“Muslims did kill us on 9/11, and there is a Muslim problem in the world. If you want to walk away from that truth, I can’t stop you. But a better strategy would be for all of us to acknowledge the danger coming out of the Muslim world and work together to mitigate it.” – Bill O’Reilly

I have written on this topic a couple of times.

My basic belief is that 9/11 was not an act of war, and instead, a crime. Not a Muslim, Zionist, American, Israeli, Saudi Arabian, Pakistani, Episcopalian crime. A crime.

If people who happened to be Muslim participated in the crime of 9/11, that doesn’t mean you blame everyone who is a Muslim. Just as you don’t blame everyone who is a Christian after a Christian decides to blow up an abortion clinic. You blame the individuals responsible, and not everyone from their religion, nationality, or ideology.

9/11 is being treated as a “Muslim crime” by some, and as a result, Thousands of Muslims that had nothing to do with the attacks have been slaughtered. Treating 9/11 as a crime, without the religious, national, and ideological undertones, prevents more people from being blamed and slaughtered for a crime they didn’t commit. It’s as simple as that.

We have been told repeatedly by people like Bill O’Reilly that “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” The 9/11 Report dedicates many pages to Muslims and Islam. The hijackers’ religious beliefs are mentioned as well. Hani Hanjour is described as a “rigorously observant Muslim.” Mohammad Atta as “religious, but not fanatically so. This would change…” Ramzi Binalshibh thought, “the highest duty of every Muslim was to pursue jihad, and that the highest honor was to die during the jihad.” Marwan al Shehhi had an “evolution toward Islamic fundamentalism.” Ziad Jarrah, “started living more strictly according to the Koran. He read brochures in Arabic about jihad, held forth to friends on the subject of holy war, and professed disaffection with his previous life and a desire not to leave the world “in a natural way.”

As it turns out, there is reason to believe that the individuals we are told were the hijackers, were not strict Muslims at all.

The following are some entries from www.historycommons.org that suggest this:

(1998): Two Saudi 9/11 Hijackers Nonreligious and Drink Alcohol
According to the 9/11 Commission, two of the alleged Saudi 9/11 hijackers, Satam Al Suqami and Salem Alhazmi, appear “unconcerned with religion and, contrary to Islamic law, [are] known to drink alcohol.” In addition, they both have minor criminal offence records. However, Salem Alhazmi’s father will later remember that Salem “stopped drinking and started attending mosque regularly three months before he disappeared.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 232-3, 524]

July-December 2000: Some at Flight School Find Ziad Jarrah an Unlikely Terrorist, Though Accounts Conflict
According to some accounts, while he is taking lessons at Florida Flight Training Center (FFTC) in Venice, alleged 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah appears an unlikely terrorist. Arne Kruithof, the school’s owner, later says Jarrah is “not just nice, but he had qualities you look for in a dear friend, someone you trust.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 92] He will tell the 9/11 Commission that Jarrah is “polite and easy to deal with,” and does not show “any hostility to the United States or to the West.” [9/11 Commission, 4/12/2004] Kruithof says Jarrah “would even offer to put out the trash cans at night, which no one else did,” and later remembers him “bringing me a six-pack of beer at home when I hurt my knee one time and sitting for hours on my sofa chatting.” Unlike other Middle Eastern students, Jarrah never seems uncomfortable or disapproving of the school’s receptionists, who wear skimpy skirts and tiny t-shirts. [Corbin, 2003, pp. 155] Furthermore, Jarrah drinks alcohol, having one or two beers, “but not three.” According to Kruithof, who later insists Jarrah’s demeanor was “not faked,” the school’s “entire staff does not believe that he had bad intentions,” and Jarrah “was a friend to all of us.” However, fellow flight student Thorsten Biermann, who rooms with Jarrah for six weeks, describes him as “introverted, a loner, he kept his distance.” Biermann will describe one occasion flying with Jarrah on a round-trip to Fort Lauderdale where, on the return, Jarrah insisted on both flying and manning the radio, and twice ignored Biermann’s pleas to refuel when the weather worsened. Biermann says: “I decided I did not want to fly with him anymore, and everyone I knew who flew with him felt the same way. It was as if he needed control.” Biermann will also say that Jarrah avoids pork and, contrary to what Kruithof claims, does not drink alcohol, even when they go to bars together. [New York Times, 9/23/2001; Los Angeles Times, 10/23/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 91-92]

(Mid-July – December 2000): Atta and Alshehhi Frequent Venice Bars and Drink Alcohol
While attending flight school in Venice, Florida (see July 6-December 19, 2000), Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi regularly visit a couple of local bars. Most nights, after flying classes, they drink beer at the Outlook. They are observed there as being well dressed and well spoken. Atta comes across as cold and unfriendly, and is disapproving of the presence of women servers behind the bar. Bartender Lizsa Lehman will later say that, after the 9/11 attacks, “I remember thinking that [Atta] was capable of everything they had said was done.” In contrast, Alshehhi is “friendly and jovial and… always eager to interact with bartenders and patrons.” Lehman later says, “I, to this day, have trouble seeing [Alshehhi] doing it [i.e., participating in 9/11].” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/2006; Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/2006] Atta and several friends are also regulars at the 44th Aero Squadron bar. The group drinks Bud Light, talks quietly, and stays sober. The bar’s owner, Ken Schortzmann, says Atta has “a fanny pack with a big roll of cash in it,” and comments, “I never had any problems with them…. They… didn’t drink heavily or flirt with the waitresses, like some of the other flight students.” While he regularly goes to these bars during this period, Atta never visits any of the three mosques in Southwest Florida, and avoids contact with local Muslims. [Newsweek, 9/24/2001; Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/28/2001] Interestingly, other witnesses later describe Atta as possibly doing drugs as well. The owner of a unit of apartments where Atta reportedly lived with some other Middle Eastern men in late 2000 (see (Mid-July 2000 – Early January 2001)) says these men smoked a strange tobacco, which smelled like marijuana. [Charlotte Sun, 9/14/2001] Atta may also be a heavy smoker, as he is reported to spend his time “chain smoking,” when later living in Coral Springs. [Sunday Times (London), 2/3/2002]

February 22-25, 2001: Atta Spends Weekend in Key West on a ‘Continuous Party,’ then Bails Girlfriend out of Jail?
Some reports later suggest that around this time Mohamed Atta has an American girlfriend called Amanda Keller (see (February-April 2001)). According to Tony and Vonnie LaConca, a couple that meet Keller and her boyfriend (who they know only as “Mohamed”), the pair and another woman go on a short trip to Key West, Florida. Tony LaConca later recalls, “They were gone for three days. They didn’t sleep‚Äîit was a continuous party.” The three indulge in drugs and alcohol, all paid for by “Mohamed,” even though he does not have a job. After returning from the trip, on February 25 “Mohamed” has to bail Keller out of South County Jail, after police take her in because of an outstanding warrant over a “worthless check charge.” [Charlotte Sun, 9/14/2001; Charlotte Sun, 9/11/2003] The Sarasota Herald-Tribune claims that Keller’s companion is not Mohamed Atta, but another man of Middle Eastern descent named Mohammed. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/23/2001] In 2002, Keller will say that her boyfriend was indeed Mohamed Atta, but in 2006 she retracts this claim. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/2006] Interestingly, other witnesses later describe Atta as frequently drinking alcohol, smoking, and possibly doing drugs (see (Mid-July – December 2000)).

May 24-August 14, 2001: 9/11 Hijackers Make Several Unexplained Trips to Vegas
Several of the 9/11 hijackers make trips to Las Vegas and the west coast over the summer:

• May 24-27: Marwan Alshehhi flies to Vegas (see May 24-27, 2001);
• June 7-10: Ziad Jarrah takes a trip to Vegas (see June 7-10, 2001);
• June 28-July 1: Mohamed Atta takes his first trip to Vegas, flying from Fort Lauderdale to Boston and then, the next day, to Las Vegas via San Francisco with United Airlines. He stays there three nights, then returns to Boston via Denver, and flies to New York the next day;
• July 31-August 1: Waleed Alshehri flies from Fort Lauderdale to Boston and then takes American Airlines flight 195 to San Francisco the next day. After spending a night at the La Quinta Inn, he returns to Miami via Las Vegas; [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006, pp. 1-2, 16, 18 pdf file; US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006, pp. 55-7 pdf file]
• August 1: Actor James Woods sees four people he will later suspect are hijackers, including individuals he believes to be Khalid Almihdhar and Hamza Alghamdi, on a transcontinental flight (see August 1, 2001). Abdulaziz Alomari is reported to try to get into the cockpit on a different flight from Vegas on the same day (see August 1, 2001);
• August 13-14: Atta, Hani Hanjour, and Nawaf Alhazmi all fly to Vegas, possibly meeting some other hijackers there (see August 13-14, 2001).

Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar also made frequent car trips to Las Vegas from San Diego, where they lived in 2000. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002; McDermott, 2005, pp. 192] The reason for these trips is never definitively determined, although there will be speculation the hijackers are casing aircraft similar to those they will hijack on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission will comment, “Beyond Las Vegas’s reputation for welcoming tourists, we have seen no credible evidence explaining why… the operatives flew to or met in Law Vegas.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 242, 248] After 9/11, it will be reported that the hijackers may use these cross-country flights to take pictures of airline cockpits and check out security at boarding gates. During the flights, the hijackers apparently take notes, watch the crews, and even videotape them. There are some reports that two, or perhaps more, of the hijackers sit in “jumpseats” in the pilot’s cabin, a courtesy extended by airlines to other pilots, during the surveillance flights (see Summer 2001) and on the day of 9/11 itself (see November 23, 2001). [Boston Globe, 11/23/2001; Associated Press, 5/29/2002] There are reports that the hijackers drink alcohol, gamble, and frequent strip clubs while they are in Las Vegas. For example, according to a dancer named “Samantha,” Marwan Alshehhi stares up at her blankly while she “undulate[s] her hips inches from his face” and only gives her $20, although he is a “light drinker.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/4/2001; Newsweek, 10/15/2001]

September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time
One of the first and most frequently told stories about the hijackers is their visit to Shuckums, a sports bar in Hollywood, Florida, on this day. What is particularly interesting about this story is how it has changed over time. In the original story, first reported on September 12 [Associated Press, 9/12/2001] , Mohamed Atta, Marwan Alshehhi, and an unidentified man come into the restaurant already drunk. “They were wasted,” says bartender Patricia Idrissi, who directs them to a nearby Chinese restaurant. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/13/2001] Later they return and drink‚ÄîAtta orders five vodka and orange juices, while Alshehhi orders five rum and Cokes. [Time, 9/24/2001] According to manager Tony Amos, “The guy Mohamed was drunk, his voice was slurred and he had a thick accent.” Idrissi says they argue about the bill, and when she asks if there was a problem, “Mohamed said he worked for American Airlines and he could pay his bill.” [Associated Press, 9/12/2001] This story was widely reported through much of September. [New York Times, 9/13/2001; South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/15/2001; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/16/2001; Miami Herald, 9/22/2001; Newsweek, 9/24/2001; Time, 9/24/2001] However, beginning on September 15, a second story appears. [Toronto Star, 9/15/2001] This story is similar to the first, except that here, Atta is playing video games and drinking cranberry juice instead of vodka, and Alshehhi is the one who argues over the bill and pays. After some coexistence, the second story seems to have become predominant in later September. [Washington Post, 9/16/2001; Washington Post, 9/22/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/27/2001; St. Petersburg Times, 9/27/2001; Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 11/12/2001; Sunday Times (London), 2/3/2002]

Before September 11, 2001: Hijackers Drink Alcohol and Watch Strip Shows, Especially towards Eve of Attacks
A number of the hijackers apparently drink alcohol heavily in bars, sleep with prostitutes, and watch strip shows in the US in the months and especially the days leading up to 9/11.

• In late February 2001, hijacker Ziad Jarrah frequents a strip club in Jacksonville, Florida (see February 25-March 4, 2001).
• In July 2001, hijackers Hamza Alghamdi and Marwan Alshehhi make two purchases of “pornographic video and sex toys” from a Florida store (see July 4-27, 2001).
• Some hijackers, including possibly Satam Al Suqami and Waleed and Wail Alshehri, sleep with prostitutes in the days before 9/11 (see September 7-11, 2001).
• On September 10, three hijacker associates spend $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks in the Pink Pony, a Daytona Beach, Florida strip club. While the hijackers had left Florida by this time, Mohamed Atta is reported to have visited the same strip club, and these men appear to have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks (see September 10, 2001). [Boston Herald, 10/10/2001]
• Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta are seen entering the Hollywood, Florida, sports bar Shuckums already drunk. They proceed to drink even more hard alcohol there (see September 7, 2001).
• Atta and Alshehhi are seen at Sunrise 251, a bar in Palm Beach, Florida. They spend $1,000 in 45 minutes on Krug and Perrier-Jouet champagne. Atta is with a tall busty brunette in her late twenties; Alshehhi is with a shortish blonde. Both women are known locally as regular companions of high-rollers. [Daily Mail, 9/16/2001]
• A stripper at the Olympic Garden Topless Cabaret in Las Vegas, Nevada, later recalls Marwan Alshehhi being “cheap,” paying only $20 for a lap dance. [Cox News Service, 10/16/2001]
• Several hijackers reportedly patronize the Nardone’s Go-Go Bar in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They are even seen there on the weekend before 9/11. [Boston Herald, 10/10/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001]
• Majed Moqed visits a porn shop on three occasions and rents a porn video. The mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, later says of the six hijackers who stayed there, “Nobody ever saw them at mosques, but they liked the go-go clubs.” [Newsday, 9/23/2001; Newsweek, 10/15/2001]
• Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar often frequent Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002]
• Marwan Alshehhi is possibly seen in the Cheetah nightclub in Pompado Beach, Florida, on July 1, 2001. Six dancers who work there later claim to have seen him. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10/2001, pp. 173 pdf file]
• Hamza Alghamdi watches a porn video on September 10. [Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001]
• Temple University in Philadelphia professor Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub will later comment: “It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam…. People who would kill themselves for their faith would come from very strict Islamic ideology. Something here does not add up.” [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/16/2001]

So, it seems that the hijackers who may have been Muslim, weren’t as Muslim as we have been led to believe. It doesn’t matter though, because 9/11 wasn’t a Muslim crime. It was a crime.

The post 9/11 Was Not A Muslim Crime appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

O’Reilly’s point was that the Islamic community center and mosque shouldn’t be built two blocks away from the World Trade Center site because “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” (It’s unclear what he thinks about Catholic churches being built near schools.) Goldberg and Behar found his comment offensive, and stormed off, only to reemerge after O’Reilly qualified his statement to include “extremist Muslims.” Behar later told PopEater, “Really, is anyone talking about it? He’s an idiot. I just couldn’t sit there any longer and listen to him.”

This morning, Kilmeade’s joined in on the xenophobiapalooza in his own dunder-headed way. Salon points out that his statement “is both inaccurate and prejudiced, in a way that’s more clear-cut than [Rick] Sanchez’s semi-coherent rant. But it’s been instructive to watch how Kilmeade’s comments haven’t created much of a stir at all. Maybe it’s because this sort of thing is expected from Fox. Or maybe it’s because you can say a lot of bad stuff about Muslims with impunity.” See, Fox would never get away with this if Muslims ran the media!

The post FOX Hosts: All Terrorists Are Muslims Who "Killed Us On 9/11" appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Meaning: “That guy shouldn’t be allowed within 10 miles of Ground Zero,” the conservative broadcaster insisted during a recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor.

Perhaps O’Reilly should try explaining that to the 45 percent of Americans, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll sponsored by 9/11 activists, who say a new investigation into the events is called for; or the 42 percent of Americans who said they believe the government is covering something up; or, the 49 percent of New York City residents who agreed in 2004 that U.S. officials “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.”

By his own words, the Fox News personality appears to be suggesting that Americans, particularly Muslims, who doubt the official 9/11 story be banned from Ground Zero.

O’Reilly’s bizarre comment was made in the process of taking another swing at the New York City imam who plans to build an Islamic cultural center two blocks from the former World Trade Center site. The host’s latest approach to smearing Feisal Abdul Rauf, who worked with the FBI on counter-terrorism issues after 9/11, is guilt-by-association. In this case, the man O’Reilly has saddled with the flaming tire of “radical Islam” is Faiz Khan, M.D.

Unfortunately for the Fox host, the man he’s attacked is a medical doctor and 9/11 first responder, and someone who has never tried to hide his beliefs about that fateful day.

“O’Reilly was grim-faced as he announced that the subject of his Talking Points Memo was, as he put it, ‘evidence that the ground zero imam is associated with a radical Muslim,'” Newshounds noted. “O’Reilly said, ‘evidence shows’ that fears ‘may now be valid’ the ground zero mosque has ‘radical ties.'”

Rauf has repeatedly described the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. as “suicide bombings” and has not advocated on behalf of a new investigation. He and Dr. Khan worked together at the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), which Khan has since left to focus on his medical career. ASMA and Rauf’s organization, the Cordoba Initiative, are working together on the NYC Islamic community center.

In an essay available online and a video of a speech he gave to a 9/11 truth group, Khan explains that most people around the world assume 9/11 was an “inside job” because of the corrupt nature of many third world governments.

“It’s surprising,” he said to a 2006 gathering of activists in Chicago. “Talk to a cab driver. I’m serious. They will tell you, yes, it’s obvious. Now, this is the reason why it’s obvious: Because in the third world, the sleaze of governance is a lot more transparent. So, people sort-of expect their officials to act in certain ways and they just kinda put up with it and that’s the way it goes. Here [in the U.S.], the glass is a lot thicker. The conditioning is a lot heavier, so that’s something you’ve got to work through.”

In an essay published by the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Khan, one of the group’s co-founders, explains his views:

The ‘9/11 Truth’ thesis categorically rejects the mainstream thesis and asserts that the prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as ‘militant Islam’ although the phenomenon known as ‘militant Islamic networks’ may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role – perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat.

Moreover, the rise and popularization of so called militant Islamic networks, from these networks’ ideology to actual empowerment, and the linking of this to western corporate driven government covert operations – this relationship is one that needs to be explicitly and loudly proclaimed by Islamic voices.

Let us be clear about our opinion here, as it relates to the phenomenon of “militant Islamic networks”, just in case the infantile minds within the Islamic activist scene confuse our application of intelligence in analyzing “why 9/11” with a denial of the very real need to “clean out our own house”, or confuse a legitimate inquiry into 9/11Truth with an unwillingness to face the “ideological ills found in the Islamic world.” This kind of accusatory self-righteous indignation obstructs clear thinking. Such sentimental nonsense has no place in legitimate discourse.

But does this make him a “radical Muslim,” as O’Reilly suggests? Hardly.

Still, the association between the two men, the Fox host insisted, should be “enough” to get the whole project “tabled” — an assertion that ABC News host George Stephanopoulos took issue with during an interview broadcast Tuesday morning.

“There’s no evidence that Rauf believes anything like that,” he reminded O’Reilly.

Though Khan says he’s since left the so-called truth “movement,” he insists his views of the event have not changed. His opinions about the attacks have been available in the public domain for years, and he’s even publicly signed 9/11 truth petitions.

In the lengthy essay, he clinically dissects the mentality of the general public on 9/11, offering activists advice on how to convey their ideas more effectively. Mid-way through, he addresses his feelings for the nation of which he’s a citizen, saying:

Huge segments of American Muslims came to this country looking to better their lives through opportunities afforded by American society. Thankfully, many have found success. For them, the reality is that the US is the best place on earth in terms of opportunity, and returns on hard work, honesty and obeying rules. They see that the blatant nepotism, corruption, bribery, and cut throatedness necessary to socio-economically ascend in their home-countries was relatively absent here. This is true – and as an American, I am proud of this.

Contacted by Steve Emerson, a reporter whose body of work mainly focuses on militant Islamic networks (and who attacks his source in this case as a “9/11 denier”), Khan attempted to distance himself from the various theories about that day:

“I am not sure what happened on 911, and as I have stated in articles, and other sources you may have come across – the ‘official explanation’ is demonstrably false…since multiple facets of it have been shown to be thus by independent investigators.”

Others who’ve called for a new investigation into the attacks include widows who lost husbands during the attacks, WTC employees, police, firefighters and other first responders who escaped before the collapse, architects, engineers, members of the military both current and former, professional pilots and even former intelligence operatives: the vast majority of them, Americans.

“He (Rauf) had to know that we were going to find about this guy, did he not?” O’Reilly rhetorically asked his guest on Monday, “as if Khan had done something really heinous and as if he, O’Reilly, had uncovered the plot of the century,” Newshounds quipped.

Indeed, many who’ve come to question the official recounting of the events cite recent revelations for their skepticism.

For instance: “More than one-quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al Qaeda operatives subjected to the now-controversial interrogation techniques,” writes former NBC producer Robert Windrem, in The Daily Beast.

“… [Information] derived from the interrogations is central to the Report’s most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks,” MSNBC reported in a 2009 post that appears to have been removed from the network’s database. “The analysis also shows – and agency and commission staffers concur – there was a separate, second round of interrogations in early 2004, done specifically to answer new questions from the Commission.

“9/11 Commission staffers say they ‘guessed’ but did not know for certain that harsh techniques had been used, and they were concerned that the techniques had affected the operatives’ credibility. At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’ The claims came during their hearings last spring at the U.S. military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

“Commission executive director Philip Zelikow (later counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) admitted, ‘We were not aware, but we guessed, that things like that were going on. We were wary…we tried to find different sources to enhance our credibility,’” Windrem continued. “(Zelikow testified before the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, that he had argued in a 2005 memo that some of the tactics used on suspected terrorists violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.)”

In his book “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation”, New York Times reporter Philip Shenon indicts Zelikow on his ties with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and his frequent contact with senior Bush political adviser Karl Rove, during what was touted as an independent investigation into the events surrounding the attacks. This seeming conflict of interest, the book says, led Commission staffers not to trust Zelikow.

9/11 Commission member John Lehman went on to tell MSNBC that it was impossible not to go through Karl Rove when documents such as presidential daily briefings were needed. Many Commission members, he said, pressed the White House to provide more information and lift restrictions on a regular basis.

Perhaps paramount above all other critics, Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the 9/11 Commission, told the National Press Club in 2006 that he and other members of the investigative body felt their work had been “set up to fail.”

It all seems to leave one wondering who else O’Reilly would like to see banned from Ground Zero.

“In the clip below Bill opens with a hysterical introduction of the issue, demanding that Rauf explain himself and why he didn’t make his association to Khan public,” writes Andrew Steel, blogging for America 20XY. “Bill interviews Roy Locker, who is the managing editor for The Investigative Project on Terrorism– a data-gathering center on Islamic groups. Locker describes Khan’s past speaking engagements in a cautious and somber tone, as if they equated to participating in brutal massacres instead of exercises of free speech. Towards the end of the interview O’Reilly and Locker imply that Rauf’s association with Khan now opens the door to the possibility that the Ground Zero cultural center will become a haven for terrorist activities, thus associating 9/11 Truth itself with terrorism. ”

He concludes: “Though disguised as a new twist to the tired ‘mosque’ controversy, the true aim of O’Reilly’s attack is to isolate those who question the official story of 9/11 by sending out the message that any connection with 9/11 Truthers is not only undesirable, but potentially criminal.”

The post O’Reilly: Muslims That Question 9/11 Could Be Terrorists appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.