ghulam Uncle Sam provides evidence of the aptness of the expression used in the Quran for people such as him - deaf, dumb and blind, they will not understand. This is not because Allah has not endowed them with the senses and intelligence, but they employ these gifts of Allah to steadfastly deny the truth. 
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/27/2018 11:12:19 PM



  • The final report flatly ruled out controlled demolition. Naseer sb. thinks he is being clever by repeatedly asking  technical questions as if that would invalidate the voluminous and thorough final report which no reputed authority has questioned. The main deficiency in this discussion is that Naseer sb. has not provided a coherent and believable explanation of what happened on 9/11. The scenario that he provided is impossible to carry out. It would require hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators to execute such a complex and mind-boggling plot, and it would require all of them to perform perfectly and then to keep silent about it for 16 years! No sane mind would ever conceive  such a  scenario. For those who missed Naseer sb.'s hypothesis, here  is the crux of it:

    "The government made the terrorist plan a sub-plan to their own plan and aided and assisted them 2. They carried out the complete demolition of the buildings with prior planning to create a spectacle and generate intense horror designed for maximum effect. They created the illusion that this was entirely because of the terrorists crashing planes into the buildings. "

    If you can believe that you will believe anything!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/27/2018 12:44:36 PM



  • The final Report describes the collapse in 3 stages. The free fall in stage 2 is the distinctive signature of a controlled demolition. If you find an alternate explanation to controlled demolition for what is recorded in the final report for stage 2, then talk. Otherwise you are wasting my time.

     

    Even the most powerful government on this earth could prove nothing against its own criminal; the notorious mafias don Al Capone, and could only pin tax evasion on him. Should we then say that all talk of his involvement in numerous murders, drug trade, prostitution, human trafficking and gambling are only "conspiracy theories?"  If so, everyone on this earth is a conspiracy theorist.

     

    In the case of 911, Uncle Sam is both the accused and the investigator, without allowing recourse to the affected to the pre-existing law, as the same is superseded by fresh legislation to aid Uncle Sam to fully cover up the tracks and become the sole arbitrator of the truth of what happened. Why is there such secrecy if what Uncle Sam is saying is the truth? Why prevent any light from being shone on the happenings even 17 years after the event? Why cannot the US government make available the evidence collected to all and let the Universities study the phenomenon and derive necessary learning from the physical laws defying "extraordinary" miraculous event and modify Newton’s laws and replace action= reaction by reaction is unrelated to action and anything can happen?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/26/2018 11:26:01 PM



  • Naseer sb. is reduced to relying exclusively on interim reports and calling me names. The final official report unequivocally rejects any blasts or use of explosives. Any sensible man   would at this time stop this flimsy argument but not Naseer sb.! The lead investigator Shyam Sunder clearly said, "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires." Now Naseer sb. accuses Mr. Sunder of rubber stamping the official position, but up till now he had been quoting Shyam Sunder's interim reports as if they completely vindicated his conspiracy hypothesis. By the way Naseer sb. is not alone in this. Several other conspiracy theory zealots continue to hold on to their loony ideas.

    If Naseer sb. has the time to read the full final NIST report he can do so on the internet. Here is the link:

    https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/26/2018 11:36:19 AM



  • My earlier comment provides a link to the NIST Report:

    https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

     

    The comment is based on the acknowledged fact of free fall through 8 floors or for 2.25 secs in the NIST Report.

     

    There is not even a mention of this free fall in the link provided by Ghulam Uncle Sam let alone an explanation for it.

     

    Before the free fall was acknowledged, Shyam Sunder had said that his analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”

     

    After he was prevailed upon by the evidence presented to acknowledge the free fall, he dropped the pretension that his analysis is consistent with physical principles.

     

    The computer model, by not incorporating the free fall, does not explain what happened.

     

    Shyam Sunder, the NIST report, Popular Mechanics and every supporter of the Official Lies ignores the free fall since there is no alternation explanation to it except Controlled Demolition.

     

    Shyam Sunder keeps calling it an “extraordinary event”. Indeed, it is more than extraordinary – it is a miracle that defies the laws of physics if we are to believe in the official lie. He is asking the knowledgeable to believe in miracles. Plainly, he is just doing his job of rubber stamping what the government wants him to say as much as what the 911 Commissioners were doing.

     

    Ghulam Uncle Sam, if you do not have an explanation for the free fall for 2.25 secs, you do not have an answer. Stop posting irrelevant noise produced by the supporters of the Official Lie.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/26/2018 3:33:40 AM



  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

    Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.

    Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/25/2018 1:56:52 PM



  • The Proof that WTC7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition

     

    Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, claimed that in NIST’s structural model the visible portion of WTC7 fell for a distance equivalent to 17 floors in 5.4 s, which is 1.5 s or 40% longer than a time of 3.9 s that would be the case for free fall. NIST had stated that this is “consistent with physical principles.”  All this while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones, who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.

     

    NIST incorporated a value of 2.25 s of free fall, into its final report and quietly removed the statement about its analysis being “consistent with physical principles”, indirectly acknowledging that its analysis was no longer consistent with physical principles. The NIST’s computer model does not show such period of free fall which is an indirect acknowledgement that what they are saying is the cause for the collapse is inconsistent with the observed free fall of the building.  There is therefore indirect acknowledgment that what they are saying is what they are made to say and bears no relationship with recorded data. The government has facilitated the NIST to behave in this manner with appropriate legislation, since it was not their objective to use NIST to ascertain the truth, but to use it to rubber stamp what the Government wanted all to believe.

     

    According to Shyam Sunder of NIST “A free-fall time is an object that has no structural components below it.” The question is what removed the structural components below it. The only explanation that fits the observed behaviour is that the structural material was removed by external forces which is the same as saying that it was brought down through controlled demolition. The NIST has failed to state the obvious, while indirectly acknowledging that their analysis is no longer consistent with physical principles, and their conclusions about the reasons for the building’s collapse is inconsistent with recorded data.

     

    How the Truth is Covered and Bottled up

     

    NIST could do this and get away with it because their study is in accordance with the law enacted on October 1, 2002, called the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCSTA) with the clear purpose of ensuring better safety for such buildings in the future. The objective of the study is not to establish the cause of collapse of the buildings. The cause is implicitly understood to be the two planes crashing into two towers and the third by debris of the collapsing tower falling onto it. The NIST is therefore under no threat of any action against it for not correctly establishing the causes of failure. The NIST has limited their analysis to establish what may have most probably initiated the collapse so that future designs may prevent such initiation of collapse. The NIST therefore ignores what happened after what they think initiated the collapse and simply say that complete collapse became inevitable once the collapse commenced as though partial destruction and collapse are impossible and unknown! 

     

    "How do you know that the complete collapse became inevitable?" asked Alice.

    "It must have been," said Mad Hatter, "or the buildings wouldnt have collapsed completely!  

     

     How did it collapse at free fall speed when that is impossible without Controlled Demolition? asked Alice wide-eyed

    Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Answered Mad Hatter

     

     

    The evidence was collected from eye-witnesses under Non-Disclosure Agreements. These witnesses cannot therefore disclose to others, the evidence they gave. Also, the evidence collected was by means of close ended questions leaving no scope for the witnesses to say what the NIST did not want to hear.

     

    The NIST began its study a year after the event and much after the site was cleared of all the debris. They are therefore not responsible for any omissions in what was reported by the witnesses since they had no means of independently verifying anything.

     

    Under the NCSTA act, the Report cannot be used by any party in any litigation against any other party. The NIST also solely and exclusively possesses all evidence collected and are empowered under the act to keep the evidence to themselves and not to disclose it. Independent investigations are therefore impossible and therefore there can be no litigation against any party for their acts of omission and commission.

     

    The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) was created by an Act of Congress, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (49 USC 40101), shortly after 9/11 to compensate the victims of the attack (or their families) in exchange for their agreement not to sue the airline corporations involved or the government even if they are dissatisfied with the compensation. The government is bearing all the expenses at taxpayers’ expense and therefore the Airlines and insurance companies are happy and not complaining.

     

    The owner of the WTC is  the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Larry Silverstein is only a lease holder and he is liable to rebuild. However, the government agency overseeing the project, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., is only factoring the insurance payout into its plans. So, he does not stand to lose either.

     

    The only losers are the consortium of insurance and re-insurance companies. In the normal course, the insurance companies do not settle without a proper investigation, but the government has made independent investigation impossible through their legislation and unilaterally determined the cause of collapse as the terrorist event and made this determination of cause incontestable in any court. The insurance Cos have no choice but to grin and bear it. Since the government is the owner of the property, and the lease holder is liable to it and the insurance companies to the lease holder, the government has full say on how the claims are settled.

     

    Every step has been taken to ensure that the government is in full control of every aspect and there is no scope for questioning anyone or for any litigation. In the normal course,  what we would have had are open investigations for the truth to emerge.

     

    There are thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, demolition experts, professors who do not accept the Government’s version and all that they are asking for is an open investigation into the reasons for the collapse. As described, even NIST is not charged with the responsibility of providing the answer and the 911 Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of WTC7. We are simply to accept what the Government says as the truth although even NIST indirectly acknowledges that the observed behaviour is inconsistent with what the Government would have everyone believe. Uncle Sam is lying and has taken every step to ensure that the truth does not emerge. After 17 years, why cannot the government open the matter to independent study by departments of structural engineering of reputed universities?  Because the truth is too dangerous.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/25/2018 12:38:13 AM



  • It is a fact that 9/11 was never seriously linked to Iraq. Some war hawks made such phony assertions on CNN for a few days after 9/11 but they soon were silent. The fact that many policy makers wanted to attack Iraq is independent from 9/11. They wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11 and also after 9/11. Whether any of these war hawks actually had a hand in plotting 9/11 is a question that only the very naïve would raise.

    And WTC7 was not brought down by controlled demolition. Even a hint of such a possibility would have created a stink that would have dwarfed all previous stinks in American history!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/24/2018 1:46:24 PM



  • What the Chilcot Report, General Wesley Clark, and Ambassador Joe Wilson say, disproves your repeated jingoistic assertion that, “9/11 was never seriously linked to Iraq except in the minds of loony conspiracy theorists”. What is established through these references, is that Iraq was always number one in the hit-list, and part of a prior plan that included seven other countries. This grandiose plan required a cataclysmic event like 911 to execute. Your clumsy strenuous efforts to delink Iraq from 911 has fallen flat and the laugh is on you.

    I have already provided proof that WTC7 was brought down through controlled demolition. If Uncle Sam had said that the terrorists had also set up the buildings for Controlled Demolition, then I had no way of disproving that. I cannot however accept Uncle Sam’s explanation that it came down through office fires. Uncle Sam is lying. The question is why Uncle Sam is lying.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/24/2018 12:45:01 AM



  • Naseer sb. is becoming boring. He keeps making the same arguments again and again which are without relevance. Do the Chilcot Report or Gen. Wesley Clark or Ambassador Joe Wilson say that 9/11 was a conspiracy? 

    No, because only loonies make such a claim! I know that many American policy makers wanted to attack Iraq but to derive from that they actually carried out or were involved in the 9/11 attack on the United States itself  that destroyed major assets and killed 3000 Americans is a very idiotic notion. All the best known investigative journalists, politicians, security experts and scientists throughout the world dismiss your conspiracy theories. As I implied before, one would have to be a moron to call me  Ghulam Uncle Sam.

    Last Sunday they showed on TV a lecture on conspiracy theorists given by a Professor from Indiana University. His description of the character traits, logic and methods of conspiracy theorists surprisingly is an exact description of you! I had to laugh!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/23/2018 2:46:01 PM



  • It is Ghulam Uncle Sam (GUS) who has run out of arguments and therefore has been using words such as "loony", "idiotic", "dim-witted", "stupid" etc. These words describe him.

     One must have above normal IQ to ferret out a hidden devotee of Uncle Sam who alternates between extreme cleverness and extreme stupidity as it suits him. He may not be a real devotee but only a hypocritical one for self-preservation, and if so, he deserves pity.

     Is GUS saying that the Chilcot Report that directly connects war on Iraq with 911 is also part of a "Conspiracy Theory"?

     Is GUS saying that General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia, and Democratic Party presidential nomination as a candidate in 2003, is also a “Conspiracy theorist” for saying the following in the interview and in his book Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003?

    .youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

     In the interview, Clark describes his conversation with a General in the Pentagon nine days after 9/11 in which the General called him in and said “We’ve made a decision, we are going to war with Iraq”, Clark asked him ‘why’ and the General answered “I don’t know, I guess they don’t know what else to do” Clark asked “did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda?” The General said “No, no, there is nothing new that way, they just made a decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do with the terrorists, but we got a good military and can take down governments”.

     Clark further says that he came back to see the general a few weeks later and by that time the US were bombing in Afghanistan and he asked him, “do you still want to go to war with Iraq?”. He replied, “it is worse than that”, he then picked up a paper and said, “I just got this from the Secretary of Défense’s office, it is a memo that describes how we will take out seven countries in five years beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."

     The Chilcot Report makes it clear that Tony Blair prevailed upon Bush not to immediately attack Iraq but create a better argument for doing so, and after enlisting the support of UN and a coalition of countries. Blair changed his stand in 3 months and by December, he was rooting along with Bush, for attacking Iraq claiming it possessed WMD.

     

    Why was there a 911 event?

    Joe Wilson, last ambassador in Baghdad before the war, refers to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comment: "There are no targets worth striking in Afghanistan, go strike Baghdad."

    Then he recollects the statement made by Bush at a fundraiser that "they tried to kill my daddy". 

    But the heart of the reason, Wilson believes, lies in a document called the Project for the New American Century.  In it, a group that came to be known as the "Neo-Cons" postulate an American military presence around the world, rather like the great Roman Empire. "It says quite clearly that in order to make their grandiose imperialistic ambitions come to life, you were going to need a cataclysmic event along the lines of Pearl Harbor - 9/11 provided them that."

    Linked to this, Wilson argues, is a Middle East policy the Neo-Cons espoused. "They talked in terms of the way to peace in the Middle East is not through Jerusalem, it is through Baghdad."

    The question again - why would the administration want to link 9/11 to Iraq?

    "Nine-eleven got connected to Iraq because you can't argue with 9/11. Every American out there and most people worldwide have a gut reaction to 9/11. It is the perfect selling point" Says Geoff Millard.

    Will GUS also say that Joe Wilson is a conspiracy theorist?

    What Ambassador Joe Wilson said fully corroborates what General Wesley Clark said although they are speaking based on completely different and distinct sources of information. The Chilcot report also confirms that Bush wanted to immediately attack Iraq but Tony Blair held him off for sometime although not enough to make him seek the mandate of the UN for attacking Iraq. Blair aligned completely with Bush by December 2001.

    While no one of any consequence, and not even Bush and Blair delink 911 with war on Iraq, GUS argues otherwise. What motivates him to show such devotion to Uncle Sam that he has to be more loyal than the King?

    Ghulam Uncle Sam wants us to believe that Uncle Sam had nothing to do with 911, but were fortuitously presented with the very cataclysmic event that they were hoping and wishing for! He ignores all the evidence of the acts of omission and commission that implicate the US government in 911. If the US government did not cause 911, then why are they afraid of an open inquiry and investigation of the reasons for the collapse? Can he find even one of the supporters of the Official lies, who have addressed the question of free-fall of WTC7 through 8 stories for 2.25 seconds? If there is no explanation for it except Controlled Demolition, then it was a controlled demolition.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/23/2018 1:01:41 AM



  • Anyone with a normal I.Q. who has been reading my comments in NAI would not call me "Ghulam Uncle Sam", but it is typical of Naseer sb. especially when he has no more valid arguments left! The fact that Iraq was targeted by U.S. policy makers does not mean that America would attack its own cities and kill its own citizens to start a war with Iraq! Such an argument is idiotic at best.

    9/11 was never seriously linked to Iraq except in the minds of loony conspiracy theorists. If it was, they would never have had to come up with the WMD excuse.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/22/2018 11:36:02 AM



  • Ghulam Uncle Sam has indeed lost all his marbles to think that the war against Iraq had nothing to do with 911. War with Iraq was part of the US' "War on Terror", following the 9/11 attack, as set out in a 2003 State Department document. Both Bush and Tony Blair openly made 911 the cause for a “war on terror” which included war to change the Saddam regime. A four star highly decorated General of the US army informs us, based on a visit to Pentagon, a week after 911, that the US plan was to wage war against seven countries in the next five years. youtube.com/watch?v=B3B5xzApMZg

    No one to my knowledge has even attempted to delink 911 from the war against Iraq. The only exception is Ghulam Uncle Sam. This slave of Uncle Sam is more loyal than the King!

    According to the Chilcot report, the 911 incident fundamentally changed" the US and UK's approach to Iraq,  hardening the pair's (Bush and Blair) view of Saddam Hussein's regime.

    The report concludes that after the 9/11 attacks, the West abandoned its previous policy of "containment" in favour of stamping out threatening regimes.

     The Chilcot Report says then UK foreign secretary Jack Straw told the inquiry "that the attacks led to a consensus across the world that a policy of tolerating failing or failed states was unacceptable. The perception of risk changed."

    Chilcot says the sheer scale of the carnage wreaked by Al-Qaeda changed the thinking.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/22/2018 12:53:10 AM



  • Trying to link 9/11 to Iraq after 9/11 happened is not the same thing as engineering 9/11 in order  to attack Iraq.

    One has to be very ignorant about America to think that any American government would be  treasonous and foolhardy enough to be involved in such a huge, destructive and murderous attack on its own people and on American soil.

    One would have to be very stupid to think that if there was even the slightest hint of conspiracy then the most aggressive press in the world including the New York Times and the Washington Post, and famed reporters such as Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward and Seymour Hersh would be sitting on their hands doing nothing when they have in the past and even now created reports deeply embarrassing to the government. No reputed journalist, securities expert or scientist has touched the conspiracy theories with even a ten foot pole.

    Your deep-rooted need to believe in such lunatic theories is your problem. Nobody can help you with it.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/20/2018 1:03:10 PM



  • GM sb conveniently forgets that Bush tried his best to link Iraq to 911 and when his efforts failed, he accused them of having WMDs and in general accused Saddam's regime as an encouragement  for  Al Qaeda. The efforts to implicate Iraq  to wage war against it started in 2001 immediately following 911.The bombing of Afghanistan started a few weeks after 911 without giving diplomacy a chance.

    General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.

    youtube.com/watch?v=B3B5xzApMZg

    speaks of the prior plan to wage war against 7 countries and the US has waged war against four of them post 911.

    Major General Albert Stubblebine is credited with redesigning the U.S. Army intelligence architecture during his time as commanding general of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) from 1981 to 1984. Here him speak on the subject:

    youtube.com/watch?v=VqKzaf6xYRc

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/19/2018 11:05:56 PM



  • There was no stand down order on 9/11. If there was such an order, it would have come to public notice long ago.

    Any defensive shield can be pierced. In order  to shoot down a passenger plane the Air Force requires permission from the highest government authority. When flight 93 approached Washington DC, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered that it be shot down. However before it could be shot down it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

    WTC7 was not ready for controlled demolition. A controlled demolition was mentioned several days before 9/11 but no concrete action was taken.

    The likelihood of such an event occurring may be close to zero but it is not zero and it did occur.

    Both the CIA and FBI were severely criticized in official reports for their failures but since the failures were attributed to structural problems and lack of coordination, no individuals were penalized.

    Now let us examine Naseer sb.'s guesstimate of what happened on 9/11 and judge how bizarre and unrealistic that is:

    "1. The government made the terrorist plan a sub-plan to their own plan and aided and assisted them 2. They carried out the complete demolition of the buildings with prior planning to create a spectacle and generate intense horror designed for maximum effect. They created the illusion that this was entirely because of the terrorists crashing planes into the buildings. This horrifying event and spectacle were used to wage war and push through the PATRIOT act that deprives the citizens of the right to privacy. 3. The US government has a proven/admitted past record of staging events to wage/escalate war and to spread lies knowingly. That the US government did stage a Controlled Demolition and made it look as if the buildings collapsed because of a plane crashing into them, to serve their war agenda is believable from the speed and eagerness with which they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and pushed through the PATRIOT act. It shows prior planning and readiness."

    (By the way, Naseer sb.  forgot that WMD's and not 9/11 was the stated justification of the attack on Iraq!)

    If this is the level of Naseer sb.'s gullibility we must remember it when reading his articles on Islam.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/19/2018 12:52:41 PM



  • The Pentagon, the White House and Capitol Hill are protected at multiple levels and no plane or missile can get anywhere near them and not get shot down by ground to air missiles. If a plane or missile hits any of these targets, it can only be if there is "stand down" order not to intercept the plane.

      

    The Plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania had taken off from Newark Airport and after being hijacked, turned around and was heading back towards New York and was most probably meant to hit WTC7. The 911 commission however say that it was probably meant to hit the White House. This is an obvious red herring and the flight path clearly shows that it was heading towards NY and not Washington before it crashed.  As already discussed, WTC7 was in full readiness to be brought down with Controlled Demolition, but unfortunately the plane that was to hit it, crashed into a field in Pennsylvania because of resistance put up by the passengers. The WTC7  was brought down nevertheless, blaming it on fires started by falling debris. The same falling debris did not affect the two WTC  towers standing between WTC1 and WTC7 or the Verizon building standing next to WTC7 and closer to WTC1.

     

    Cases are decided by circumstantial evidence by weighing the probabilities of occurrences.

    (1)   What is the probability, that on any given random day and time, a flying object could enter the protected zone around the Pentagon and not get shot down? The answer is zero.

    (2)   Now what is the probability that a plane known to have been hijacked and heading straight towards the Pentagon, can hit the Pentagon 47 minutes later without any action being taken to divert it or bring it down? Less than zero if that is possible.

    (3)   Now what is the probability, that it is known that two hijacked planes have crashed into the WTC, and a third hijacked plane is heading straight towards Pentagon, and the plane hits Pentagon 47 minutes later? Beyond imagination.

     

     

    What is the probability that after the unimaginable has happened, no heads roll, no one is held accountable, and no one is even reprimanded? This is beyond belief.

    So, if somebody believes in the official story what should we call him? We should call him a blind believer and devotee of Uncle Sam.

    To believe in Uncle Sam’s story, if the person consciously rejects the Laws of Physics and believes that what has shown to be a physical impossibility has occurred simply because Uncle Sam says so, then the believer has stronger faith in Uncle Sam than in Allah and His Laws of Physics.

    Ghulam Mohiyuddin is such a believer and devotee of Uncle Sam. He leaves Uncle Tom far behind and had he been born before, we would have called Uncle Tom, Ghulam Uncle Sam. From this day, we should call him Ghulam Uncle Sam.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/18/2018 11:15:09 PM



  • Naseer sb. persists with his dim-witted conspiracy theories on the basis of flimsy circumstantial evidence and factoids which can be retrospectively made to accord with a fanciful conspiratorial hypothesis. He seems to have no understanding of the simple fact that neither the FBI nor the CIA nor the NSA have ever been or could ever be implicated in a plot to kill thousands of American citizens on American soil using American passenger planes in order to justify starting new wars when there are a lot more easier ways for the American government to start such illegal wars. However it is obvious that Naseer sb. is not going to let reason prevail and will persist with his cockamamie theories.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/18/2018 1:10:50 PM



  • It is GM sb who shows that either he is naïve or a knave.

     What I have shown is that the FBI can and does create a plot, trap people into participating in the plot, help them with funds and material and clear all obstacles.


    What is known and admitted is that all three agencies the CIA, FBI and the NSA were aware of the possibility of such an incident and the CNN even broadcast an interview, 9 weeks prior to 911, purportedly with OBL, that OBL was planning a major attack. Bill Cooper, an independent broadcaster, warned that OBL would merely be the scapegoat and that something terrible was going to happen and used as an excuse to take away from the people their freedom. His words proved prophetic and he relentlessly pursued exposing the government’s lapses. Bill Cooper was shot dead shortly after 911. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKiT2-94XU

     

     

    The FBI was aware of those taking flying lessons and tapped their conversations. All obstacles to carrying out the plan were apparently cleared and the otherwise certainty of the USAF bringing down the planes before they could do any damage was taken care of, and none of the four planes was intercepted by the USAF.

     

    The first hijack was at 8:14 AM which hit its target 32 minutes later, the second at 8:42 which hit its target 20 minutes later, the third hijack was at 8:50 which hit Pentagon 47 minutes later, the fourth hijack was at 9:28 which crashed because of resistance and fighting 35 minutes later. The drama of these four hijacked planes went on for I hour 45 minutes, and not even the plane that hit the Pentagon 47 minutes after being hijacked, and I hr 23 minutes after the first hijack, was intercepted by the USAF.

     

    Apparently, the terrorist plan was part of the government plan, and was helped through execution. When it comes to making war, there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and the US media also fully supports it as part of their nationalist duty.  Stray broadcasters like Bill Cooper are therefore easily eliminated. Bill Cooper is not the only 911 related victim of targeted killing.

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/18/2018 12:44:16 AM



  • Naseer saheb again reveals his naivete by quoting from the Report of The Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School. I fully agree with that report. Many FBI agents have deliberately tried to entrap unsophisticated Muslims, getting them to participate in "terrorist" plots. However these Muslims were arrested and prosecuted before any of these plots came to fruition. No bombs were set off and no machine guns were fired. To compare such activity to 9/11 when 2 iconic  skyscapers were destroyed, 4 passenger jets were crashed and some 3000 Americans were killed is silly and shows the desperation of Naseer sb. to advance his crazy conspiracy theory.

    Naseer sb. and Lol should share the Tom and Jerry award!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/17/2018 12:58:10 PM



  • Thanks Hats Off for exposing the farcical nature of the discussion that Ghulam Mohiyuddin carried out. 


    For those who are willing to learn more about the active role the FBI plays in acts of terrorism in the US, read: The Report of The Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human-rights-abuses-us-terrorism-prosecutions


    This is a report of incidents since 911. The first bombing of the WTC in 1993 was also with the active involvement of the FBI. An excerpt from the report:


     All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions,30 were actually FBI sting operations—plots conducted with the direct involvement of law enforcement informants or agents, including plots that were proposed or led by informants.

    Today’s terrorism sting operations reflect a significant departure from past practice. When the FBI undercover agent or informant is the only purported link to a real terrorist group, supplies the motive, designs the plot and provides all the weapons, one has to question whether they are combatting terrorism or creating it. Aggrandizing the terrorist threat with these theatrical productions only spreads public fear and divides communities, which doesn’t make anyone safer.34 In many of the sting operations we examined, informants and undercover agents carefully laid out an ideological basis for a proposed terrorist attack, and then provided investigative targets with a range of options and the weapons necessary to carry out the attack. Instead of beginning a sting at the point where the target had expressed an interest in engaging in illegal conduct, many terrorism sting operations that we investigated facilitated or invented the target’s willingness to act before presenting the tangible opportunity to do so. In this way, the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals.

     

    In these cases, the informants and agents often chose targets who were particularly vulnerable—whether because of mental disability, or because they were indigent and needed money that the government offered them. In some cases—which have been particularly troubling for American Muslim communities—targets were seeking spiritual guidance, and the government informants or agents guided them towards violence. Relevant aspects of these cases are described below.

    In the case of the “Newburgh Four,” for example, a judge said the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles,” and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/17/2018 3:33:22 AM



  • Calling me Uncle Tom is consistent with Naseer saheb's habit of making ad hominem attacks. America has fought many wars on false premises but that does not make an impossible plot plausible. Moreover the very idea that America would attack  iconic buildings in its premier city and kill 3000 of its own citizens and make another attack on its military defense headquarters in its capital city, and yet not be found out for 16 years even though the U.S. has some of the most aggressive investigative journalists and some of the most independent media in the world is just too preposterous to be believed even by conspiracy nuts.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/16/2018 11:44:19 PM



  • "GM sb has stood the test and can be awarded the "Uncle Tom" prize for this century."
    Is he really deserving Uncle Tom prize?
    at least you can give more than that "Tom and Jerry" award 

    By Lol - 10/16/2018 11:21:02 PM



  • That there are so called educated people who believe in miracles in this day even when shown the physical impossibility of what is claimed to have happened is definitely more bizarre than believing that the US government which has waged war  on 70 countries on false pretexts  without declaring war is incapable of creating another false pretext for a war that the American people would have otherwise resisted.

    GM sb has stood the test and can be awarded the "Uncle Tom" prize for this century. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 11:10:15 PM



  • Hats Off, CAIR membership includes the full spectrum of American Muslim opinion from the most conservative to the most progressive. Your bellyache about CAIR is passe.
    Tell me which of my views are not progressive. Please be specific.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/16/2018 10:45:03 AM



  • Nasee sb., Thank you for giving us your surmise in the last paragraph of your comment. As anyone can see, it is far more bizarre and unbelievable than anything that even a fairy-tale writer can imagine. No wonder the conspiracy theorists are held to so much ridicule.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/16/2018 10:36:16 AM



  • you - a progressive muslim? how many progressive muslims you know are in cahoots with cair? By hats off! - 10/16/2018 2:29:44 AM



  • After hearing the recitation of the complete Ramayana, a listener asked, "who is Rama?" GM sb’s question is in the same league!

     

    What has been established is that what the Government is saying happened, defies the laws of physics and is impossible.

                            

    It is for the government to investigate and tell us what the truth is, but the US government has taken every step to prevent the truth from emerging. It legislated laws that make it the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be questioned in any court of law, and made every kind of litigation by the affected parties impossible, to prevent questions from being asked that demand answers. All affected parties are compensated in accordance with laws enacted after the event and covering the event. Why did the government have to do this? Why did it not allow independent investigations by the insurers? Why did it not allow the family of the passengers killed, to sue the Airlines or the Airport authority for their lapses? Why did it not allow those killed or injured in the collapse to sue their lessors, owners or employers for their acts of omission and commission? Why did it not allow the lessors to sue the company in charge of security and safety of the buildings? In the normal course, all of this would have happened bringing out the complete truth and at least ensuring that proper steps are taken to prevent recurrence. The government knows what the truth is and does not want it to come out. It therefore takes complete charge of every aspect to prevent the truth from emerging.

     

    What is known and admitted is that all three agencies the CIA, FBI and the NSA were aware of the possibility of such an incident.

     

    The FBI was even aware of those taking flying lessons and tapped their conversations.

     

    The FBI is known to encourage Muslims to indulge in terrorist acts and even aid them and blackmail them into doing things they would not otherwise do. It has proven capability to make a terrorist plan part of its own plan.

     

    The government has proven ability to carry out any act in complete secrecy through contractors who can ensure perfect secrecy.

     

    What could have upset their plans is if the air force had acted as expected and scrambled their jets to bring down the passenger airlines before they could do the damage. The government has no answer why this did not happen and why even the Pentagon could be attacked hours after the first attack and forty minutes after it was known that the plane that eventually hit it had changed its normal flight path. What is clear and established is that specific acts were undertaken to ensure that the air force did not do anything on this day.

     

    Expert pilots doubt, that those who can fly a Cessna and not even land it perfectly, could have flown these aircraft and executed such perfect manoeuvres. They suspect that the planes were taken control of and flown by remote control. All the aircraft had systems in place for being piloted remotely.

     

     

    Something did go wrong and not as planned. WTC7 was wired up for Controlled Demolition but was not hit by any plane. It was brought down nevertheless as planned, and the fact that it was going to come down was known all through the day. That it had collapsed or was about to collapse was aired by several news channels the first of which was 70 minutes before the collapse. The building was evacuated within the first hour after WTC 2 was hit and the four thousand employees did so using the elevators. The elevators are usually shut down if there is a fire as these could become death traps. There was therefore no serious fire when it was evacuated. According to the NIST report, the fires in WTC7 were seen only about noon. The sprinkler system did not work nor did the firefighters make an attempt to fight the fire. The fire department took a decision to pull out several hours before the collapse.

     

    There is a CIA asset who reports that weeks before the incident, trucks were seen coming at 3 AM after the last Janitorial bus had left and leaving by 5 AM before the first set of people arrived. This activity went on for several weeks. There are photographs of cartons which appear to contain fuses.

     

    A complete power break-down on the week-end preceding the incident is reported ostensibly to change the internet cabling. During this period, the electronic surveillance was down, and all electronically operated doors were open allowing free access. The elevators were obviously down preventing workers from entering.

    The building security and surveillance is contracted to a company owned by Marvin Bush brother of the then President.

    The technology to execute a remotely controlled demolition has existed since WWII. All the first responders comprising personnel of the NYPD and FDNY have reported hearing secondary explosions when the buildings came down.

     

    The news channels, that first showed visuals of the collapsing buildings, also commented that these were coming down in the manner of a perfectly executed demolition job.

     

    That the events that took place as observed/recorded are impossible for the cause attributed to them is proven by science. What is possible is that:

    1. The government made the terrorist plan a sub-plan to their own plan and aided and assisted them

    2. They carried out the complete demolition of the buildings with prior planning to create a spectacle and generate intense horror designed for maximum effect. They created the illusion that this was entirely because of the terrorists crashing planes into the buildings. This horrifying event and spectacle were used to wage war and push through the PATRIOT act that deprives the citizens of the right to privacy.

    3. The US government has a proven/admitted past record of staging events to wage/escalate war and to spread lies knowingly. That the US government did stage a Controlled Demolition and made it look as if the buildings collapsed because of a plane crashing into them, to serve their war agenda is believable from the speed and eagerness with which they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and pushed through the PATRIOT act. It shows prior planning and readiness.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/16/2018 2:07:58 AM



  • Hats Off's demented rant does not deserve a response. He thinks he is entitled to continue his bitter hate war against Islam and against progressive Muslims in NAI!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/15/2018 11:26:33 PM



  • You have never given a coherent description of your understanding of what happened. I take that to mean that you have no logical account of the  incident even in your own mind and that you have been wasting my time with some geek "scientific" loose talk about why some things that happened could not have happened! And please do not come back with URL's to more videos or more articles. Just tell us briefly in simple words what you think happened on 9/11.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/15/2018 1:04:47 PM



  • there you are! a little squirm.

    so you think your nemesis (the IIT trained ulama) is a conspiracy theorist. well. and sanguine good!

    but pathetically (which is your hall-mark) you are spreading another conspiracy theory that mr. sultan shahin is in cahoots with me.

    you are not pathetic, you are even worse. you are pathological.

    where does that put you against your own accusations against mr. naseer ahmed whom you call a conspiracy theorist!

    so your outdated brain thinks i am in cahoots with the editor. or he is in cahoots with me. so why not that america (your nest which you are desperately trying to foul - talk about ingratitude!) demolished those worthless towers? not conspiratorial enough for jojo? get back to where you once belonged!

    crybaby. that is what you are and you will even be worse. given time. at least mr. naseer ahmed is posting links, sources and other rot. and as for as i know he does not root for cair, isna and other termites.

    you are not even capable of matching him. 'cahoots' with the editor. good god! have you ever heard of marbles and ever heard of losing them? count them before you lose all of them.

    get back jojo!
    get back to where you once belonged.

    get back jojo.
    By hats off! - 10/15/2018 6:35:47 AM



  • Go through the previous comments and watch the videos. You will get your answers. If you cannot, then just resign yourself to your inherent weakness/disability/handicap to understand anything. By Naseer Ahmed - 10/15/2018 12:57:36 AM



  • Forget what the NIST said. Just answer my question.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/14/2018 11:59:16 PM



  • Poor Hats Off has gone off the rocker in his struggle to continue to fight his hate war in a supposedly progressive Muslim site! He spews his hate with the confidence of someone who is in cahoots with the editor!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/13/2018 1:55:46 PM



  • The NIST Report makes for interesting reading. The study is in accordance with the law enacted on October 1, 2002, called the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCSTA) with the clear purpose of ensuring better safety for such buildings in the future. The objective of the study is not to establish the cause of collapse of the buildings. The cause is implicitly understood to be the two planes crashing into two towers and the third by debris of the collapsing tower falling onto it. The NIST is therefore under no threat of any action against it for not correctly establishing the causes of failure. The NIST has limited their analysis to establish what may have most probably initiated the collapse so that future designs may prevent such initiation of collapse. The NIST therefore ignores what happened after what they think initiated the collapse and simply say that complete collapse became inevitable once the collapse commenced as though partial destruction and collapse are impossible and unknown! 

    "How do you know that the complete collapse became inevitable?" asked Alice.

    "It must have been," said Mad Hatter, "or the buildings wouldn’t have collapsed completely.”  

     “How did it collapse at free fall speed when that is impossible without Controlled Demolition?” asked Alice wide-eyed

    “Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Answered Mad Hatter

    The evidence was collected from eye-witnesses under Non-Disclosure Agreements. These witnesses cannot therefore disclose to others, the evidence they gave. Also the evidence collected was by means of close ended questions leaving no scope for the witnesses to say what the NIST did not want to hear.

    The NIST began its study a year after the event and much after the site was cleared of all the debris. They are therefore not responsible for any omissions in what was reported by the witnesses since they had no means of independently verifying anything.

    Under the NCSTA act, the Report cannot be used by any party in any litigation against any other party. The NIST also solely and exclusively possesses all evidence collected and are empowered under the act to keep the evidence to themselves and not to disclose it. Independent investigations are therefore impossible and therefore there can be no litigation against any party for their acts of omission and commission.

    The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) was created by an Act of Congress, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (49 USC 40101),shortly after 9/11 to compensate the victims of the attack (or their families) in exchange for their agreement not to sue the airline corporations involved. The airlines also cannot be sued.

    The owner of the WTC is  the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Larry Silverstein is only a lease holder and he is liable to rebuild. However, the government agency overseeing the project, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., is only factoring the insurance payout into its plans. So, he does not stand to lose either.

    The only losers are the consortium of insurance and re-insurance companies. In the normal course, the insurance companies do not settle without a proper investigation but the government has made independent investigation impossible through their legislation and unilaterally determined the cause of collapse as the terrorist event and made this determination of cause incontestable in any court. The insurance Cos have no choice but to grin and bear it. Since the government is the owner of the property, and the lease holder is liable to it and the insurance companies to the lease holder, the government has full say on how the claims are settled.

     Every step has been taken to ensure that the government is in full control of every aspect.

    In the normal course,  what we would have had are open investigations for the truth to emerge.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/13/2018 7:48:44 AM



  • you are a little boy who wants to play alongside of the big boys. fact is they will never pass you the ball. deal with it!

    you are just a child who will sniffle, sigh and mumble, but the big boys know that you are no where. you are neither orthodox, muslim enough or even remotely capable of adult discourse. all your brownie points will not help you pass the test.

    you are what you are. mediocre, insignificant and pitiable. you are a moderate.

    but after you tangled with the big boys, your vocabulary improved! keep it up and do your homework in time and learn where you stand.

    do not keep posting when you have said thirty two thousand times that 'this is my last comment'.

    you are irrelevant, ignored, ridiculed and dismissed. take it. deal with it. swallow it. it might yet make a man out of you. unlikely. though.

    do not ever migrate to a kuffar country and try to "educate" them. you are after all a snot that won't fall off someone's little finger - however hard they shake it.

    get a life little child! but before that learn that you will never get to play with the big boys because you are incapable of taking any stand at all.

    for example, you will crawl your way to a kuffar country and start criticizing their ways.

    but your small-minimal-brain cannot ever hope to connect.

    you are just a little boy flailing and struggling. we understand and we look on you with sadness.

    the big boys only have contempt for you. sorry! but life is hard. especially for an emigre momeen in kuffar lands.

    good luck! meanwhile enjoy the little insults that mr. naseer ahmed will throw at you.
    By hats off! - 10/13/2018 4:21:07 AM



  • Hats Off imagines he is talking to orthodox Muslims! The fact is his comments would not be posted in any Muslim website, orthodox or progressive.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/13/2018 12:23:11 AM



  • on the other hand, believing that a prophet rode a horse and visited god and sat on his right side - that is excellent reality testing.

    if a man rode a horse to heaven, why not three buildings collapse because of a cockroach sneezing?
    By hats off! - 10/12/2018 5:46:28 PM



  • Two passenger jets did crash into the World Trade Center. The towers did collapse. Those are facts. The rest is just fanciful chatter among geeks. 

    Instead of continuously quoting such geeks, why don't you give us your comprehensive understanding of what happened. Why did the towers collapse? What role did those passenger jets have in the collapse? Who was behind the plot? Give us your understanding of 9/11 in your own words.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/12/2018 12:59:50 PM



  • if you believe that your prophet travelled to meet allah and sat on his right side, you can believe anything or any one. including mr. ghulam mohiyuddin.

    if you cannot believe mr. mohiyuddin, you can believe anything.
    By hats off! - 10/12/2018 8:41:42 AM



  • If you believe, that on a single day, three events, that defy the easily understandable laws of physics, and which could not be explained by the Official spokesperson or reproduced by them either through computer simulation or through experiments with scaled down models occurred, then you are a believer in miracles. Such believers can be made to believe in anything, which is why education means little when it comes to perpetuating falsehoods and blind beliefs among such people.

     

    If after being explained and shown experiments which demonstrate what the Official spokesperson are saying is impossible, you continue to stick to the false story, then you are an active participant in the perpetuation of the lie. My comments are not meant to waste time on such people but to educate those who are willing to learn the truth.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/12/2018 2:59:37 AM



  • Putting so much faith in "scientific" papers that support  insupportable conspiracy theories is an example of poor objective reality testing. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/11/2018 1:40:32 PM



  • The use of the expression “Objective reality testing” is apparently a borrowed expression and means nothing to GM sb.

     

    There is an objective fact that is admitted in the official report of the NIST on the collapse of WTC7. The objective fact is that in stage 2 of the collapse, the building experienced free fall through 8 storeys for 2.25 secs.

    What is the objective reality that explains such a free fall in stage 2?  The Objective reality is that only in a Controlled Demolition, we see a free fall in stage 2 of the collapse. 

    The Official Liars and their supporters will talk about everything else except what gives away the truth and nails their elaborate lies. 


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 1:00:20 AM



  • The use of the expression “Objective reality testing” is apparently a borrowed expression and means nothing to GM sb.

     

    There is an objective fact that is admitted in the official report of the NIST on the collapse of WTC7. The objective fact is that in stage 2 of the collapse, the building experienced free fall through 8 storeys for 2.25 secs.

    What is the objective reality that explains such a free fall in stage 2?  The Objective reality is that only in a Controlled Demolition, we see a free fall in stage 2 of the collapse. 


    The Official Liars and their supporters will talk about everything except what gives away the truth. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 12:07:40 AM



  • The use of the expression “Objective reality testing” is apparently a borrowed expression and means nothing to GM sb.

     

    There is an objective fact that is admitted in the official report of the NIST on the collapse of WTC7. The objective fact is that in stage 2 of the collapse, the building experienced free fall through 8 storeys for 2.25 secs.

    What is the objective reality that explains such a free fall in stage 2?  The Objective reality is that only in a Controlled Demolition, we see a free fall in stage 2 of the collapse. 


    The Official Liars and their supporters will talk about everything except what gives away the truth. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/11/2018 12:06:43 AM



  • Objective reality testing means the ability to know that the kinds of alternative theories presented by conspiracy nuts are fanciful and outside the bounds of possibility in the real world.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/10/2018 9:41:54 AM



  • GM sb has the gall to talk about objective reality testing. I do not know what he means by that, but I am willing to listen to him. Can he take the official NIST report on WTC7 that can be downloaded from: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

    and its description of the three-stage collapse, and explain the stage 2 which records a free fall for 2.25 secs through eight stories, and show us how this is possible through an experiment conducted by any of the Official Liars? That such a thing is impossible, is very well demonstrated by the experiments as shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hICX2m3mDo4

     

    Dr Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of NIST, concedes that such a free fall is impossible without removing the structure below, and therefore, the free-fall is not a part of their computer simulation explaining the collapse. What they “explain” through their simulation is therefore not what happened. This part therefore remains unexplained by the Official Liars, although recorded as objective fact. The reason for this, as every structural engineer and demolition expert knows, is that the free-fall is the distinctive signature of a Controlled Demolition and nothing else. We also know, that the NIST at first ignored relevant evidence of free fall, and only acknowledged after being challenged in a public interaction.

     

    Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb provides the proof that education means very little, and a doctor does not necessarily mean that he has mastered even school level physics, and that such a person can be both poor in theory and unable to comprehend even when the principles of physics are so clearly demonstrated through experiments. Those who propagate lies to achieve their political objectives understand the limitations of the people very well and therefore go about their business without a care.

    Why couldn’t GM sb learn the stark obvious reality of destruction by explosives of the Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran on January 19, 2017, on his own?  Why did he throw this non-example to ‘prove’ what does not constitute proof? Again, how does an abandoned, unfit for occupation Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in São Paulo, Brazil, meant to be pulled down and completely ablaze provide the proof?

     

    The fact that there is no example prior to WTC collapse although previously there have been thousands of fires and there are two examples post 911, should make an intelligent person pause and think. The fact that the USA has completely fooled the world with the WTC collapse story, has only emboldened others to try something similar. Would the owners of Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in São Paulo allow it to be occupied by illegal squatters and not make any attempt to reclaim the land to build a new building? They would certainly have wanted to pull it down but apparently, they couldn’t get the necessary permissions for it and destruction by “accidental” fire remained the only option. Whether this was aided or unaided by human intervention and whether this was truly an accident, we will never know. Such a building obviously had free unhindered access to everyone and especially the owners who may have kept part of the building in their control.

    The NIST report makes interesting reading for many more reasons which I will discuss later.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/10/2018 1:00:45 AM



  • There is a lot of such "conspiracy theory" crazy stuff in print but as I said before, I have already wasted enough time in this futile discussion. It does however help us understand Naseer saheb's adherence to some beliefs, throwing all objective reality-testing to the wind.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/9/2018 1:34:40 PM



  • The Plasco Building in Teheran

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4enzRooqVk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY

    One must be blind not to see the explosives going off. This is a case of a poorly executed demolition job. 

    The points to note:

    1.         Fires were put off completely and tenants had begun re-entering when the explosives go off

    2.         A poorly executed demolition job because of which the columns remain in one piece while the floors collapse. When the structural integrity is destroyed by a few columns separating from the rest of the structure, the building topples over. Poor timing and poor synchronization produce a non-symmetric collapse. The building does not collapse on its own footprint but the undestroyed part topples over.

     

    Wilton Paes de Almeida Building

    This was an unsafe building, abandoned and occupied by illegal squatters and therefore not maintained at all. Maintenance requires maintaining the fire proofing of exposed load bearing steel, water sprinklers and other fire-fighting equipment. See in the video, that unlike, the WTC and the Tehran building, this building is complexly ablaze with fire blazing furiously on every floor. The implication is obvious - the entire building is weakened equally, and if collapse initiates in any part, the additional stress that the collapse tries to pass on to the remaining part, cannot be absorbed, as every part is equally weakened, resulting in complete collapse. There is no healthy non-burning part of the building to resist the collapse, and the entire building will collapse like a house of cards, when failure occurs in any part. There is nothing unusual or surprising about this case. The only surprising part is that such an unsafe building, was not pulled down by the authorities, who merely abandoned it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=17&v=XwoBRHDLxdo

     

    Where is the comparison with WTC?

     

    As against this, three WTC buildings collapse in the manner of perfectly engineered and executed demolition jobs although very few floors are affected by fire and we are to believe that such perfect examples are not demolition jobs but caused by events not engineered to cause a perfect collapse on its own footprint!

    There is absolute silence of the government experts on the free fall speed recorded although they acknowledge the free fall and its implication that it means the building encountered no resistance. How did this happen when the floors below were unaffected by fire?

    The Pertinent Questions that arise

    Jonathan H Cole raises pertinent questions based on the official falsehoods about the collapse of these buildings. If their lies about WTC are to be believed, then the NIST should declare all high-rise buildings as structurally unsafe to withstand fire, even if a few floors are affected by the fire, and since such fires can cause sudden collapse (WTC7), a building on fire should be only evacuated but the fire-men should not risk their lives by trying to fight the fires even from the outside, since the debris from the sudden collapse of the building can easily kill those who are struck by it. NIST and other agencies that are charged with laying down standards to ensure safety of  high-rise buildings, have no answers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrgVnsYFig

     

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/9/2018 1:51:56 AM



  • I have wasted enough of my time on your loony conspiracy theories, a subject I have no interest in.  The following paragraph gives a summary answer to the points you have raised:

    Soon after the day of the attacks, major media sources published that the towers had collapsed due to heat melting the steel. Knowledge that the burning temperatures of jet fuel would not melt the steel support structure of the WTC contributed to the belief among skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external interference (something other than the planes). NIST does not claim that the steel was melted, but rather that the weakened steel, together with the damage caused by the planes' impacts, caused the collapses. NIST reported that a simulation model based on the assumption that combustible vapors burned immediately upon mixing with the incoming oxygen showed that "at any given location, the duration of [gas] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 to 20 [minutes]. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were 500 °C or below."

    Since 9/11, at least two steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed following blazes — the Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran on January 19, 2017, and the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in São Paulo, Brazil, on May 1, 2018.

    This will be my last post in this futile thread.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/8/2018 12:56:14 PM



  • An excellent video with realistically modeled experiments that clearly demonstrate what is being discussed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hICX2m3mDo4

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/8/2018 2:10:05 AM



  • An excellent video with realistically modeled experiments that clearly demonstrate what is being discussed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hICX2m3mDo4

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/8/2018 2:10:04 AM



  • An excellent video with realistically modeled experiments that clearly demonstrate what is being discussed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hICX2m3mDo4

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/8/2018 2:09:26 AM



  • The following statement is a meaningless tautology!

     

    Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.”

     

    As a matter of fact, it equally applies to “Controlled Demolition” as shown below:

    Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed (Controlled Demolition).

     

    The exact time of total collapse is irrelevant to determining whether it was brought down by Controlled Demolition or not.

    In a Controlled Demolition, there are three stages.

     

    (1)  See the videos on how nano thermite works. There is no explosion and therefore it produces no more sound than that produced by a blow torch. As it cuts in the manner of a blow torch and sufficiently weakens the steel, the building sags and the structural members reach a breaking point.


    (2) In this stage, all the members that are being cut by nano thermite snap and the building from above the lowest floor on which nano thermite is used to cut the steel members, experiences free fall.


    (3)The free fall (through 8 storeys in the case of WTC7) is enough to crush the remaining structure below and above and therefore the entire building. The destruction of this part is using the kinetic energy of the falling building. Since energy is required to destroy the remaining building, and no external energy is being supplied for this, the destruction is by absorbing the kinetic energy or by slowing down the fall. The building experiences deceleration in this stage although the velocity of fall may not slow down unless the deceleration is greater than ‘g’. If it is greater than ‘g’, or for arguments sake equal to 2g, then the fall of the building will be totally arrested after about another 8 storeys are destroyed. The remaining building will remain standing. Total destruction is ensured if the deceleration is not so great as to halt the destruction before it is complete.

     

    The point to note is that even in the case of Controlled Demolition, free fall is only in stage 2. As explained, if the Controlled Demolition is not properly planned, the complete building may not be destroyed and therefore when there is no total collapse, the exact time of total collapse is irrelevant. The unique signature of a Controlled Demolition is in stage 2, and the WTC7 is acknowledged by the NIST in its report to have experienced free fall through 8 storeys for 2.25 secs in stage 2. All the three stages reported by the NIST in its report, are consistent with “Controlled Demolition”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/8/2018 12:32:44 AM



  • "The buildings fell at a rate possible only by a controlled demolition." 

    Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.

    Any intelligent person would also question whether a conspiracy of the kind proposed by the conspiracy theorists is even possible in the real world. 

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/7/2018 1:07:51 PM



  • An intelligent reader quickly focuses on the key information and arrives at the correct conclusion.

     

    The logical argument

     

    From the article in europhysicsnews, confirmed by NIST final report on the collapse of WTC7, we know that:

    Premise/data/fact:

    1.            NIST at first Ignored relevant evidence of free fall and only acknowledged after being challenged.  Their final report includes in their description of the event, the free fall through the height of 8 storeys or for 2.25 secs. This is therefore acknowledged fact.

     

    2.            Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it for eight stories to slow it down”.

     

    Conclusion:

    There is no alternate explanation for the recorded free fall for 2.25 secs, through the height of 8 storeys, except controlled demolition which is why the computer simulation cannot show the free fall without admitting to Controlled Demolition which the NIST is determined not to accept.

    How can the above conclusion be proved false?

    1.       The above conclusion can be disproved by either establishing that there was no free fall at any stage of the collapse (premises is false). This is not possible because NIST has acknowledged free fall in its final report during the second stage of the collapse.

    2.       By showing how this can happen in any other situation which is not a controlled demolition which the NIST has failed to do since their computer model ignores the observed data of free fall through 8 storeys or for 2.25 secs.

    Indeed, a free fall through the height of 8 storeys means simultaneous (as against progressive) failure of every structural member at multiple points which is impossible, except when external forces are applied, as in a controlled demolition. The NIST report for obvious reasons speaks and can speak only of progressive failure, and not of simultaneous failure, which would require them to account for the external forces, which they cannot except by admitting to assisted collapse or Controlled Demolition.

     

    Most people do not even possess this much of knowledge and intelligence to arrive at the correct conclusion themselves.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/7/2018 1:29:49 AM



  • Even the  Europhysicsnews put a disclaimer at the beginning of the story stating that it was somewhat different from its purely scientific articles in that it includes “some speculation."

    Phrases such as "different from its purely scientific articles", and "it includes some speculation" should be enough to raise serious questions in the mind of any intelligent reader.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/6/2018 1:25:11 PM



  • My attribution is accurate. Europhysicsnews is a magazine. I didn't say it is a Science Journal. It is owned by the European Physical Society .

     

    The difference between a Science journal and a Magazine is that the Science Journal is for the scholars and a Magazine is for the general public. A Magazine publishes scientific ideas and news in layman language.

     

    For reasons that should be obvious, a Science Journal, or the Department of Structural Engineering of any university, will not say anything on the subject if what they have to say is against the official story, unless invited to do so.

     

    A magazine is not necessarily less stringent in its approach, but even with the NIST not cooperating by making available their model and data, has to respond to their readers' need for informed and considered opinion on any subject. The fall-out of publishing such an article would have been a sharp reaction from official sources and their supporters because of which, they gave out those statements.

     

    The reason that they even published such an article, is because the article argues with clinching evidence admitted by NIST and taken on record in its report. The clinching evidence is the fact that WTC7 experienced free fall for 8 storeys or 2.25 secs.  As known by everyone who knows high school physics, this is possible only when the structure below is offering zero resistance which is admitted by Dr Shyam Sunder of NIST. The only imaginable scenario for such a condition is Controlled Demolition which is why the NIST does not reproduce free-fall in its computer model. The computer model of the NIST is after plenty of fitting and fudging of the data to show an unassisted collapse which is why they will not share their data and assumptions with anyone.

     

    The magazine Eourphysiscsnews therefore stands on a very strong ground and can only be pushed around a little, but not to the extent of making them withdraw their article. It is a serious Science Magazine with an excellent reputation and not a tabloid.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/6/2018 1:35:50 AM



  • "EPN, which is run by the European Physics Agency and owned by EDP Sciences (a company unrelated to the the entity that owns the European Scientific Journal), even put a disclaimer at the beginning of the story stating that it was “somewhat different” from its “purely scientific articles” in that it includes “some” speculation."
    "The publishers of the European Scientific Journal issued a statementclarifying that they had nothing to do with the article."

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/5/2018 12:50:10 PM



  • My comment correctly and accurately gives the source of the article ,“On the physics of high rise building collapses” published by Europhysics News,  the magazine of the European physics community and owned by the European Physical Society in Vol 47 number 4 of 2016. Has GM sb found a flaw in the attribution?

     

    He says that the article is not peer reviewed. When thousands of architects and engineers voice the same concerns, it is as good as peer reviewed by them. Fifteen years after 911, if the magazine chose to invite  the professors who have been exposing the lies to write an article, the reason must be that its board is also unconvinced of the official story and this article is their way of supporting the movement for transparency and bringing out the truth. Is there anything wrong with that? I am glad that the world has not completely lost all honesty and decency.

     

    Has NIST got its conclusions validated by the Structural Engineering Department of any University to ensure that there is an independent validation and confirmation of its conclusions? If not, then why not? I bet no department of structural engineering of any reputable university will endorse its conclusions. Why is the NIST report taken at face value then?

     

     

    The article focuses on what NIST has agreed after being challenged and included in its report but not in its simulation. NIST agreed that WTC7 experienced free fall through 8 storeys or the first 2.25 seconds. Why does the NIST model simulating the collapse not show the free fall for 2.25 seconds then? Because, a free fall through 8 storeys only means controlled demolition and they cannot admit that.

     

    All that NIST must do if it is telling the truth and not lying, is to invite the Structural Engineering Department of say MIT, to validate its model and conclusions. I am sure NIST, which could not get its handle on the collapse mechanism, would have consulted several professors of structural engineering to help them understand, besides the company that designed the towers, and if there is not one professor of structural engineering speaking for them, it is because no professor of structural engineering agrees with their conclusions. Yes, they have a couple of professors from other disciplines speaking for them in very general terms carefully avoiding specifics, and especially avoiding speaking about WTC7 apart from a cursory mention. WTC7 is the smoking gun which nobody wants to discuss in any detail.

     

    Can snopes.com be an arbitrator of truth in this case? What is its competence to judge on technical issues? How frivolous can you get!

     

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/5/2018 3:41:00 AM



  • Did a European Scientific Journal Conclude 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition?
    Viral news stories misattributed an article written by "9/11 Truth" advocates as one published in the European
    Scientific Journal; it was actually published in Europhysics News, which is not peer-reviewed.

    In their July-August 2016 issue, the science news magazine Europhysics News (EPN) published a feature by a group of scientists who have long been involved with the promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The piece argued that the structural failure of the WTC buildings on 9/11 was not adequately explained by burning jet fuel, and that it was instead better explained by a controlled demolition:

    Unfortunately, that truly scientific and impartial study is not this paper. EPN, which is run by the European Physics Agency and owned by EDP Sciences (a company unrelated to the the entity that owns the European Scientific Journal), even put a disclaimer at the beginning of the story stating that it was “somewhat different” from its “purely scientific articles” in that it includes “some” speculation:

    These caveats in place, a variety of websites — notably the website Anon HQ — published the claim that this news feature was a scientific article published in the European Scientific Journal, suggesting that because it was peer-reviewed it was a stronger validation than than previously published conspiracy theories. In response, the publishers of the European Scientific Journal issued a statementclarifying that they had nothing to do with the article:

    Issues of false attribution aside, the article was written by four authors who have aggressivelypromoted 9/11 conspiracy theories and who are members of groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth. The paper primarily targets the official conclusion of the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, which argued that fire adequately explained the collapse of all three WTC buildings.  The Europhysics Newsarticle relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

    • Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).
    • A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
    • The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash). 
    • Puffs of smoke exploding from below the collapsing towers suggests controlled demolition. (This claim does little to address the simplerexplanation that air pressure from the collapse of one of the largest buildings ever built would have forced air and debris through windows).
    • The buildings fell at a rate possible only by a controlled demolition. (Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.)
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/4/2018 1:07:44 PM



  • Those who understands Science and Logic, may read  the article ,“On the physics of high rise building collapses” that was published by Europhysics News,  the magazine of the European physics community and owned by the European Physical Society in Vol 47 number 4 of 2016. While we may expect official bodies to tell official lies, we do not expect the EPS, which has its reputation at stake, to indulge in senseless theories especially when these challenge the official story. We also do not expect the thousands of Engineers and Architects whose license to practice their profession can be suspended if they indulged in unscientific speculation, to question the official story without a sound basis. All of them may have suffered some loss of good-will and business because of taking up an unpopular position opposing the official “nationalistic” one.

    https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

     

    Excerpt from the article are reproduced below:

    The case of WTC 7

    The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires. Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that  WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones, who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”

     

    Conclusion

    It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/4/2018 12:22:15 AM



  • My last post has given the answers to many of your questions. But logical answers never make conspiracy theorists go away!

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/3/2018 1:13:20 PM



  • 4:11 PM CNN News WTC7 has either collapsed or is collapsing

    4:50 PM ABC News – WTC7 is in danger of collapsing

    5:03 PM MSNBC building is in danger of collapsing

    BBC also went on air saying that the building had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually collapsed

    The building collapse actually started at 5:20:33 PM

     The News was spread that the building was going to collapse, and the News Channels were airing this at least 70 minutes before the collapse started. How did those in authority know that the building was going to collapse? Did any high-rise building before collapse because of an office fire? Then what made them think that it was going to collapse? As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”. Why does he have such great trouble getting a handle on building 7 when Larry Silverstein and the fire department were so sure of the building’s imminent collapse even before it collapsed?  Why didn’t Dr. Shyam Sunder ask Larry Silverstein and the fire department to educate him about what made them so certain while he is unable to figure out even after 5 years of investigation?

     In any case, the entire area was cleared of people because of the imminent collapse of the building and therefore, nobody was anywhere near the building when it collapsed and even the adjoining buildings were evacuated. The question of anybody seeing or hearing anything when it collapsed does not arise and all videos of the collapse are taken from very long distances.

     Shapiro has said in his own article that” Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building…….Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.”

    Had he known that Controlled Demolition takes months to plan, he may have suppressed this information.  My comment says, Shapiro is an ardent defender of the official 911 story and so GM sb reproducing Shapiro’s  defense of the official story is redundant. The point that I am making, is that everyone knew that Controlled Demolition of the building was under active consideration, and this of course required the insurers to authorize it.

    The relevant questions are:

    1.    How was Controlled Demolition considered as an option, if the building was not already wired for it?

    2.    What made everyone so sure of the buildings collapse, so much so, that the news channels were airing the news a good 70 minutes before actual collapse, but the lead investigator from NIST is unable to understand what caused the collapse even after detailed investigations for 5 years?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/3/2018 1:02:12 AM



  • Naseer Saheb quotes Jeffrey Scott Shapiro. Here is what Mr. Shapiro wrote on April 22, 2010:

    "Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

    Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

    A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

    While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

    The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.

    In no instance did I ever once talk to one source who even hinted the American government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.

    I was there.

    I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks. Governor Ventura has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting these intellectually dishonest views. He should be ashamed of himself."


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/2/2018 12:37:50 PM



  • And how the supporters of the Official lies distort! If what Larry meant was to tell the Chief of Fire department to “pull out” his men, he should be saying “pull out” and not “pull it”. What is “it” here - the fire fighting men or the building?

     According to Fox News journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, an ardent defender of the official 9/11 story, Larry Silverstein had controlled demolition on his mind on September 11, 2001, and it was no secret to the NYPD and others on the ground that day. In an article entitled ‘Shame On Jesse Ventura!’ Shapiro wrote:

     “Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

     A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.”

     What Shapiro is apparently unaware of, is that it takes months of planning and setup to demolish a skyscraper, and this was not an option, unless the building was already wired up for controlled demolition.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2018 10:54:12 PM



  • Conspiracy theorists never give up! Building 7 was burning. The civilians had already left. Some firemen and policemen were still in the building. They were "pulled" when it was feared that the building was about to collapse.
    Who said "pull" means "evacuate". Check that out on Google. From now on you can discuss your conspiracy theories by yourself. I am out of it.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/1/2018 12:41:33 PM



  • Watch the video from 12:41 in which Larry says “Got a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they’ll be able to contain the fire.  I said you know it had such terrible loss of life. If it is policy, just do it. Just pull it. They made that decision to pull. Then watched the building collapse.”

    The meaning of Pull is clear. Who are these people to whom “Just Pull it” means “Just evacuate it?” And why would the fire chief seek Larry’s permission to evacuate? Do not the fire alarms go off if there is so much as smoke forcing the tenants to evacuate?  Does GM sb think that after WTC1 And WTC2 had collapsed and WTC7 had caught fire, people remained inside the building and were dutifully waiting for the fire chief to tell them to evacuate? And the fire chief required Larry’s permission to do so? How ridiculous can GM sb get!

     The media knew about the decision to pull down when Larry Silverstein gave the order to pull it down which is why the BBC (See video at 11:41) assumed that it was pulled down when it aired the news of its collapse 20 minutes before it was actually pulled down. In another video, youtube.com/watch?v=vVhsSH4yBa8 see who all had foreknowledge based on Larry Silverstein’s decision, that the building was going to be pulled down before it was actually pulled down.

    Neither does the video nor have I accused Larry Silverstein of Insurance fraud. GM sb is digressing.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/1/2018 2:36:39 AM



  • What did Silverstein mean when he used the word "pull". Most people are agreed "pull" means "evacuate".
    Was it an attempt at insurance fraud? Read this:
    snopes.com/fact-check/wtc-terrorism-insurance/
    The video-tape is very much in the usual "conspiracy theory" mode. Let us not waste any more time on such video-tapes, please. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/30/2018 11:33:02 PM



  • The following is a good video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzsV-rehvhc

    Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC is on record in the video saying that he gave the order to pull down WTC7. The question is how could they set up the explosives for pulling down the building in such a short time when it takes weeks to do so? It was therefore already wired for the demolition. And why does the official explanation continue to be that it was destroyed by the office fire and not pulled down? Because they cannot explain how it could be wired up for controlled demolition in a few hours!

    BBC announces the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it actually fell!

    See at 11:17 how the buildings are placed. WTC1 is on the north surrounded by WTC5 and WTC6 to its north in the same compound and a street is to the north of them and WTC7 is across the street. How come WTC5 and 6 which are closest to WTC1 and shield WTC7 were not affected but WTC7 was? Also, WTC2 is very close to and between WTC3 and 4 which were not affected.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/30/2018 11:24:41 AM



  • When one can allege that the U.S. government  can be complicit in attacking its own Defense Department's Pentagon building in the capital city of Washington and the World Trade Center in its premier city of New York and kill 3000 of its own citizens and hope never to be caught,  the question of one's credulity does become important.

    In any case I shall let Naseer sahib have the last word because I have already said what I wanted to say.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/24/2018 11:30:51 AM



  • "How did it fracture like brittle bone then if it wasn’t melted" - mr. naseer ahmed.
    that sentence is a jem of an islamic scholarship from a kuffar engineering education.
    it warms the very cockles of the heart.
    By hats off! - 9/24/2018 7:47:04 AM



  • GM Sb is a doctor but his education may not be relevant to what is being discussed. What can I say about his intelligence when he believes the following without supporting evidence and in fact in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary?

    (1) 9/11 was the result of a vast and extremely elaborate conspiracy that only the conspiracy enthusiast can comprehend.

    It is GM sb who is trying to make a big deal about the incident. On the contrary, 911 is nothing new or difficult for the US to execute. They have built the necessary infrastructure for executing any monstrosity in complete secrecy and ensuring that it remains secret. Can you imagine their dependence on private contractors who are given protection from legal consequences of their criminal acts? Read the black deeds of Blackwater with which the government agencies have an incestual relationship. High ranking officials who give business to Blackwater are eventually absorbed by Blackwater in high positions. The government contracts are extremely lucrative. And what exactly was Pentagon doing with unaccounted expenses running upto $2.3 trillion?

    Read: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

    After having read the above, is there any doubt that Blackwater can carry out any black deed in complete secrecy?

    It is GM sb, who is incredulous in the face of evidence because he is simply incapable of understanding simple physics and the history of deceits practiced by the US government and the fact that every American president was a great liar with very few exceptions. Lyndon B Johnson was a compulsive liar under whose watch the fake Tonkin incident was made the cause for escalation of war on Vietnam, George W Bush took the art of deception and lies to new heights, Bill Clinton was a most earnest and believable liar, “Nixon is a shifty-eyed goddam liar and the people know it,” Harry Truman ……..

    What should be clear to any sane person is that the official lies are obvious with the official liars having contradicted themselves or other official liars. NIST will not talk beyond what happened after the initiation of collapse because they have no explanation for how the entire building collapsed.

    The official liars first said that the steel melted but since it was easy to prove that this was not possible from the fire caused by the burning of aviation fuel, they went back on it and said it did not melt. They came up with the pancake theory but since this theory does not account for how the steel columns collapsed, they came up with the pile-driver theory. The pile driver theory also does not explain how the steel columns were cut. Steel can bend completely and take a U shape without fracturing. How did it fracture like brittle bone then if it wasn’t melted? What explains the free fall speed?

    The perfect answer to all the questions explaining what happened is Controlled Demolition but if GM sb prefers to bury his head in sand, even God cannot help. God also gives up on such people saying that the “Deaf, Dumb and Blind will not believe”. Not that they are deaf, dumb and blind but choose to deliberately bury their head in sand. God has given them ears, eyes and intelligence which they refuse to use.

    (2) That man could have independently generated moral precepts.

    The evidence from the history of philosophy starting from 600 BC, is that it has not given us a single moral principle although ethics and morality are subjects philosophy is obsessed with. All moral principles have come exclusively from religion. So, what is the evidence that man could have independently generated moral precepts when he has generated none?

    (3) Islam had no influence in abolition of slavery.

    It is a well-recognized fact that under Islam, slavery was not what it was under any other culture/civilization. Slaves rose to high places in the army and administration and even became rulers. They ate the same food as their masters sitting alongside them. The masters shared the burden with the slaves and never overworked them. The Quran explicitly encourages marriage of free people with slaves removing any social stigma associated with salves. Freeing of slaves is encouraged and even made incumbent. The prophet and his followers bought slaves only to free them. One such slave was Hazrat Bilal, a black Abyssinian, who rose to a very high position and was the first muezzin and the first to give the call for prayer from Kaaba. Enslavement of free people, except prisoners of war was put an end to. While the Muslims did not ban slavery and the Christians did, what is indisputable is that Islam influenced the attitude of the rest of the world towards slaves. The other areas of influence were in making divorce acceptable, reducing the influence of priests since Islam has no concept of priest, in laws enabling women to inherit, the madrasa system becoming a model for public schools and in every other area.

    Islam influenced every other culture it came in contact with. While the Europeans took all the best practices from Islam and took each one of them further, the Muslims remained stuck at the point Islam had taken them.

    “That the influence of Islam is forgotten and goes unacknowledged, is not very surprising. When exposure to a different culture creates social change in society, the new view becomes an integral part of the society's culture. This results in the source of the other culture’s influence that led to change being forgotten, which is known as social cryptoamnesia. The influence of other cultures can be successful if people can dissociate between the socio-cognitive activities of resistance that are induced by the source and other activities of resistance that develop from the content of the message. The process of dissociation is explained by social cryptoamnesia: what was originally considered different is gradually constructed as an alternative (Perez, 1995). The Europeans absorbed the message of Islam while dissociating from the Muslims and even hating them.

    A person can be affected by influence whether directly or indirectly. However, if one is not aware of the influence, the influencing ideas could be taken as one's own while disregarding where the original idea came from. Social cryptoamnesia explains that thoughts and ideas that challenge or shock are stored in latent memory without retaining the ownership of the idea. Ideas that were supposedly forgotten have reappeared in the person's mind as his or her own belief or thought. This major attitude change takes place when the zeitgeist has changed. In history, exposure to other cultures have changed the attitudes of society, and the attitudes of society have changed the personal opinion of the majority in that society. Although such influence may not affect a person immediately, one's beliefs and behaviours may change over time due to social cryptoamnesia.”

    We’re not aware of changing our minds even when we do change our minds. And most people, after they change their minds, reconstruct their past opinion

    — they believe they always thought that. (Daniel Kahneman)

    The lack of acknowledgment of Islam’s influence on ideas that led to the banning of slavery is not proof that it had no influence. The proof is in the fact that Europe’s renaissance is built on ideas from Islamic civilization and taking the same a step further and in the fact that Islamic civilization presented a stark contrast to the European civilization giving them many new ideas to mull over and absorb. The Europeans studied every idea that made Islamic Civilization great and took the same ideas further.

    GM sb is however a slave and blind believer of western scholarship and if this scholarship has failed to give credit to Islam, he also vehemently denies it. He is the quintessential brown sahib, and the reason why Muslims resist western education seeing what such education has done to people like him. There are very few who can think independently.

    (4) The Quran does not make a distinction between Kafir and Mushrik.

    GM sb may clarify his position. Is he saying that all the Mushrikin are Kafir according to the Quran? He is on record having having flipped-flopped many a time on this question. What is his latest take on the question?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/24/2018 1:40:05 AM



  • Naseer sahib imputes that I had implied "any random destructive force or fire can cause a high rise building to collapse along the path of the greatest resistance."

    What I had said was the exact opposite of what he says. Two passenger planes loaded with jet fuel crashed into the World Trade Center causing a massive explosion, a massive fire and total collapse. Did I say that every time a jet flies into a building, the same result would  occur? I did not say that because I do not know if it would occur. All I know is that it did occur on 9/11.

    What is impossible to comprehend is a conspiratorial mega-plot in which the buildings were expertly planted with super explosives which would go off exactly when two jet planes hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists crashed into the building! If you can believe that I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell to you at a very attractive price!

    Naseer sahib is a very well educated and intelligent man and yet he believes the following:

    (1) Man is not capable of generating moral precepts. All moral precepts are of divine origin only.

    (2) Islam was largely instrumental in abolition of slavery.

    (3) The Quran, if correctly read, makes clear and consistent distinctions between kafir and mushreek.

    (4) 9/11 was the result of a vast and extremely elaborate conspiracy that only the conspiracy enthusiast can comprehend.

    I do not want to re-argue those points again. In fact I would much rather close this thread. But one question that arises is whether credulity is an independent variable unrelated to education and intelligence. I do not know the answer.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/23/2018 12:18:11 PM



  • Oh really? What does GM sb comprehend? That any random destructive force or fire can cause a high rise building to collapse along the path of the greatest resistance (the path for a building to collapse on its own footprint, is the path of the greatest resistance)? This is impossible even as a coincidence and for all three buildings to collapse in this manner is truly the mother of all miracles! He has no idea how foolish such thinking is – ignorance is bliss for him!

    The mafia is an example of an organisation that can keep its secrets and commit crimes with impunity. The US government uses contractors to do its dirty jobs. The contractors build mafia like organizations as far as maintaining secrecy is concerned to carry out the dirty jobs for the government. Outsourcing solves the problem of maintaining secrecy.

    How is the government’s mafia financed? One day before 911, Donald Rumsfeld talked about unaccounted expenses of $2.3 trillion spent by the Pentagon. The next day, the building housing the accounts department of Pentagon was destroyed by an “aircraft” crashing into it and nobody heard further about the unaccounted expenses of the Pentagon! If the money spent on the contractors who do the dirty jobs was ever audited, the government would be hard pressed to justify it.  

    Just hear two retired US army Generals speak on the subject of 911:

    Major General Albert Stubblebine is credited with redesigning the U.S. Army intelligence architecture during his time as commanding general of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) from 1981 to 1984. Here him speak on the subject:

    youtube.com/watch?v=VqKzaf6xYRc

    General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.

    youtube.com/watch?v=B3B5xzApMZg

    The physics part is very well explained in the video below, with practical demonstration of what is possible and what is impossible

    youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

    CNN News  broadcast on the 28th June 2001 (11 weeks before the attack)a story claiming that its reporter with camera crew got into Osama’s secret hideouout  and interviewed him and based on this interview, said that within 3 weeks, Oasma was going to attack the US and Israel. Bill Cooper another broadcaster warned the same day, that “whatever is going to happen, they will blame it on Osama, and don’t you even believe it”!

    Bill Cooper was shot dead less than two months later on Nov 5, 2001 by police officers.

    Susan Lindauer, a CIA asset says in the video, that between August 23rd  to about September 02, trucks were seen arriving at the WTC at 3 AM after the janitorial trucks had left and leaving at 5 AM before people started arriving. They tried convicting Susan Lindauer on various charges of espionage and treason failing which; they declared her a nut case!

    David Chandler, retired physics teacher analyses the collapse of WTC 1 with visual evidence. He shows clear evidence of corner columns being cut with “cutter charge” or explosives.

    John Gross leading engineer for NIST  says Steel did not melt.

    Yes, it cannot melt from the fire alone but only with explosives.

    Kathy McGrade, Metallurgist, shows clear evidence of molten steel

    Steven Jones, physicist – evidence of nano thermite used as explosive for cutting the steel. Demonstration of how thermite cuts steel. Government experts claimed that thermite cannot cut steel

    Danny Jowenko, Explosive expert

    Donald Rumsfeld – Pentagon cannot account 25% of its expenses. Cannot account for 2.3 Trillion dollars

    youtube.com/watch?v=vVhsSH4yBa8

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/23/2018 4:55:15 AM



  • Was it a demolition job to start with, or was it an indiscriminate act of violence and destruction typical of what terrorists do? Was the perfect demolition a result beyond their wildest dreams? 

    In any case a conspiracy on a scale that Naseer sab envisages is incomprehensible and a result of a sick fantasy. Not a single reputable investigative journalist or security expert has joined the conspiracy theory crowd!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/20/2018 12:28:03 PM



  • That the public has believed in the mother of all miracles of not one, but three WTC buildings, collapsing to the ground on their foot-print, in the manner of a perfectly executed job of controlled demolition, and not in the manner of a demolition job gone awry as it should have been,  is hardly surprising. The government went about its business taking the gullibility of the people for granted. To crown it all, WTC7 was not even hit by a plane, and it is the only building in the world, that collapsed because of an office fire, if are to believe what we are told! To uncover the falsehoods takes very little knowledge, but even this very little knowledge is too much for most people. The government knows this and cynically makes use of this weakness.

    Behavioural economists and evolutionary psychologists have demonstrated that most human decisions are based on emotional reactions and heuristic shortcuts rather than on rational analysis. Not only rationality, but individuality too is a myth. People rarely think for themselves. Rather, they think in groups.

    People think they know a lot, because they treat knowledge in the minds of others and in the books as if it were their own. This is the illusion of knowledge. We rely on the expertise of others for most of our needs. This is the result of extreme specialization facilitated by globalization. We consume very little of what we produce and most of what we consume, is produced by others. Most people know very little beyond what they produce. We have progressed as a civilization by developing the ability to place our trust in others and cooperate with them. From an evolutionary perspective, trusting in the knowledge of others has worked extremely well for us

    This condition of the people – inability to think for themselves from lack of knowledge and their complete reliance on groupthink placing their trust in experts, is cynically exploited by the powerful government supported by the media and the establishment experts. The gullible public unsurprisingly consumes whatever the government backed by its crony “experts” produces. After all, they put their trust in the government by voting it to power, and they would not like to appear stupid by being proved wrong. To distrust the government or their parents or other loved ones is extremely painful for people, and they will rather believe in delusional myths, than face the truth.

    “Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.”
    Michael Parenti, American political scientist, historian and culture critic.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/20/2018 7:05:50 AM



  • Conspiracy theorists will never understand that carrying out such a grand, megalomanic and surreptitious a plot as a 9/11  "controlled demolition" fraud  would be the greatest miracle in the history of the world! Well, let them believe what they want to believe! I do not want to waste any more of my time on this.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/19/2018 12:14:28 PM



  • Washington can lie as long as they wish and admit the truth or declassify the information kept secret whenever they wish.
    How could they keep lying about WMDs even  after having invaded and occupied Iraq and not found any?
    It is easy to lie and make the gullible public believe in the lies for even millenniums. Haven't many myths from religion survived for several millenniums?
    GM sb has flipped from calling official lies "conspiracy theory". It is an old habit of his.
    Watch the video and see for yourself how the official liars make a fool of themselves by contradicting each other.
    youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM
    Every theory has a flaw except the truth which is a controlled demolition.
    Only a miracle can make a building hit by a plane come down in the manner of the most perfectly engineered and executed controlled demolition. We may as well start believing in miracles! By Naseer Ahmed - 9/19/2018 1:54:29 AM



  • For anyone to carry out an implosion or deliberate demolition of two of the best guarded towers in Manhattan and to keep it a secret for 16 years is an impossibility. Neither the U.S. government nor any other world entity is that efficient. Washington could not keep secret either the Pentagon Papers or the absence of WMD's in Iraq or CIA's ouster of Mossadeg. 

    But these conspiracy theories will persist. It is a big business. Some creators of conspiracy theories have become very rich. People who are taken in by conspiracy theories abound in every country. As P.T.Barnum reportedly said, "There is a sucker born every minute".
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/18/2018 1:01:22 PM



  • Height of columns 1362 feet and not as incorrectly stated in my previous comment as 362 feet.
    A collapse caused by an accident would look like one of the poorly executed demolitions as in the video below:
    youtube.com/watch?v=3ptuCpOxT7o
    Also look at some of the better executed demolitions. in the following video:
    youtube.com/watch?v=XUBhHuHcOJM
    You will not find a more perfect job than the WTC job when a disaster caused by the crash should have looked like a poorly executed demolition if at all the buildings came down because of it! By Naseer Ahmed - 9/18/2018 3:49:23 AM



  • Implosion normally refers to a controlled demolition technique. However, this theory has also been forwarded to explain the collapse. The collapse of a floor drew the outer columns inward causing an implosion is how they try to explain. It is a strange theory. The collapse of one floor was enough to cause an implosion while the remaining 109 floors could not prevent it! Even if such an impossible event did take place, you would still have the 59 columns 362 feet high in one piece collapsing on the neighbouring buildings and not breaking into hundreds of smaller pieces and collapsing in a heap on the footprint of the building. The difference between a controlled demolition and an unplanned collapse caused by a disaster is precisely in the way the building collapses.

    Large buildings, are destroyed by building implosion using explosives. This is very fast—the collapse itself only takes seconds and it is as fast as a free fall—and an expert can ensure that the structure falls into its own footprint, so as not to damage neighboring structures.  A dangerous scenario is the partial failure of an attempted implosion. When a building fails to collapse completely the structure may be unstable, tilting at a dangerous angle.

    The worst that could have happened to the WTC building is that the top floors above the floor that was hit, tilting. Nothing can cause the steel columns to break in smaller pieces except cutting them with oxy acetylene torch with temperature of 3773 degrees centigrade which takes considerable time, or faster with explosives.  Just try cutting structural steel by a fire caused by aviation fuel or kerosene.  No amount of burning will have any significant effect as the temperature will never cross 300 degrees centigrade. Steel loses half its strength only at 600 degrees. Also, the fire affected only a few floors and not the entire building and only for an hour before the edifice crumbled.  A controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation else what explains the floors unaffected by fire crumbling as they did?

    The WTC collapse, is the most perfect example of a controlled demolition and nothing else can explain the very orderly collapse on its own footprint in just a few seconds (in exactly the time that it takes an object falling through thin air from the top of the building hitting the ground) without leaving any part of the building standing or any of the 59 steel columns 360 feet long not cut into hundreds of pieces. A steel column may be melted completely (only theoretically because this is practically impossible) but how can it get cut into several pieces? Only by cutting them with oxy acetylene torches (very slow process) or explosives (extremely fast) as in a controlled demolition.

     It is a waste of time to discuss anything with GM Sb. He goes by groupthink on every subject - not this alone, since he lacks the skills and knowledge to think for himself. In this case, it may not even be groupthink but group position. The group of American Muslims kowtowing to their new masters can only faithfully parrot the official lies.  

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/18/2018 1:10:46 AM



  • They did not use any "unbelievable skills" on 9/11 to "implode" the World Trade Center. They flew two passenger planes full of jet fuel straight into the twin towers. How much skill does that take?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/15/2018 11:31:27 PM



  • The term Free-fall and Implosion is often juxtaposed. It is highly technical, scientific, engineering and art skill of using explosives to collapse a tall building in controlled manner on the ground in sequence to fall within its own footprint.

    In 1988 two years before 9/11 al Qaida or its affiliates claimed to have bombed the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dares-salaam; the softest targets in the world for them at the time. The damage there to the buildings could hardly be said as skilfully carried out but the loss of lives of the innocent citizens was phenomenal in comparison!

    So just in short period of time, for them to belatedly claim to have acquired the unbelievable skills to accomplished 9/11, seven seas away can only be accepted by those who believe that Moses miraculously split the Red Sea just by hitting it with his walking stick, the Rod/A'saa.

    By Skepticle - 9/15/2018 6:42:10 PM



  • Naseer saheb should send to the U.S. government his proposal for an experiment to prove his conspiracy theory regarding 9/11.
    He says that the video in which Osama bin Laden gloats over his success in bringing down the World Trade Center is fake!
    Such conspiracy theorists abound on the internet. Talking to them is a waste of time.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/15/2018 1:20:14 PM



  • GM Sb says “By the way the best explanation for the free fall of the World Trade Center was given by Osama bin Laden himself in a videotape which Naseer sahib should see if he has not seen it already. As you know Osama was an engineer.

     That is a lie. Can GM sb provide the proof? Where is the need for Osama to explain the free fall? If at all, he may have liked to take credit for the attack to bolster his image and go along with the official story which was giving him full credit for the attack and the collapse. Stop fooling around GM sb!

    The videos/audios of Osama however appear to have been fabricated en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden

    but this is beside the point. The attack on WTC is a fact, and what is being discussed is not who did it, but whether the plane crashing into the building could have caused the buildings to collapse in the manner of a free fall as they did, or whether such a collapse is possible only by a controlled demolition. If could have been caused by only a controlled demolition, then the plane crashing into the building although true, is only a red herring to camouflage the controlled demolition.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/15/2018 3:23:22 AM



  • Apparently, even school level physics is beyond GM sb . The experts in the video and I have talked about the lies in the official report to explain the WTC collapse which the US government and its loyal supporters such as GM dismiss as “Conspiracy theory”.   

    youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

     There is a very simple way for the US government to settle the question if they are telling the truth. High rise buildings are demolished every now and then. For the next high rise building they plan to demolish, let them create the same situation by stocking a floor with as much aviation fuel as the plane that crashed into the WTC had or even more, and hitting this floor with a missile to create an identical or even much greater physical impact and show to the world why their WTC story is not a lie. This is feasible but the US government will never allow it as their lies will stand exposed.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/15/2018 2:02:09 AM



  • I am not going to waste my time answering Hats Off's rubbish post. His unrelenting hate war against progressive Muslims has driven him batty. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/14/2018 1:28:38 PM



  • Naseer saheb is still talking of "conspiracies" of the Western powers when hundreds of articles published to criticize the Viet Nam war, the Iraq war and the Afghan war have hardly any use for that term. "Conspiracy theorists" however is not a phrase applied to Western powers but to those who  believe in crazy and bizarre schemes to explain incidents such as  9/11. Naseer sahib did bring up his 9/11 conspiracy theory, but since he knew he would be shot down, he completely dropped 9/11 and has been dwelling on Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan instead, claiming that the word "conspiracy" properly describes those events. 

    Now he comes back with his "free fall" theory of 9/11 once again. He had mentioned other buildings which were bombed or set on fire but did not have a free fall. How many of those buildings were inundated with jet fuel at the same time they were attacked or set on fire? The passenger jets that flew into the World Trade Center had just started their flights, hence were loaded with jet fuel. But giving such explanations to conspiracy theorists is a waste of time.

    By the way the best explanation for the free fall of the World Trade Center was given by Osama bin Laden himself in a videotape which Naseer sahib should see if he has not seen it already. As you know Osama was an engineer.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/14/2018 1:24:32 PM



  • mr. ghulam mohiyuddin is a highly moderate individual with much to be moderate about.

    frinstance, knowledge, understanding, islamic thingammajig, nonsense, and a hole lot of other thingies such as as relevance. but his vocabulary would put a norman lewis to shame.

    he is of very, very moderate relevance. not only that - he is very moderate in knowledge, understanding, significance and others such parameters.

    perhaps the rarest quality of "moderates" the capacity to talk honestly.

    they will invade friendly countries and prop up hard core islamists and make inane one-liners that completely lose it - all the while why the locals just are sick of them.

    on the fifth hand, mr. naseer ahmed is also very moderate. in scholarship, in honesty and in straight talking. his forte is market, research, null and hypothesis in that order.

    so their bout is as interesting as it is trivial.

    according to the second moderate, no non-muslim is a kuffar (or whatever rot he is always saying without a single "moderate" islamic scholar agreeing with him).

    so much for his wannabe arabicism. but because he has a college degree we should remember that a cauliflower is just a cabbage with a college education.
    By hats off! - 9/14/2018 6:56:18 AM



  • In my comments, there is an implicit assumption that GM sb understands the meaning of “free fall” and its implications, since this involves knowledge of only school level physics, but I may be wrong. Not everybody who has gone through school has mastered the school subjects. He may genuinely have difficulty understanding why no building in the world can collapse in the manner of the WTC buildings, with the speed of free fall, except when brought down through “controlled demolition”.

    In such a case, my apologies to him.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/14/2018 3:41:26 AM



  • GM sb as usual, is blaming others for what he himself describes and dismisses as a conspiracy theory!

    By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/8/2018 6:59:04 PM comment does not use the term “conspiracy theory” but GM responds by saying “Nawaz sahib spins an intriguing conspiracy theory but does not present any evidence to support it.By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/8/2018 11:16:05 PM

    My comments in response By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 3:52:32 AM  point out that the official story is not the complete truth without using “conspiracy theory”. My next comment on the same subject By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 3:52:32 AM

    also does not use “conspiracy theory”

    Also, the experts who speak in the video:

    youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    are not talking about any conspiracy, but about the official lies of what caused the three WTC buildings (one of which was not even hit by a plane) to collapse in the manner they did, with the speed of free fall. This they explain is possible only in a controlled demolition, and never by a fire, no matter how intense, or by a plane crashing into a building.

    It is those like GM sb, who oppose the truth, who call all such attempts to refute the official version, a conspiracy theory. To call exposure of lies a conspiracy theory and dismiss it, is the tool of the propagandists and purveyors of political falsehoods.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/14/2018 3:12:09 AM



  • Hats Off is a sore loser and is still carrying on with his inane prattle.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/13/2018 1:24:24 PM



  • Naseer saheb,
    If you want to call wars of aggression launched on false premises "conspiracies" feel free to do so. In my view they were evil wars and calling them conspiracies does not in anyway amplify our denunciation of them. I may call Hitler the most evil person in the history of the world but Naseer saheb would still upbraid me for not calling Hitler a "conspirator"!  He carries on his arguments without knowing what he is arguing about.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/13/2018 1:19:53 PM



  • how can mr. ghulam mohiyuddin forget that mr. naseer ahmed is a "moderate"? just like mr. ghulam mohiyuddin himself. By hats off! - 9/13/2018 4:50:04 AM



  • The dictionary meaning of conspiracy: 

     a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. The action of plotting or conspiring. synonyms:plot, scheme, stratagem, plan, machination, cabal;

     In the case of Iraq, the secret plan was to create a pretext for waging war against it. The US and its allies did so by first falsely accusing Iraq of possessing WMD followed by sham investigations, and finally by waging war.  It was a conspiracy between the US and its NATO allies. The secret plan was to wage war and not find and destroy WMDs which they knew did not exist and it was a conspiracy involving several countries but mainly the US and the UK.

     Until the lies unraveled, and the falsehood became indefensible and the truth widely acknowledged, any talk that the US and the UK had conspired to wage war on false pretexts, was only a conspiracy theory since it was denied by the conspirators, who took the moral high ground that they were ridding the world of WMDs in the hands of a dictator.

     There are therefore conspiracies which have been proved by nailing the lies and accepted as such by the perpetrators and there are conspiracies proved but denied by the conspirators and false conspiracy theories. In the case of 911, since a conspiracy is not admitted, it only enables those who are bent on ignoring the evidence and denying the truth to do so. GM Sb can therefore to turn a blind eye to the evidence and deny the truth. It is impossible to make someone who has no concern for the truth, but on the other hand allegiance to the conspirators, to admit an inconvenient truth!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/12/2018 11:38:24 PM



  • Naseer saheb's facility in using words like jihad, kafir, hypocrite, liars and "conspiracy theory" make him a fighter for truth! People who really fight for the truth never have any need to use such words.  A prerequisite of Naseer sab's version of fighting jihad is that he throw insults and try to defame anyone who disagrees with him!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/12/2018 4:50:39 PM



  • Naseer saheb,
    Neither the Iraq war nor the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a conspiracy. They were  deceitful  and were based on lies. Applying the word "conspiracy" to them is your own retort to my questioning your bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theory, The attack on Afghanistan was launched in response to the 9/11 attack.  As a 9/11 conspiracy theorist you may see it as part of a grand conspiracy! I shall leave you to your fantasizing. It is almost impossible to cure a conspiracy theorist!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/12/2018 11:42:33 AM



  • Jihad is not simply fighting wars. It is also standing up for the truth and the one who does not, is by definition a hypocrite.
    One can fight for the truth with his pen and that is also Jihad.
    One can fight against the truth and defend false political positions and that is hypocrisy.
    Jihad is a part of every honest person's daily life and hypocrisy a part of every liars daily life. By Naseer Ahmed - 9/12/2018 2:19:08 AM



  • Conspiracies admitted to or completely exposed are lies, but conspiracies not admitted to, or those that continue to be denied, are simply crazy and unsubstantiated! That is as hypocritical as anyone can get.

     It was a conspiracy of the US and its allies to wage war on Iraq on the false pretext of possession of WMDs, and before this lie was completely exposed, it was only a theory. So also, the Tonkin incident. They also needed a pretext to attack Afghanistan. From the past record of the US and its history of interventions, if there is a motive for the US to wage war, the US finds the pretext or creates one. Maybe a hundred years from now, the US government may come clean on the truth as they did about the Tonkin incident.  Till such time, the likes of GM sb, can bury their heads in sand, and keep saying that is “a crazy theory”. If he had an open mind rather than taking a stubborn political stand in support of his adopted country, he would find plenty of evidence and expert opinions from physicists, architects, engineers, demolition experts and experts in fighting building fires. GM sb is not a truth seeker. He is a political animal. Who else can dismiss all the expert opinions as crazy?

    youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/12/2018 2:02:28 AM



  • Naseer saheb,
    Claims of WMD's in Iraq were a lie, not a conspiracy theory.
    The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie, not a conspiracy theory.
    Both lies were quickly caught and dismissed. But the conspiracy theories seem to go on and on for ever!
    By the way, you are back to your ad hominem tricks when you called me Uncle Tom. Try to rise a little above that level!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/11/2018 12:57:58 PM



  • Nawaz saheb,
    A thousand articles have been written about the correct meaning of the terms jihad and kufr and yet they continue to be used injudiciously. Why do we need those terms today? Are you and I going to fight in any just holy wars? Are you and I going to call each other kafirs? Does defining and redefining these terms increase one's claim to being a scholar or aalim? Why does a religion of peace need such terms anyway? Our habit of calling others kafir makes it easy for us to throw other terms at people who have a different opinion such as "hypocrite"! When will this charade stop?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/11/2018 12:45:29 PM



  • Reproducing the complete section on the meaning of kufr since people have a tendency to pick up only a part and claim that to the whole.

    Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr

      By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

    25 Feb, 2015

     There are two dimensions to kufr:

    1.         Kufr relating to man, society, the world or the temporal dimension

    2.         Kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension

    Kufr relating to the temporal dimension

    The Quran recognizes certain human rights:

    1.         Right to belief and pursuit of one’s beliefs without obstruction or persecution

    2.         Sanctity of life and property

    3.         Mutual rights and responsibilities emanating from commonly accepted norms of civil society, agreements, contracts and the laws of the society in which one lives.

    Kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension

    The Quran also recognizes the “Rights of God”

    The spiritual dimension is covered by the scriptures which inform the believer about his covenants with God and the duties and responsibilities emanating from these.

    The believer invites a nonbeliever to become a believer and accept these covenants and become the recipient of divine blessings and guidance, showing gratitude for the blessings of God and fulfilling his part of the covenant by conducting his affairs in accordance with the guidance provided in the scriptures.

    Besides God’s blessings common to all, God is “shaa’ker” (giver of thanks) which God does through His rewards for the acts of man that are for pleasing God. Man is required to reciprocate with `Shukr’ (giving thanks) through worship and acts that please God such as spending on charity. For the sins of man against God, his reckoning is with God alone, who will punish him in the hereafter.

    With reference to God, a non-believer

    1.         Is guilty of kufr if he rejects the “truth” out of envy, insolence, arrogance rather than for lack of required evidence or conviction.

    2.         He becomes a kafir after the truth becomes manifest to him where his mind and heart acknowledges the “truth” and yet he rejects it.

    And a believer is guilty of kufr if he violates the prohibitions and injunctions in the scriptures.

    Punishment for kufr

    A violation of the rights of man and/or God is kufr.

    The Quran prescribes hadd punishments only for kufr in the temporal dimension. Kufr in the temporal dimension is also kufr in the spiritual dimension but not vice versa.

    Hadd punishments for kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension are not prescribed in the Quran as that would violate the right of conscience that the Quran clearly grants to man.

    Some forms of Kufr may appear to stride both the dimensions - for example, an apostate who turns hostile and carries on activities harmful to a section of the society or the state. Such a person can be punished for the harm that he has caused or can potentially cause but not for apostasy. Apostasy is merely incidental and irrelevant to the case as apostasy is not kufr in the temporal dimension.

    Usury, if it does not contravene laws of the land, will only be kufr in the spiritual dimension. Through legislation, usury could be made a punishable offence since it is injurious to man as well but it is not hadd. Legislating punishments for kufr related to the spiritual dimension alone, violate the freedoms granted to man by the Quran and is kufr.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/11/2018 1:36:58 AM



  • My pervious comment contains my definition of Kafir as it pertains to beliefs.

    For the full definition, read both the articles.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/11/2018 12:30:44 AM



  • Yes, GM sb, you are a Muslim version of Uncle Tom who believes only in the official version as the truth although the US government's conspiracies and lies in other cases have been nailed. Have you forgotten the Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2013 speech at the U.N., showing charts of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs? No weapons like that were ever found among his stockpiles even after the Iraq War, which claimed thousands of American and millions of Iraqi lives. Every proven case was only a conspiracy theory before it was accepted by the whole world as the truth. There were many other cases in the past proved many years later from de-classified documents. To mention one such other case:
    The Gulf of Tonkin incident is an example where the U.S. military used a supposed attack by the North Vietnamese on the American naval ship “Maddox” on August 2nd, 1964, as a pretext for escalating the country’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The only problem - no such attack ever happened, according to even to the former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. By Naseer Ahmed - 9/11/2018 12:20:12 AM



  • My definition of Kafir first published in NAI. This has remained unchanged.

     Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr

     By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

    25 Feb, 2015

     With reference to God, a non-believer

    1.         Is guilty of kufr if he rejects the “truth” out of envy, insolence, arrogance rather than for lack of required evidence or conviction.

    2.         He becomes a kafir after the truth becomes manifest to him where his mind and heart acknowledges the “truth” and yet he rejects it.

     Revisiting the Meaning of Kafir

     By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam

    27 December 2017

     Those who are Kafir for their rejection of belief, are not those who have not accepted “belief” or the “disbelievers” or those who are sinners in their personal life, but the active enemies of the people of good faith, their oppressors and persecutors and enemy of God like Satan.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/10/2018 11:52:46 PM



  • Dear Mr. Mohyiuddin,
    Let me refer you to the following few lines from my article "Quranic Concept of Jihad" Published in the Daily Sun, Dhaka on 17.03.2017 and 24.03.2017:
    "Unflinching support for the good and uncompromising struggle against the evils and evil forces at social, national and international levels as per the instructions of the Holy Qur’an is Jihad. Allowing evil forces to continue with their misdeeds without protest and resistance in worldly life, is tantamount to fleeing back from the field of Jihad, and certainly is an act of hypocrisy.---------The conspiratorial activities of enemies of Islam sow the seeds of discord and disunity within Muslim community and instigate violence through their agents in the name of Jihad to serve their economic and geopolitical interests.
    This is what has happened and is still happening in Afghanistan, Middle-East, Africa, Europe, America and South-Asia- practically, all over the world. The history is the greatest witness as to who is behind all these crimes." 
    This is the whole geo-political scenario of the modern world  But the  the traitors and hypocrites amongst  us squarely blames the Holy Quran and recommend elimination of the terms "Jihad" and "Kufr".
    Thank you  Mr. Mohyiuddin, I would rather suggest the so-called moderate people like you   to re-write the Holy Quran [Naujubillah] in the interest of their Corporate Masters !!!.
    You have correctly coined the lexicon " Moderacy, thy name is hypocrisy"!!
    thank you
    By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/10/2018 11:18:29 PM



  • Naseer sahib now says, "Rejection of belief is an act and is kufr and the one who rejects is therefore a kafir." He has expanded on his previous definition of kufr. The obsession of some Muslims with "kufr" is pathological and diabolical. I continue to believe that words like 'kafir' and 'jihad' should be eliminated from our lexicon. They are obsolete concepts and only hold us back and make many of us fanatics. By Ghulam Mohiyuddin Faruki - 9/10/2018 1:12:26 PM



  • Nawaz saheb,
    When ISIS or the Taliban kill innocent men, women and children and call all moderate and sane Muslims 'kafirs', what "other side of the picture" do you think would excuse such behavior?
    If the only answer to Western imperialist aggression is a revival of the evil Khawarij ideology, that is cowardly and un-Islamic and must be rejected by all Muslims.
    The article says, "an increasingly high number of people now take the manipulations as truth, radicalizing themselves, embracing jihad, and becoming fascinated and indoctrinated by terrorist propaganda that promises salvation of the soul and access to paradise to those who embrace the "true way" or the "true Islam"."
    Do you disagree with that?
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin Faruki - 9/10/2018 1:01:43 PM



  • Naseer sahib,
    Your conspiracy theories about 9/11 etc. do not deserve a reply. I am not and never have been a conspiracy theorist. The harm done to the Muslim world by western imperialists is gross enough and obvious enough and does not need any spicing up with crazy  unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin Faruki - 9/10/2018 12:41:48 PM



  • Shahin Sb,

     A believer can be a kafir but a Muslim can never be a kafir because the very meaning of Muslim is that he acts in accordance with Allah's commands. Kufr is to do with what you do and not with what you believe.

     Rejection of belief is an act and is kufr and the one who rejects is therefore a kafir. Being a disbeliever is a state and not an act, and by itself not kufr nor does it make the person kafir. As long as someone has not rejected belief in a single God after his inner self has acknowledged the truth and does not actively oppose such belief, he is not a kafir. The presumption of our theologians that every disbeliever is a kafir, is a presumption that every disbeliever has rejected belief after having been convinced of the truth which is false.

     The Quran addresses various audiences but never the Muslim because they are by definition those who bow to Allah in Islam and not in need of instructions and warnings. The Quran addresses the believers trying to make a Muslim out of them and warning them about the behaviors that will make them kafir such as consuming usury, "shirk", niggardliness, giving charity only to show off, or charity accompanied by insult. There are therefore essentially three behaviors that make a believer a kafir - "shirk", consuming usury, not giving charity gracefully.

     A disbeliever may be a mushrik and still not be a kafir while a believer who commits shirk is a kafir. This is because "shirk" is merely prohibited to the Mushrik but an unforgivable sin for the believers. Similarly, a believer may violate a prohibition, but that does not make him a kafir, unless he compounds it by justifying his act and remaining unrepentant.

     Sectarian differences are differences in beliefs without involving "active and deliberate shirk" and cannot make any person a kafir even if a person believes in a prophet after Muhammad (pbuh). The sects indulging in takfir of other sects for their beliefs are barbarians with little understanding of the Quran.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/10/2018 7:25:19 AM



  • Dear Mohyiuddin Sb,
    Sorry, it seems you have failed to grasp the essence of my comment which Mr. Naseer has correctly put forward in his comment.
    Please take note of the last sentence of my comment which clearly contests Writer's partial and one-sided view on manipulation of truth
    "Dear Writer please tell  me frankly whom the article really wants to camouflage behind the Ideological Cover?"
    I have questioned the inherent motive of this article which says
    "All of this contested history of the Takfir concept flows down to our own times.  Al-Qaeda and Daesh both use the ancient concept to justify their goals and their jihadi attacks on Muslims they see as disbelievers, including rulers."
    The writer carefully avoided  the other side of  the picture.
    I think this is enough to prove relevance of the raised issue.  Thanks By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/10/2018 4:20:57 AM



  • Shahin sb,

    There are many people who have never learnt how to pray and just go through with the motions behind the imam nevertheless. I have had non-Muslim friends who fasted with me and prayed with me for a day or two during Ramadhan. They may have meditated or recited their own words of worship or may have only thought to themselves  that they were performing yoga. I didn't ask them what they did.


    They can pray as the Muslims do but not recite the Tashahhud but replace it with something more appropriate corresponding with the state of their belief. They can go through the motions and seek help and guidance with  "Please God, if you exist".

    God assures that if you take one sincere step, God will come nearer by ten steps.

    An agnostic Muslim is any day better than a non-practicing "believer" and the Buddhists can be considered as agnostic Muslims since they sincerely follow a rule based moral code.

    People often ask me how would I have prayed if there were no hadiths. Since congregational prayer is what the Quran asks us to perform, and this is not possible except in the form of a ritual, I simply follow the ritual of the congregation and it makes no difference to me whether the imam is a shia, sunni, Barelvi, Deobandi or whatever. 

    In private also I follow the same rituals as there is no reason why I shouldn't. I of course know the correct way of performing the ritual prayer and can lead the prayers.

    For acts performed as a congregation, ritual is necessary but the differences in rituals of different sects is of no significance unless there is something in their prayer which involves "shirk".

    The congregational prayer is meant to unite people and not divide them and the main purpose of the synchronized ritualistic form is to unite the worshipers in a common bond.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/10/2018 1:28:04 AM



  • GM sb has no answer to the questions posed to him for falsely calling it "spinning an intriguing conspiracy theory". He should think twice before making false accusations. Perhaps he is only trying to score nationalistic brownie points defending his adopted country.

    The article is about manipulations of the truth to achieve political ends and covers only one side and not the other. Nawaz sb’s comment covers the manipulations of the other side which are far more radical and perverse and has killed people in millions. Discussing the other side may be more proper in a separate article than here but that is not what GM said in his comment. He called it "spinning of an intriguing conspiracy theory" in the true manner of a neo-con defender!

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/10/2018 12:08:00 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, how does one establish regular prayers without expressing belief. Would he just go through the motions as probably Mohammad Ali Jinnah did when as Governor General of Pakistan he had to go to a mosque and pray.  By Sultan Shahin - 9/9/2018 8:50:50 PM



  • Nawaz saheb and Naseer saheb,
    We do not need any proofs for the evils of imperialism and neo-imperialism. But here we are discussing takfirism and the fact that it is a weapon used not only by Islamist terrorists but also by our traditionalist and mainstream maulanas and ulama.
    While the Quran may define true Muslims and false Muslims, it does not give any authority to anyone to make those distinctions and to mete out punishments to the false Muslims. Islam has no official clergy. When the Pakistanis go out bombing Ahmedi mosques or when the Taliban and the ISIS thugs go out killing Shias, they think they are carrying out God's wishes! In internet forums,  when someone is about to lose an argument, he or she immediately calls the opposing person "not a true Muslim" or a "kafir"! The discussion of the Khawarij intolerance  and fratricide in this article is very revealing.

    I do not know how American imperialism and its duplicity and corporate and neocon subterfuge got into this discussion. Their behavior is criminal but jihadist terrorism is not the answer. Our duty to condemn and oppose such terrorism is clear and unquestionable. And  let us not forget that those alien aggressors were fully aided and abetted by Muslims. That continues to be the case even today.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/9/2018 1:57:05 PM



  • Nawaz Sahab,A

    Anon-practicing Muslim is an oxymoron. The word Islam means submission and a Muslim is one who submits or practices Islam. A person can be a Muslim but not yet a believer according to the Quran. There is immense wisdom in allowing this as a definition of a Muslim. Belief can precede practice and belief can also follow practice. It is well established by psychological studies that it is far easier to make a person adopt desired behavior but very difficult to change his attitude first, to produce the desired behavior. Organizations therefore work on changing the behavior of their employees and not on changing their attitudes which change automatically over a period. A change in our behavior makes us think about it and reflect on the feelings it generates and if these are positive, it changes our attitude favorably towards the new behavior making it permanent. A person who begins to go to the mosque and pray five times will mix with other Muslims, make friends with some very good people, and will start looking forward to it. Giving charity will produce good feelings. These positive feelings about the new practices will positively orient him towards the new religion affecting his beliefs. There is no requirement that a person must believe first and then practice Islam. This wisdom of the Quran is completely lost in our theology which puts the cart before the horse.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 12:45:34 PM



  • Does GM sb need proof that the charge against Saddam that he possessed WMD was a deliberate lie and a conspiracy between the US and its NATO allies to  create an excuse to wage war on Iraq? What makes him doubt that they similarly created an excuse to attack Afghanistan? Does he have evidence that the official version of the US on 911 is true? Why didn't a much greater fire for a much longer duration not bring down the building in London?

    youtube.com/watch?v=yIpFNbZ_Wro

    Why are the twin towers the only buildings in the world to have collapsed by fires which were not among the worst fires?

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 7:02:53 AM



  •  Dear Mohyiuddin sb,
    Thank you for your response. I neednot spin any conspiracy theory-the Neocons in the Pentagon have already done it as a Geo-political strategy to deal with sovereign nation states and world Muslim Community.
     The history of the 20th and 21st century is replete with corporate crimes all over the world . Bosnia Harzegovina, Central Asia, Afganistan Middle-east and Africa -all bear clear testimony to   such conspiracy and corporate crimes. Does it require any more evidence? Thank you.
    By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/9/2018 6:21:41 AM



  • Nawaz Sahab,

    There is no hypocrisy in making a point with the help of very clear verses of the Quran. My comment brings out the minimum requirement to be considered a Muslim from the very clear verses of the Quran.

    The Quran does not require of the person, in whose heart faith has not yet entered, to say "I believe" but only to say "I accept" and yet accepts him into the fold of Islam, if he "establishes regular prayers and spends in charity". This is the bare minimum requirement to be considered a Muslim. Saying that "I believe" or as we make everyone say "I attest/witness ......" is hypocrisy, unless accompanied by faith/belief and firm knowledge to be in a position to say  "I attest/witness .......". The Quran does not encourage such hypocrisy or testimony by a person who is not in a position to testify, but a truthful  "I accept to follow the tenets of Islam as a Muslim" is enough.

    قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

    (49:14) The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, ´We have submitted our wills to Allah,´ For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."


    Beyond this minimum requirement, a person can progress with both belief and Aamal in gaining nearness to Allah and can say "I believe or I attest" if his belief and knowledge and certainty have grown to an extent that makes it truthful to say so. What is to be avoided are hypocritical lies which our theology forces on us as the minimum requirement to be considered a Muslim when it insists that a person must attest and recite the kalima shahida to be accepted into the fold of Islam.

    Giving testimony in a court of law without direct knowledge  of the truth of what we are testifying, will result in rejection of the entire testimony and being barred from giving further testimony. We however glibly testify to what we cannot know to be the truth but only believe to be the truth. Our Kalima shahihda teaches us to lie glibly. The Kalima as per the Quran is more appropriate. It asks us to say "I believe" and not "I testify/witness".

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 4:26:24 AM



  • It is a fact that the USA is the devil incarnate which has carefully planned to destroy the Muslim world by using its weaknesses. The use of what they call “Islamic fundamentalists” is part of the plan with ideas given by Bernard Lewis who argued that it was very easy to rip apart the Islamic world and balkanize it, by leveraging both “fundamentalism” and sectarian differences. They have succeeded in their plans beyond their wildest dreams because the Muslims turned out to be more stupid than they had imagined.

    The 911 incident was also either staged by them entirely or they made the plan of the alleged attackers, a sub-plan of their own. What is beyond doubt is that the towers could not have come down in the manner they did, only on account of the plane crashing into them, and were brought down through pre-planned controlled demolition. This means that the attack had the US government helping the attackers directly or indirectly unknown to them to camouflage the demolition. They succeeded in fooling the entire Muslim world except their own intrepid seekers of the truth who systematically exposed the fraud.

    Osama could have released a video denying that he had anything to do with it. He was however flattered and was immensely pleased to take the “credit” and remained silent. On the other hand, the American government released a fake video of a look-alike Osama taking credit, to convince their own people, that a war against Afghanistan was justified, because there was a considerable public opinion building up against such a war.

    The Taliban government asked the US government for proof of Osama’s complicity for handing him over to them which the US did not have. The Taliban government could have additionally provided recorded video of Osama denying any part in the attack which would have made their stand justified. They did not do so. The Pakistan government could have raised doubts about the capacity of Osama to carry out such an attack and pointed out to the impossibility of the twin towers crumbling down merely because a plane had crashed into them. They didn’t do it but extended their co-operation to the US in waging the war.

    Yes, the US is waging a carefully planned war but the Muslims are their willing accomplices and even though they may not have had any part in 911, they foolishly took credit for it and by their acts of commission and/or omission guilty.

    There are too many chinks in our ideology and thinking and our people are easily bought over with a few dollars. We can be easily fooled with lies, because we are not inclined to speak the truth either and are easily flattered by the lies. There is no truth, justice or honour in how we conduct our affairs. It is not false propaganda that Pakistan treats its minorities shabbily. It is not falsehood either, that the Gulf countries, deliberately allow expats to overstay illegally, and exploit them as slaves. Saudi Arabia is at the bottom of the heap on the moral scale and prostituted itself to the US/Israel. Pakistan is similar. What is it that the Muslims and the Muslim countries can be proud of today? They can only be proud of their past.

     The travails that we are going through are an opportunity to set our house in order. To pretend that all our woes are inflicted externally, and we have no part in it, will only destroy us completely. 13:11 “……Allah does not change a people´s lot unless they change what is in themselves. But when (once) Allah wills a people´s punishment, there can be no turning it back, nor will they find, besides Him, any to protect.”

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 3:52:32 AM



  • It is a fact that the USA, as a deliberate policy, helped by thinkers such as Bernard Lewis, cynically exploits what they call "Islamic Fundamentalism", to weaken the Muslim countries, and achieve their political agenda starting with giving the erstwhile USSR their Vietnam. The ISIS is also their creation and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are their puppets. The Afghans supporting the US, also sold out to the CIA for a few million dollars.

     It is also a fact, that traditional Islamic scholarship, is powerless to combat the twin menace of the designs of the USA/Israel, and their own extremist brethren, because the ideology common to every sect, is not very much different from the ideology of the extremists.  

    This is covered in several of my articles:

    The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine Plan Allah

     Islam's Relationship With The Rest Of The Word - The Current Problem Of Extremism In A False Ideology And The Antidote From An Authentic Understanding Of The Truly Humanistic Message Of The Quran

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 1:25:26 AM



  • Nawaz sahib spins an intriguing conspiracy theory but does not present any evidence to support it. There may be some elements of truth in it but then we cannot blame western imperialists or  corporate interests for the 7th century takfirism of the Khawarij.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/8/2018 11:16:05 PM



  • Dear Naseer sb,
    I am confused with your comment as I am confused with the article  it self
    "In all the verses, only obedience to the essential tenets of Islam is demanded and not declaration of belief or the testimony of faith"
     Of course,I agree with you  that Allah wants from us obedience to basic tenets of Islam -but this obedience is total and active , and  not partial and passive. but I cannot agree that Allah does not want any evidence from mankind on such obedience. In this connection  I would request you to please  refer to the Quranic verse 47:31 that says :
    "And We shall try you until We test those among you who strive their utmost and persevere in patience;and We shall try your reported (mettle)"
    All our activies are being recorded in time and will be played bach as evidence during the " Day of Judgment"
    I would request you to please make the point clear. Thanks. By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/8/2018 10:48:43 PM



  •  So-called "Takfirism" is a negative trend in ideological domain of Muslim Community.The Holy Quran has its own definitions of "Jihad "and "Kufr" which are clear and simple.The Western Countries and their Corporate Masters are INSTIGATING AND TAKING ADVANTAGE  of this negative trend to create division and disunity amongst Muslim Community and establish a Neo-Conservative World-Order. The So-called Jihadists are agents and slaves of their Corporate Masters harnessed to vilify and create a negative image of Islam amongst world community The so-called Islmic activists like Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi have been trained and reared up by the Jionist and Western Intelligence Agencies. A section of Muslim Intellectuals and thinkers are getting baffled and being misled by high-pitched humdrum of Corporate Propaganda Apparatus.  Now what is the duty of all Islamic countries,Institutions and  honest, sincere and God-fearing Islamic intellectuals and thinkers?  Just to counter Western Conspiracy through all-out circulation of real Quranic teachings on "Jihad and Kufr' and refrain from  putting blames squarely on all Islamic Activists, Imams and Ulamas.. Thanks.
    By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/8/2018 6:59:04 PM



  • When I said "I agree" in my last comment, I was agreeing with K.Fatma sb.
    The Quran does make distinctions between true Muslims and false Muslims but it does not give any of us the authority to make such distinctions. To arrogate such authority to ourselves is to usurp such authority from God. Takfirism has become an unholy game that mullahs play against each other!
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/8/2018 11:48:21 AM



  • I agree. Takfirism is practiced not only by Islamist terrorists. It is a common tactic of our imams and ulama.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/8/2018 11:20:44 AM



  • It's a confusing article likely to create confusion amongst the Muslim community. It has given very little reference to the Quranic verses confirming its principled stand on Imaan  and A'mal  Giving too much emphasis on what scholars say without taking the Holy Quran and Hadith into account is a sinister approach towards creating  an ideological confusion amongst  Muslim community. The Holy Quran is Very clear on Iman  and A'mal.  A’mal  is an essential component and integral part of Iman.  Practising and commanding  anything that is good and resisting whatever evil,  are the fundamental characteristics of a   Believer. There is no doubt about it. Inculcating any conflict between the two will make a hypocrite, but not a Muslim.

    The Holy Quran says:

    “ Let there  arise out of you a band of people  inviting to all that is good. Enjoining what is right,and forbidding what is wrong ; they are the ones  to attain felicity”( Sura Al-i-Imran, Verse 3:104)

    “Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing In Allāh. if only the people of the Book had Faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have Faith, but Most of them are perverted transgressors.” (Sura . Āli-Imrān, 3: 110)

    Al-A’mru –bi- al-ma’rūf wa an-nahy an al-munkar (to call to do good and to prevent from evil deeds), is the central theme of the Islamic call to humans. The term is explicitly found in various places in the Holy Quran.

    ·         Sura Al-ar’af Ayat 157 (7:157),

    ·         ,Sura At-Tawbah Ayat 67 (9:67),  This Verse has explicitly exposesd the character pof the hypocrites.

    ·         Sura Al-Hujj Ayat  41(22:41), the Sura explains the characteristics of Believers that earnestly help the cause of Allah.

    The whole article has been written with a sinister design to hood wink  the real culprit and put the blame on ideological differences amongst the Muslims. Now  I would  like to ask a few questions to the writer:

    1.       Do you think Historical and Geo-political  background of the 21st century is  the  same as was prevailing  during the  reign of Hazrat Ali (R.A)

    2.       Did the past factions emerging  from amongst  the Muslim Community get any external support?

    3.       Who is the Master Mind of the Present day Al-Qaeda and Al Nusra  Terrorist  groups?

    4.       Who gives them logistic support ,money men and material ? Are they Muslims or Enemies of the Muslim Umma?

    In this connection I would  like to draw your kind attention to  my following articles published in the Newage Islam . These are

    a.       Combat Terrorism and Safe-guard Nation state sovereignty. Published on  23.09 2016.

    b.      Facing the Menace of Corporate  Development Models. Published on 16.07.2014

    Please allow me to quote a few lines from these articles;

    Ø  “The Global War on Terror of the Neo-conservatives in U.S administration aims at destabilizing the resourceful geo-politically important sovereign nation states through conspiratorial proxy-war to turn it into a “Failed State” and replace the established National Government with a Puppet Regime to serve their Geo-strategic interests.Global terrorism aims at reverting Historical Laws of Social Development to perpetuate class rule and corporate domination.  It’s a global phenomenon born out of Neo-cons’ strategy for implementing the "Project New American century "(PNAC), an inhuman reactionary endeavour on the part of Neo-conservatives to turn back the Wheel of History. Neo-conservatives’ concept of“ War without Border”,  substantially being  the twenty- first century edition of Leon Trotsky’s theory of “Permanent Revolution”, constitutes the philosophical foundation of so-called “US War on Terrorism” that we encounter to-day.”[ Combat Terrorism  and Safe-guard Nation-state Sovereignty]

    Ø  ”Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, “Intelligence Assets for the CIA” as termed by an Ex CIA Chief, [Ref: America’s War on Terrorism By Mitchel Chossudovsky] was harnessed to overthrow the communist regime in Afghanistan, and is still playing in gloves with US Imperialism in creating grounds for US War of Aggression on the plea of Fighting Terrorism all over the world.

    According to Chossudovsky , the “ war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted $40 billion –a-year American Intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalization is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and US-military industrial complex”

    Dear Writer please tell  me frankly whom the article really wants to camouflage behind the Ideological Cover?


    By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/8/2018 10:59:31 AM



  • Every sect has given its views on the subject and no sect invokes what I consider to be an eternal, inviolable and absolute principle in the verse:

    "Let there be no compulsion in religion"

    Every sect considers the non-Muslims to be Kafir and that it is legitimate to wage war against them and the Kharjites expand the scope of war to include the Muslims who do not conform to their idea of what makes a Muslim. While the Murji’a take a softer stand, they do not categorically rebut the nonsense of the other groups.

    When I criticize the past scholars for their barbarianism and mental incapacity to understand the Quran and their penchant for deliberately distorting the meanings of words and derive their own meanings, I am told that Islamic scholarship of the past was the best there was in the world! Even so, it is stuck to this day where it was, and it amazes me that people even write articles that do not make a distinction between verses containing the law and verses that are merely transactional and one time instructions to deal with a problem as it occurred while the revelations were going on and even though such verses do not violate any law such as the one on no compulsion!

    The debate among the sects about who can be considered a Muslim is also void of evidence from the Quran while the Quran makes this very clear.

    Who Can Be Considered A Muslim?

    Submitting to the Islamic requirement of ritual prayer and giving zakat is the proof Allah demands of a person when he claims to be a Muslim, and this is the proof Allah asks the Prophet to ensure. Allah does not ask for declaration of faith or testimony of faith. In verse 9:5, Allah says that if a person “establishes regular prayers and practises regular charity, then open the way for them (accept them in the fold of Islam)”. This is the bare minimum requirement. There are several other levels that a believer can attain which are described in the Quran, but the common denominator is as described in 9:5.

     (24:53) "Swear ye not; Obedience is (more) reasonable; verily, Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do."

    The testimony of faith is swearing, and Allah forbids swearing and asks instead for obedience and submission to the religion of Islam and performance of deeds

    (60:12) O Prophet! When believing women come to thee to take the oath of fealty to thee, that they will not associate in worship any other thing whatever with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit adultery (or fornication), that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood, and that they will not disobey thee in any just matter,- then do thou receive their fealty, and pray to Allah for the forgiveness (of their sins): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

    In all the verses, only obedience to the essential tenets of Islam is demanded and not declaration of belief or the testimony of faith.

    Proof that Allah does not demand verbal assertion of faith but only obedience

    There came a time when Islam was in the ascendant and people were flocking to it in large numbers without belief/faith entering their hearts. They were admitted by the Prophet to the fold of Islam. Such people, when they said "Amanna” (We believe), they were chided by Allah in verse 49:14 and told that faith had not yet entered their hearts and therefore they should not say that they believe but only say “we have submitted/accepted  (Aslamna)”. They are also assured that if they obey Allah and His messenger, Allah will not belittle any of their deeds for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    What is clear from this verse is that to be considered a Muslim what is required is submission to the requirements of the faith or its tenets. Even a declaration of belief is not required, let alone the testimony of faith! 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 9/8/2018 10:25:03 AM



  • Takfirism is deeply rooted in Muslim community. It looks like someone throwing the ball of Takfir and the other playing with the bat of Takfir. The audience all around the stadium are shouting at every throw and shot. 
    This problem is not limited to Alqaeda or ISIS. It is also found in every sect of Muslim community.
    By K. FATMA - 9/8/2018 7:34:51 AM