What is Digg?115 Comments
- jester55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24when a plane smashes into a building, the energy disapates into the steel, the air, the glass. but remember, that energy wouldve had to travel thousands of feet through reinforced concrete, insulation, wires, and tons of other things that wouldve absorbed it. the bulding was designed to absorb energy such as wind, so that is another factor. So saying that the energy had to go somewhere is true, but i cant see it going as far as destroying the lobby, without blowing out every other window in the whole building first.
- kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -14/+28Yes. I believe the experts over the kids in their parent's basement.
- gab00n, on 10/10/2007, -11/+23You can't convince people that something is not right if they don't have any understanding of the physics involved, if everyone was properly educated and didn't rely on their flawed common sense then 9/11 would be impossible to pull off. You just have to face the fact that 99% of the people on this planet are grossly uneducated. Once you become enlightened to this fact you too will join the elite and repeatedly rape these hapless ***** for all they are worth.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11People who can magicially 'choose' what to 'believe' instead of requiring evidence are the problem.
- fluffyllemon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14From what I've seen/read, the towers were actually built to withstand a plane crashing into them from any direction.
- bluvcashmoney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I would also suggest that a fireman has a much better understanding of actual fire physics in practice than your average physics 101 student.
- jadacyrus, on 10/10/2007, -17/+26when a plane that big smashes into a building that energy has to go somewhere..
- EldenChang, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11These buildings can not fall in 10 seconds by gravity alone.
The physics is on the side of the truth movement! - BrapAllgood, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12When it turns into fire, it goes UP. Simple physics.
- scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Have you ever seen burning liquids? There are thousands of gallons of fuel on a passenger jet... all of that fuel doesn't burn in an instant. It absolutely would drip down...
- harvinator24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6In reference to the video,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501 - p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7but yet you don't believe one of NYC's firefighters. It sickens me that people support Giuliani when his OWN PEOPLE hate him!
- BrapAllgood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And as far as Manhatten proves, ALL buildings on fire collapse in upon themselves.
Or is that only on certain days in certain years? - barakatx2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5if al-qaeda bombed the base too, dont you think the government would be happy to tell us that so they could use it as propaganda? why wouldnt they tell us if the terrorists put bombs in the building?
- lwoj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The 9/11 Truth movement should not be dismissed so easily. It is not made up of raving lunatics and deluded conspiracy theorists; it is a group of (mostly) intelligent people who have examined the evidence and are not convinced the US government is telling the truth. There are so many fishy discrepancies between what we saw happen that day, and what the government told us had happened. For example, if the government is has nothing to hide, why don't they just ease all our minds and release, say, one of the dozens of videos captured that day that would have clearly shown an American Airlines jet hitting the Pentagon?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited ALL the characteristics of destruction by explosions -- and NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire.
The collapse of WTC Building 7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibited ALL the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives -- and NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire.
http://www.ae911truth.org/ - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4William Rodriguez:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Rodriguez
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294 - mntbikeracer1, on 10/10/2007, -12/+16I'll stick to ockham's razor the simplest explanation is probably the right one. And the simplest explanation is not that the U.S. government, who cannot handle anything well lately, pulled off the most well executed plan of all time without a single person leaking it.
- aliveonarival, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7i hate this ***** about oh all you guys who believe this crap are idiots it couldn't possibly have been an inside job! but then you never take the time to actually explain why its so impossible the argument you guys put up is basically this;
9/11 truther " The attack on the world trade center was an inside job because there has never been a skyscraper that fell
because of fire and building 7 had no been impacted at all the video tape looks exactly like a controlled
demolition and there are hundreds of eyewitness saying that they heard explosions after the impact of
the airplanes not to mention many of the supposed hijackers are still alive "
Non-Truther "No it wasn't"
i hate how some of you think that just magically the same people that threw your constitution out the window, that is torturing people, that brought you the patriot act, the people who sent you to a fake war against a fake enemy just to line there greedy pockets are just somehow magically incapable of doing something so wrong. And if your one of those people that says "oh why would they kill thousands of there own citizens?" because they don't give a ***** about you! - Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3actually not it can't be debated at all. it was a conspiracy (check the meaning of the word). the debate goes on about who were the people drawing string behind the scenes.
- ronmexico, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It also appears to be a human condition for some to hold on to these ridiculous conspiracy theories that make no sense.
- creep303, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9I lol'd
- KyjL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The blogs they link are only used as links and not used as reference points.
CSM is not anti-evolution, it's a neutral newspaper linked with the Church of Christ, Scientist; Doesn't have much in ways of religious dogma in their pages. Slate is much in the same vein as Wired and politically liberal. Michigan Daily is a newspaper. The Observer is a politically left UK journal. There are other credible publications that are referenced - US News & World Report, BBC, NIST, George Washington University, etc.
They didn't exactly "pick[ed] news that fit what they wanted to say", it looks a lot more like straight-up research that any normal sane person would do. Last I recall that's a perfectly normal thing to do.
Also I'm still waiting for you to point out where the links are to Faux News. - p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5And yet another video the Rudy Giuliani camp refuse to watch or take serious; One of 9/11's own firefighters people. How the ***** can you support Giuliani, when his own people who he claims to be the savior of, HATE HIM?
- knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7my girlfriend's mother's brother-in-law's goat was there too and had to step over parts from a spacecraft from the andromeda galaxy.
proof? "my dads friend" "my leprechaun" "my schnauzer"
why don't you give us some proof? - strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Especially when government or money is involved.
- knowyourrights, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I hate conspiracy theorists, but I don't think this movie is that at all. It's very well put together, and allows you to draw your own conclusions, Zeitgeist is extremely thought provoking.
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/the_government_is_cheating_you (Please excuse ***** submitter for the ultra lame title)
If you don't have 2 hours to kill, feel free to read the Wiki, http://filmguide.wikia.com/wiki/Zeitgeist
Just reading for 5 minutes will hit you like a ton of bricks. - tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ockham's razor should imply that you follow the money. Also, it's not a matter of someone leaking it or not, it's a matter of whether or not people want to believe that they have or haven't been assaulted by people they trust. You can leak it all you want, if believing it means you look like a fool for trusting someone you shouldn't have, then you'll never believe it.
- lopla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The report also doesn't mention that a large team of "air conditioning" specialists overhauled all internal building duct systems two weeks prior to the collapse. They had full access to all internals. Likely placed the thermite charges etc. They would have been under orders to configure the charges and manually detonate them on the day sacrificing themselves in the process. After that only a few people know the truth namely Bush/Cheney and the few wtc workers who were confused why a team of marine looking men were working on the airconditioning system for 3 weeks..
- Draracle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4One thing history class has taught me is that Ockham knows ***** about history. The simplest answer is rarely the correct answer.
- Tyorant, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5State your opinion without looking like an arrogant arsehole maybe?
- inactive, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4What's the NEXT false-flag attack going to be ... you know, the one the fascists will blame on Iran to get the entire world engulfed in flames.
- tryangles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What's funny about your comment is that you simply imply our 'entire govt' would be implicit in this type of act. I've seen two low level people at work conspire to get another upper level person fired and it worked flawlessly. What more with a small group of powerful people with endless amounts of resources. - Then again because your average person cannot seem to comprehend that this could ever happen in a million years, it simply remains some tinfoil hat fairy tail. This is the best part of being the villain, all you need to do is show to people how incredibly asinine or impossible a plan would be to execute and - poof - it never happened.
- FriedGeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Here is something to chew on. Look at the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, there are at least two separate videos that recorded this ransom event. Let's think about this, a bridge that no one really knew of in the country (locals aside) falls into the river and we've got a couple angles of it on video.
The Pentagon, the seat of the United States military might, what should be one of the most secure buildings in the world, and the only video to be released is a few frames from a gate house camera? So the pentagon has NO PERIMETER CAMERAS that face either away from the building or at the building???????
Again, bridge falls in Minneapolis, two videos within a few days. Plane crashes into the Pentagon and only a choppy gate house video in 7 years.
Does that make sense to you? - martin2968, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
you guys need to all suck ***** and shut up... please view the site before digging/responding.
intelligence is hard to find these days huh... - strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2g = 9.81 m/s2
In 10 seconds a free falling object from 1,608.7 feet will hit the ground. A little shorter than the WTC.
Not to much an "inside jobber" as I'm giving you the math you wanted. :p - Vinadetta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Regardless of what you believe, the facts are the facts. The government is not telling the truth, and physics don't lie!!!! I know it's hard to have your belief system turned upside down, but when you truly explore what happened that day it only leads to one conclusion!!! 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
- aliveonarival, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3you see thats exactly the point i'm trying to make you just call me absurd and how its truly mind boggling that i believe this but you don't provide any evidence that i shouldn't
- ronmexico, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm sure every firefighter in your town approves of your mayor.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10The only thing I wonder about is the wide reporting of the explosions coming from underneath the building (and even the video that shows smoke coming from the bottom before the collapse). Al Qaeda had already bombed the underground of the buildings once, it seems logical that they'd try it, again (they tried the USS Cole bombs twice -- the first time, they put too many explosive on their boat and it sank. The second time was successful.). The shaking of its foundation would cause the top of the building to shake pretty bad, and if the steel is already dented or weakened from heat, it could probably pretty easily destroy the whole structure, as it did.
- Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2you certainly know that US government didn't crash japanese fighter planes on pearl harbour but if you made some research about US history, you might know that US government didn't do anything to prevent japanese planes from attacking pearl harbour probably because it fitted their plan for war. Afterwards it was said they didn't believe it was even possible to do so.
IMHO same goes for 9/11, US government could not be aware this was coming, they were warned by foreign intelligence, inside intelligence, several emergency training exercises took place for such an event, but they let it happen probably because it provided fuel for their own agenda (Project for a New American Century, Patriot act, and so on).
this make them responsible of not acting and letting it happen but maybe not of orchestrating everything though I don't rule out the possibility the US government was involved as they are responsible for putting Saddam in power, for training/funding Bin Laden (former CIA agent). - tryangles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Where is your proof datastorageguy that all that you have seen on the Main Stream Media is true??? See how backward your thinking is? The simple fact that there are so many interviews that make no sense to what the official story should concern you. Stop being a spoon fed robot and think for yourself for once in your life.
- dime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Bombs make things fall faster? Who knew...
- kd1s, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When coupled with the fact that the Bush administration deliberately stood down air defenses, and then quashed a very big part of the investigation some of these videos make very valid points.
Put it this way, when a government refuses to answer questions you can pretty much be assured that they have something to hide. - martin2968, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
and here are the facts - Homerr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Without contradicting this testimony (I think) there can be explanations of what happened in the lobby. I'm not convinced either way, but I do think there are many fishy aspects that day that haven't been explained. I just wonder why I never hear about the following explanation:
Jet fuel pouring down the elevator tower(s), possibly vaporizing, then fuel on fire igniting it causing a bomb more or less at the lower levels and the concussion blowing out the lobby windows. If an elevator on fire in freefall ignited the fuel/air mixture, then it was also overpressuring the air below it and making a more powerful explosion.
Also, too bad he didn't elaborate more on this body in the closet, wtf! - NYCnative, on 05/19/2009, -0/+1the fireball went DOWN the elevators shafts and blew out the doors as it went down.. that is how so many people, some lived, were burned on lower floors. I know firefighters who lived that pried open elevator doors as low as the lobby to look for survivors and found them burned to a crisp. Also what the tin foil hats do not understand is that bldg 7 and the other towers were connected by numerous tunnels underneath the ground.. service, electrical, etc... and the debris from the collapse undermined the stability in addition to chunks being taken out by falling building debris. those are the facts that they discount and ignore..
- ronmexico, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Did we watch the same video? I didn't hear the fireman say anything about seeing bombs. I can assure you Bush will be leaving office in January. Get a grip man, the world isn't that dark of a place.
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it was a demolition how would they catch on fire in the lower floors?
- Draracle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He is a little mixed up: an object would fall from the hight of the WTC Towers in about 10 seconds. The problem is that the entire building is in the way. The pancake theory requires that each floor must be impacted, overloaded, and sheered -- something that takes time. It is impossible for the pancake collapse to occur in a ~10 second time period. The only way the buildings fell at near free-fall speed is if the supports where completely absent, not impeding the decent of the tops of the towers.The only way this is possible is an act of god or controlled demo.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is