Dome of the Rock

Yes its true. They see it as a beach head of invasion into the United States leading to the eventuality of victory over our country and its values. How long before the Number of Muslims will begin to matter on our legislature? How long before (as it is in England) before our Congress will allow for implementation of Sharia law to coincide with our own legal proceedings or preliminary to our Legal proceedings? People don't realize Islam intends on winning in any way it can. Even by giving a false impression that they are ameniable to other faiths. They are not.

 

Again, what do they have? They have a book written by man alone. We have a book inspired by the God of heaven. One contains truth, the other lies. One came from God, the other didn't. One is the word of God, the other isn't. I don't care how hard they believe their book, it is a bunch of nonsense. Jesus has the words of eternal, He is the beloved Son of God, hear ye Him.

 

I have read it is the area impacted by the events of that day. Many buildings besides the WTC were destroyed or severely impacted. I have yet to read where only the twin towers footprint is considered "ground zero. Fact is there was a pretty big radius that was affected by the attacks. That is ground zero.

In the movie "I Am Legend" Will Smith said he had to stay in NY while it was being evacuated as it was "gound zero" to the virus.

 

How was that movie? I read the short story by Matheson and it was rather depressing.

 

It was pretty good, the CGI infected people could have been a little more realistic (actual actors would have been good).

 

I might check it out. In the short story it turns out the last human survivor turns out to be the monster since all the world had changed into our perception of monsters.

 

Ending is completely different than that...I won't spoil it

 

There were PLENTY realistic for me! :laugh:

I thought it was a good movie too. Except for the part about his dog. :tear:

 

If my information is correct the only buildings hit by the two planes in New York were the two Trade Center Towers. It also appeared that the planes were clean so their speed could exceed 300 MPH (landing gear up along with flaps). Both planes hit at a high rate of speed, unlike the one in Washington which we think was actually trying to hit the White House and could not get down due to an inexperienced pilot and ground-effect. He turned and hit the highway and selected another target on the fly which just happened to be the Pentagon. He had backed his throttle so far back that he was in a stall situation and that caused his wing to dip. He probably had his flaps and gear down to keep his speed low because he was so near the ground. If you watch the movies of the Trade Centers you will see the planes hitting the towers at an unusually high rate of speed for being so low over occupied buildings. This would have torn off the landing gear due to the slip-stream. A modern airliner is lucky to get his gear down below 250 knots or so and that also includes lowering the flaps which would have further slowed the plane a lot.

 

The landing gear flew off the first plane and went through the roof of the proposed islamic center. Other buildings were also hit by debris from the falling towers...so many buildings were affected.

 

1. Whoever claims that groundzero is the area impacted by the events of the day are using the concept incorrectly. Ground zero is used to describe the focal point, the starting place of some event. So, for instance, when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, ground zero for that event was not the area that was affected by the bomb, but specifically the point where the bomb exploded.

2. Even if you may have read some using it this way, it is not the typical usage. Ground zero consistently refers to the WTC site only. Why? Because it is the WTC which was the focal point (the ground zero) of all the events associated with the 9/11 attack.

 

I didn't say that it was limited to the footprints of the buildings (and I would agree it would be silly to argue such). I said that it was limited to the WTC site. And interestingly enough, the link you sited says the same thing. So, regardless if one wants to quibble over whether 'ground zero' includes one side of the street or both, my point remains sound - a place two blocks away is well outside the area commonly referred to as "Ground Zero". Loaded monikers notwithstanding.

 

Well, bill, since you see no difference--heck; just flip a coin and tell us how it turns out.

Good grief, some folks are willing to turn their back on basic tenets of the faith, just so they can make stupid arguments.

 

When you look at it on google maps it doesn't look to be too far away.

1/10 of a mile - a 2 minute walk.


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...11213&sspn=0.003952,0.009559&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=18

My guess is that this is as close to ground zero as they could get and decided to settle for it as the best that they could hope for.

 

"Ground Zero" is never just the footprints; it's the whole WTC complex or "site" (which was all entirely demolished, into a hole in the ground, with the transit lines exposed and the construction is going on), in the almost square plot of land bounded by Church, Liberty, West and Vesey Sts. (The "footprints" are just the small foundations of the two towers in the middle of this space).

In a broader sense, it's the general area around this site, which would include the mosque site, two blocks away.

 

Your opinion is without any foundation. Muslim's around the world went into the streets and cheered the death of innocents on 9/11.

This mosque will, without question, be used as a recruiting tool and the focus of propoganda for radicals.

That, BTW, is the purpose of the mosque in the first place.

peace to youraying: