Loel,

They (Al Qaeda) are referred to as Islamic Terrorists because that is what they are. They have two primary aims, 1) Remove Western influence from Islamic areas, and 2) Expand the influence of Islam throughout the world. The radical Islamic terrorists are fighting their ”crusade” today, much like the Christians did back in the dark ages. If it were up to Al Qaeda the entire world would be one giant, miserable, Islamic Republic. So it is perfectly reasonable, acceptable AND accurate to call them Islamic terrorists.

By calling them Islamic terrorists, one is not grouping all Muslims in with them, that would be ignorant, naive, and stupid.

Jayaprashanth, I am interested in examples of the US being the ”oppressor”, while I know the US has been far from perfect, they have been the most benevolent world super power or ”empire” if you will in the history of earth. The United States has the capability of pretty well exerting its will anywhere in the world it wants to. It could easily hold on to Iraq as a territory, it could have plowed Mogadishu into the ground in 1993, it could claim by force all the oil producing countries it desired, and it could take over Canada for a friendly land grab if it wanted to. But the US does nothing of that. The borders of the US have not expanded since the 1800’s (to included territories). The US was never much of a colonial power, certainly not on the level of Britain or France. And they are the only country who gets attacked, responds in kind, wins a decisive military battle, removes that countries leadership, then invests billions of dollars, thousands of resources, and troops to stick around to rebuild the country to provide them with a level of security and economic prosperity. The US is not seeking anything more in Afghanistan or Iraq than acheiving more security for the World, and I mean the world. The US will go to bat for their allies and defend them. The reason countries like Canada, Sweden, Australia, Japan, and basically all of the EU can afford to have small and insignificant militaries is because the US is their military and this is largely by choice. The funny thing is most of the US bashers realize that it is precisely the US that provides their freedom or at the least paved the way for their country’s new found economic prosperity. I would love to hear all of your theories about what the world be like if the US withdrew and isolated itself from the rest of the world or if the US just no longer existed. What would the world be like?

Here is what I think, China would become the world’s only super power, they would spread communism around and be free to ignore human rights and freedom. Islamic terrorists would run rampant through weak countries that border the Islamic world and they would start a war in India with the hopes of turning them into an Islamic republic. The Philippines would be over run, Europe would be attacked incessantly and largely the world would fall into chaos.

Now I recognize that America has many, many, many faults and blemishes, but the constant US bashing is getting out of hand. Additionally, I largely support a multi polar world, I don’t want the US to be the lone super power much longer. The world is much healthier when their is a balance of power. But also ask yourselves of the possible world super powers (basically, the US, Russia, and China), who would you choose to be the lone super power? It should be the US any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

By the way, Loel, what is wrong with spying on Iran? Isn’t intelligence gathering and spying internationally accepted? The US should be spying on Iran, they should be spying on China, and Russia and any other country they see fit. Further, Russia, China, Iran, and any other country that sees fit should be spying on the US. Each country has their own interests and people to protect, we don’t live in an idealic utopian dream world. But too many people must think we do.

"Despite the fact I live in the Washington DC area, I don’t feel threatened by Al Qaeda personally."

That is what makes America so dangerous. Terrorists will attack where people suspect the least. A few years back they bombed a nightclub in Bali in Indonesia killing innocent and unsuspecting holiday makers in a Hindu majority region.

Prasad, well argued point.

Loel,I am thrilled with dissent and debate. You can all trash me all you want. At least it gets you all to read my stuff and post comments!.

Now, I agree that the US has many faults, but my overall point is that there is never any appreciation given for what the US has done positive, which is far more than the negative, especially when taken in the context of how the world has progressed in the last 200 years. You are all free to trash America all you want, that is your right and I wouldn’t ever want that taken away from you, no matter where you live, but I think too often that bitterness towards America often blinds people from considering the positives as well.

Overall though, if any country that has the capability of being the only super power could be that, I would want the US and I bet most of you would as well. I certainly wouldn’t want China or Russia in that position. So we’ll take your criticism, your bitterness, and still support your right to feel that way and speak that way. (Although, I’ll be honest, I think domestic US security policy being pushed by Homeland Security Chief Chertoff and the Bush admin at large is kind of scary and they are bordering on going to far in limiting freedoms; with freedom comes risk. I can live with risk, but not without my freedom).

”Cmon... do you really think it was Al Qaeda who brought the twin towers down ???? ”

Loel, seriously? I think that is all I have to say about that.

Ahmad:
”A very few people like Steve realizes that what they are doing is exactly opposite to what Muhammad preached and most of his writings are perversely twisted to justify their actions. ”

I fully recognize this. I am not an ignorant fool when it comes to terrorism and Islam. There is a huge divide between mainstream Islam and the ideology of groups like Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, Al Qaeda is simply a fundamentalist militant Islamic group. They are an Islamic organization. Similarly, though to a much lesser extent, take the example of the fundamentalist Mormons in America. (I am a regular Mormon by the way) They in no way represent LDS theology or mainstream mormonism, but their name, much of their doctrine, and their origin are of a Mormon background. If they started blowing stuff up they would likely be called Mormon terrorists, no matter how inaccurate I thought that was. Also, the Mormon fundamentalists think that the mainstream Mormons are apostate and simply not following the true religion. Al Qaeda feels the same way about traditional Muslims.

Loel, HA! Too bad I don’t drink, not much benefit to me. But I suppose I would be at an advantage as one of the few people who is not drunk!

@Loel

You said:
”Explain to me how the fuel of an airliner can melt several floors of steel and concrete and then cause that to topple perfectly on top of each other, twice. U ever studied physics?”

That’s easy. First off, get it out of your mind that you need to actually melt steel. You don’t. All you need to do is heat it up sufficiently to alter it’s structural integrity, then the building will topple. That’s exactly what demolition crews do, they place charges in strategic, load bearing points in a building, damage them and watch things fall.

So, what would it take to alter the structural integrity of steel? I’ve not actually tested this myself, and never will, but I’ve been told that steel melts at about 1500 C, roughly 2800 F. The Jet fuel used burns at 800-900 C, roughly 1500 F. The cool thing about steel is that it’s very volatile when you heat it up. It actually loses 50% of it’s structural integrity at about 1100 F, it’s been reported by a steel construction labor union that at 1800 F steel loses about 90% of it’s strength.

Looking at at the post 9/11 reports, the jet fuel would have been burning at around 1500 F, but there were also many other things burning, carpet, drapes, papers, all the materials inside the building. The final report stated the fire burned as hot as 1825 F.

Looking at that we see that now the buildings interior structure could be compromised to about 10% of it’s initial capacity. Then you start to think about how we broke all that concrete up inside. That’s also easy, we’ve not melted our steel yet, but it’s blazing hot. Steel on it’s way to melting will twist, bend and sag. Couple that with the expansion due to heat and the concrete begins to crack. So now we’ve compromised the structural integrity of both the concrete and the steel, what else is holding it up? Nothing.

The utility shafts in the middle of the buildings was acting as a conduit for the burning fuel, which meant that the structural integrity of the buildings was being broken from the inside out. Which when it all starts to fall would cause an effect of implosion, the building sides would all crumple towards the middle. Which is what you see happen in the videos.

It’s not just a question of physics, but one of architecture, engineering chemistry and physics. Luckily when they are all put together it makes perfect sense.

Conspiracy theory debunked ;)

@Loel,

Not like you’ll actually read what I say and accept it, your mind is obviously made up. These responses are probably more for the rest of the reader’s benefit rather than yours, but here goes:

(Loel)
”Assuming what you say IS true. Explain to me then why people heard multiple explosions from the basement? Explain to me how the building collapsed onto itself like a controlled explosion? ”
(me)
Cracking floors of concrete, steel joints collapsing on top of each other, all of the noise involved would have been rather loud and created a lot of individual loud events. By the time the noise traveled all the way to the basement a lot of the noise would have been filtered out by all the ’stuff’ in the middle. The higher frequencies would have been filtered out first, which means that in the basement the sounds being heard would all be low rumbles, which would sound like multiple explosions. On the upper floors closer to the actual sources of the noise, it would have sounded much different.

(Loel)
”Surely ’bucking’ and ’swaying’ steel becomes unpredictable and, as a result, should ’collapse’ rather than come into itself the way it did, twice.”
(me)
You’re interjecting commentary, I never said anything about bucking and swaying steel. However, if you re-read what I said about the structure of the building being compromised from the inside out, it would have imploded just as we saw it happen.

(Loel)
”Explain to me how the NY Fire Chief on the 7xth floor at the scene of the collision and with all his experience requested backup and coordinated a rescue in your ’searing heat’ scenario? Unlikely he would put his men in danger like that! and swaying bucking concrete and steel is very easily identifiable wouldnt you say?”
(me)
Calling for men to enter a dangerous situation is exactly what fire chieftains do everyday. Every fire they fight is a dangerous, searing heat scenario. Entering those situations willingly is precisely what makes those firemen heroes.

(Loel)
”Explain to me how in the searing heat no one complained of it or alerted the appropriate authorities. Yes there was fire, but why would a NT Fire Chief ask for hoses to fight an inferno???!”
(me)
1) I think people did complain about heat and alert the authorities, that’s why there was a fire chief up there.....
2) All fires are infernos, and they are all fought with hoses.

(Loel)
”Lastly, explain to me how all those people in the tower (God bless them) were not melted as a direct result of heated steel. It would be worse than sitting in an oven! Meanwhile paper fluttered from both impact holes.”
(me)
I’ll take the second part first:
Papers would have fluttered out of the impact holes, because that’s what happens with explosions. The air around the explosion compresses, then expands rapidly. That expansion would send papers fluttering.

Next, I never said the steel melted. Again, I said it got hot enough to compromise it’s structural integrity. You should really read and re-read that statement until it makes sense before you jump to any conclusions. If you don’t understand that distinction, you’ll never understand anything about what happened in that building (as you don’t seem to now).

Lastly, there were nearly 4000 people that died that day, can you say with certainty that none of them were melted as a direct result of the ’melted steel’?

I didn’t think you could/would say that....