I was asked to watch the above film in order to further my understanding of the 9/11 issue. The film is in two parts, one dealing with the Bible stories and the other the events of the twin towers, the Pentagon and Shankville. I cannot go into too much detail but I will attempt to give the salient points that I interested me;I will discuss the Bible part first.
Part 1- The Mythology of the Bible
Noah- The story of Noah in the Bible is a copy of the epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian tale predating Noah by many centuries and incorporated in the Bible when it was written by the ‘lying hands of the scribes’, in the fourth century BCE after the Jews were freed from their captivity in, no surprise, Babylon. There are tablets that have the Gilgamesh tale on them, 100% proof set in stone.
Moses- There is the Egyptian book of the dead which predates Moses and has the equivalent of the Ten Commandments. These are in hieroglyphic paintings on walls in Egypt, 100% proof set in coloured pictures. Also, the story of Sargon has this person being set adrift in a basket, found by a princess and raised in a palace; sounds familiar!
Jesus- Dr Shabbir, Saab, has previously posted a list 16 god-men who were born to a virgin, did many miracles, died an ignoble death and been raised up alive. Osiris, Mithra and Krishna are the three most notable precursors to Jesus whose life histories were copied by the New Testament authors to further their desire to make Jesus ‘for all men’, which is why they paganised a normal man into a son of God and eventually into God Himself, Nauzabillah. These stories are found in ancient books, 100% proof set in black and white texts.
Proof is brought forward at almost every stage of this part of the film, well researched, well documented and this is most convincing. What they were trying to show was that the Bible stories, being copies of mythological stories, casts doubt on the historical figures we are led to believe existed; if there are not truthful stories about them, how can we believe they really existed?
This makes it a little uncomfortable for us Muslims who have stories about these Messengers in the Quran, because we are guilty by association. When the Bible is used to understand the Quran, it makes this even clearer that this is the case, as Tisdall in his book ‘The Origins of the Quran’ sets out to prove. The Quran does not say the same things, it has moral teachings which are more than the ‘once upon a time there was a man called Noah,…’ so it is wrong to say the Quran has plagiarised other works. The flood was local, not global etc. so there are major historically correct information in the Quran that is not evident from the Bible.
Part 2, 9/11
I am not an idealist or someone with cotton wool between my ears either; I fully know that the CIA or some other body are quite capable of doing this heinous crime as they have done on numerous occasions in the past, and will do so in the future. They are the same as the Persian, Roman, and every other empire that has existed where ‘might is right’, Bush puppets said it was justified to kill 1million Iraqis to get one man, Saddam Hussain, so what are a few thousand of their own citizens to them! However, I do not see the proof that it was other than the planes going into the towers that brought them down. Who flew the planes, who helped them, who turned a blind eye, I am not going to speculate, but I do have an open mind.
The film describes the events surrounding 9/11 and has conspiracy as its premise and every speaker says something to cast doubt on the official story. All accounts are based on speculation and no facts 'set in stone' were brought forward. Here are a few observations:-
Boom, boom, boom; these were the sounds heard by some people as the building fell which was said to be the blasts from the explosives planted to bring it down. The top part of the building collapsed down and hit each of the floors below the floors hit by the planes; hence the boom sound can be easily explained in this way. The blasts from windows much lower down as the building collapsed was said to be proof that explosives were used as this is what happens in this case. They can easily be explained as the top part collapsed down it sent shock waves down the stairwells and elevator shafts which discharged outwards at the locations seen. If explosives were used these blasts would have been all around the building on all of the floors, not just a few. Also, in order to bring the buildings down in a controlled explosion, explosives would have to have been placed at all critical load bearing points, needing months of drilling by workmen and I have never seen any evidence that anyone was seen doing this.
The building was said to have collapsed at a rate faster than would be observed had gravity been solely responsible for the descent, hence explosives must have been used. Please ask two people to drop a ball from the same height at the same time and they will hit the ground at the same time. Now, however, tell one of them to push down as fast as they can on their ball and you will see that it will hit the ground sooner than a dropped one. The top part of the building was a huge mass that forced its way down through the lower floors, and is just as valid for the so-called quicker descent of the building caused by explosives.
The molten steel can only be caused by thermolite melting it and hence proves the building was brought down by this method. I refer you to the following video which shows the result of a high speed plane crash into a sold wall (also relevant for Shankville and the Pentagon):-
As can be seen, steel vaporises on impact. This is caused by the energy of motion being converted into the energy of impact and resulting in a huge temperature rise in a fraction of a second, resulting in metal going from a solid to a gas. This can also be achieved by a huge mass going at a slower speed hitting against other objects, the energy of motion of the huge mass is translated into heat energy resulting in the high temperatures observed in the 9/11 site. (Anyone knowledgeable in physics can correct any mistakes I have made in this analyses or show this in a better way if I have not made it clear enough how this happens).
The architects were seen to say that the buildings were built to withstand a plane crash, hence the planes could not have brought them down. If I were the architect, I would deny any culpability; it was not my fault, I would blame someone else. They are not stupid enough to say that their design was at fault, which it was.
The best conspiracy theories have some truth in them to make them believable; Bukhari uses the same techniques where he puts some nice hadith here and there, mixed up with appalling hadith that are repulsive. In this way, people are fooled into accepting them even though they may have doubts about their authenticity. In the same way 9/11 has true facts that are sprinkled with speculation and unsubstantiated statements that you cannot find it in yourself to reject it all. You end up keeping the baby in the bathwater rather than throwing the baby out with the water. I like to think that I throw the water out only!
I respect all your views, I enjoyed this amicable and challenging sparring match and at the end of the day we can agree to disagree.