Ground Zero Mosque. Yes or No?

[liquidnumb]

This thread is full of rage and no longer about building a mosque.

 

[BlueStar]

I love the armchair demolitions experts that appear when 9/11 is brought up. "XXXX had never happened before!!!" When was the last time someone deliberately flew a passenger jet, with a completely full tank of fuel, into a huge building with loads of heavy floors above? People are comparing that to normal fires in normal buildings, christ on a jetski.
Yeah, love 'em about as much as you gotta love the armchair pilots. 'Completely full tank of fuel' means one thing and one thing only. Why would two planes, neither even coming close to their full capacity, nor coming close to their maximum flying distance, have 'completely full tanks of fuel'? Quite simply, they wouldn't, especially not Flight 11, a 767-200ER which can fly a distance of nearly three times the planned distance (under optimal conditions, but I seriously doubt the conditions were anything that would warrant carrying almost 3 times the necessary fuel) it was intending to fly. Seeing as how you fail so badly in your first point, why go on? I mean seriously, they were 'completely full' even though those planes were in the air for roughly 47 & 49 minutes? Hmm...pants on head retarded is one way of putting it I guess.

Hi Mr Armchair Pilot. All the flights were setting off to cover a considerable distance and they would have had two full wing tanks (which are kept even for balance) and fuel would be used from the central tank before any fuel was taken out of those two full wing tanks. You can learn more about fuel management here
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagaz...l_textonly.html

Although I have a feeling that you believe Boeing to be run by lizard men and you'd prefer to get your expert opinions from David Icke's forum. For what it's worth Flight 11 was actually a 767-223ER (Although I've no doubt you'll tell me that's just what they want you to think.)

I don't recall anyone mentioning any specific buildings, but what makes the fires of the Towers so different? The fuel you mention? What do you think that huge black cloud was we all saw from both planes when they struck? It was the fuel exploding and being largely (notice I didn't say 'completely'!) consumed (not too efficiently I might add which the black smoke is an indicator of). Ever pour a bunch of lighter fluid onto charcoal without letting it soak in and instead immediately lighting it. Yeah, that doesn't work too well either. So, since we know it's not the fuel that makes the Towers' fires so different, what is it? And whatever you'd like to suggest it is, it better also be applicable to WTC7, which also collapsed after a very short time and a comparitively small fire. So, that would eliminate the planes' impacts, and even the jet fuel. What made that fire so less than normal then?

Your basis for this is experiments done on a barbecue? Oh good, armchair chemist too. Got a good laugh from Rosie O'Donnell on this one too "Fire can't melt steel!" Yeah, that must be a surprise to the people that made the girders in the first place. Here's some questions for you, if these are such "clearly obvious errors" that anyone could plainly see even if they don't have even the slightest clue about aircraft or demolitions, that doesn't really suggest that there's a big powerful conspiracy, does it? Would the lizardmen not have said "Wait, wait, this is the biggest black flag operation ever, lets just go over this and check that there's no big problems like "OMG, jet fuel doesn't do that! The building should have fallen down like a tree!" and adjust out explosive charges and cover story appropriately?

You conspiracy nuts can't even work out why things were wrong or what even happened, half of you think the planes were cover ups and after they hit bombs went off, half of you think missles were fired at the tower, some of you think there were no planes in the first place, at least have a tin-foil hat convention and get your stories straight.

This thread is full of rage and no longer about building a mosque.

On topic alert!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973459
QUOTE

Obama backs 'Ground Zero mosque'
President Obama defends plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York, saying America's commitment to religious freedom "must be unshakable".

 

[p1ngpong]

This thread is spiralling off topic, I don't really want to intervene too much because of my own personal views on 9/11. But please lets just stick to the original discussion. Should a Mosque be built close to the vicinity of ground zero. Lets not have any more futile arguments between the people who believe in the official story and those who do not please. Thats not what this thread is about.

This thread is full of rage and no longer about building a mosque.
On topic alert!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973459
QUOTEObama backs 'Ground Zero mosque'
President Obama defends plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York, saying America's commitment to religious freedom "must be unshakable".

 

[Phoenix Goddess]

You could always lock it.

 

[p1ngpong]

You could always lock it.

Im trying hard to avoid that, I want to see the spectrum of opinion of peoples views on this particular subject and this alone. I don't want to see arguments on what may or may not have happened during the attacks or what may or may not have caused them. That's not what this poll is intended for.

 

[rancor01]

Of course it should be built! Religious freedom and tolerance is what this country was founded on. Its the entire reason that the pilgrims left the U.K... To escape religious persecution, and practice the way they wanted.

For those of you that say no - What would you say to a church being built next to the federal building in Oklahoma city that Tim McVeigh blew up? He was a christian. Is it insulting for a church to be constructed near the place that a christian extremist bombed?

There are still davidian churches around the world - I dont see anyone protesting them since their leader and his followers went up in flames in Waco, Texas.

Hell - The Aum cult that put sarin gas in the Tokyo subways is still around and practicing openly. While they are protested, no one stops them from building their centers of worship and practicing their religion.

What makes muslims/islam any differeny?

 

[Sterling]

Of course it should be built! Religious freedom and tolerance is what this country was founded on. Its the entire reason that the pilgrims left the U.K... To escape religious persecution, and practice the way they wanted.

For those of you that say no - What would you say to a church being built next to the federal building in Oklahoma city that Tim McVeigh blew up? He was a christian. Is it insulting for a church to be constructed near the place that a christian extremist bombed?

There are still davidian churches around the world - I dont see anyone protesting them since their leader and his followers went up in flames in Waco, Texas.

Hell - The Aum cult that put sarin gas in the Tokyo subways is still around and practicing openly. While they are protested, no one stops them from building their centers of worship and practicing their religion.

What makes muslims/islam any differeny?

The stuff in this post is true. Americans however, don't think that way... Hell, I don't even think that way! Geez, I still think it's wrong to put it so close, and the President only supports this because he is Islamic.

*See below post*

 

[TrolleyDave]

The stuff in this post is true. Americans however, don't think that way... Hell, I don't even think that way! Geez, I still think it's wrong to put it so close, and the President only supports this because he is Islamic.

Obama's not a Muslim.

edit : I'll also throw in my 2 pence worth here. While I totally agree that it's their land, their property and can decide what to do with it I do personally find it objectionable. I know it's not at Ground Zero, but it's still close enough proximity to have caused upset. Therefore tact should be used. The building is also being built as an inter-faith community centre. Scrap the Mosque portion of the building and use it solely as an inter-faith community centre. Use it to hold out an olive branch and show that Islam truly is a religion of peace and unity. The Mosque could be built elsewhere, somewhere that's not going to cause offence and grief to those who lost family in the attack.

 

[Sterling]

Okay Trolly, a quick Google proves you're right. Now that I think about it, the news station I watch tells the same. Just proves how much propaganda sticks with you.

 

[liquidnumb]

I'll also throw in my 2 pence worth here. While I totally agree that it's their land, their property and can decide what to do with it I do personally find it objectionable. I know it's not at Ground Zero, but it's still close enough proximity to have caused upset. Therefore tact should be used. The building is also being built as an inter-faith community centre. Scrap the Mosque portion of the building and use it solely as an inter-faith community centre. Use it told hold out an olive branch and show that Islam truly is a religion of peace and unity. The Mosque could be built elsewhere, somewhere that's not going to cause offence and grief to those who lost family in the attack.

First off, I just want to make sure you don't think I'm calling you out in these political threads

. I just know you're going to deliver a tempered response and not fly off the handle.

I want to know what you think about the other two mosques that already exist near ground zero. Should they move those, too?

 

[TrolleyDave]

I'll also throw in my 2 pence worth here. While I totally agree that it's their land, their property and can decide what to do with it I do personally find it objectionable. I know it's not at Ground Zero, but it's still close enough proximity to have caused upset. Therefore tact should be used. The building is also being built as an inter-faith community centre. Scrap the Mosque portion of the building and use it solely as an inter-faith community centre. Use it told hold out an olive branch and show that Islam truly is a religion of peace and unity. The Mosque could be built elsewhere, somewhere that's not going to cause offence and grief to those who lost family in the attack.

First off, I just want to make sure you don't think I'm calling you out in these political threads

. I just know you're going to deliver a tempered response and not fly off the handle.

I want to know what you think about the other two mosques that already exist near ground zero. Should they move those, too?

lol Don't worry, call me out in any political thread you want! I enjoy the discussion and debate.

Aren't those other two Mosques a fair distance away from the 9/11 site though? Like more than just a few blocks?

 

[Sterling]

I want to know what you think about the other two mosques that already exist near ground zero. Should they move those, too?
How close are they? Also can you get the addresses? Two City blocks isn't far enough away, and five or six blocks is a lot better. I am sure they aren't within 5-6 blocks anyway.


QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Aug 14 2010, 10:20 PM) lol Don't worry, call me out in any political thread you want! I enjoy the discussion and debate.

Aren't those other two Mosques a fair distance away from the 9/11 site though? Like more than just a few blocks?

Haha! I see we agree they must be farther away.

 

[liquidnumb]

One is four blocks away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion...que.html?src=mv

 

[Deleted User]

I say yes.

They are protected by the constitution. It allows freedom of religion. They can build it and no one can stop them because they want to build a religious center. There's nothing more American than allowing people to exercise their rights. Others who say no because of their feelings toward Islam are acting against the core values of the United States and are not true Americans. I believe it will be a step forward to strengthening America.

 

[Sterling]

One is four blocks away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion...que.html?src=mv

Wow... Honestly that was founded in 1970, why should something that had been there for over 30 years be moved just because of a tragedy. Something that is trying to force it's way into the vicinity 9 years after something that hasn't been completely healed is just wrong. Seriously, move something that has been there for over 30 years or prevent something before it gets started?

EDIT: I wonder who is funding the building of the mosque?

 

[liquidnumb]

One is four blocks away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion...que.html?src=mv

Wow... Honestly that was founded in 1970, why should something that had been there for over 30 years be moved just because of a tragedy. Something that is trying to force it's way into the vicinity 9 years after something that hasn't been completely healed is just wrong. Seriously, move something that has been there for over 30 years or prevent something before it gets started?

EDIT: I wonder who is funding the building of the mosque?

What's the difference between a mosque that's been there 40 years and one that was built yesterday?

 

[TrolleyDave]

One is four blocks away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion...que.html?src=mv

I don't think they should be shut down or moved. If it was a block or two away I would say the most respectful thing would be to move them if possible. Building a new Mosque near the site is different though. I don't see it as Muslims trying to proclaim a victory or anything daft like that, but I see it as a respect and compassion thing. I'm still a little groggy from being on painkillers all week so it's a little hard to put things as well as I want so you'll have to forgive me if it seems a little incoherent. It's like this, the Twin Towers were attacked in the name of Islam. I know that the terrorists represent a small portion of the Wahabbi followers of Islam, but the fact still remains that it was done in the name of Islam. Building a mosque there, specially within "prayer call" distance, is insensitive. I would object to the building of new Synagogues in Palestine for similar reasons, or if say Shinto priests wanted to build a temple in Pearl Harbour.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

Just like it would be inappropriate to put a sex shoppe right next to an elementary school, I think it would be inappropriate to put any single faith place or worship next to or on ground zero.

 

[liquidnumb]

...or if say Shinto priests wanted to build a temple in Pearl Harbour.

There's one right around the corner.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source...hnear=&z=12

QUOTE(dudeonline @ Aug 14 2010, 09:49 PM) Just like it would be inappropriate to put a sex shoppe right next to an elementary school, I think it would be inappropriate to put any single faith place or worship next to or on ground zero.

Would you be opposed to the rebuilding of the christian church that was destroyed in the attack?

 

[jellyman223]

I say it's fine to put one up near Ground Zero. Regardless of religious issues and etc, the mosque is just another building. Yes the terrorists were Islamic Extremists but I don't think we should ban the mosque because it the religious sanctuary for the Islamic religion. Obviously this is a serious issue but if this is a religious issue or a offense issue is up for debate.

If they can't build a mosque near Ground Zero, what building is appropriate for that location? Starbucks, a mall, target, walmart, a sex shoppe? Would any of these buildings be more or less offensive or appropriate to build near the location? And how close is too close to the location to build a religious building regardless of which religion?