video.google.com— I'm not giving up on you Diggnation, Colbert Nation, 42 Nation, whatever nation you're in. I want you to watch this, and pay close attention. It's 30 minutes that could change your life.
Sep 15, 2006View in Crawl 4
Thanks for posting this. Some truth on Digg is quite refreshing. I hope it is appreciated by many. I like to also point out that...after Larry Silverstein said they would "pull building 7", somehow, miraculously, the demolition charges had been already put in place --even though this normally takes 1-2 weeks on a building that size!The official lie-story is just soooo absurd, as is anyone who continues to believe it!
rbk303,Sorry friend, but the burden of proof is not on the "offical story people". The fact is that for people who deny the "offical story" there will never be enough proof, ever. That's how chronic deniers work.Your whole post reeks of it from the start - "prove to me", "make me believe". It's tinged to the core.
Regardless of what may have happened, this was a horrible thing that happened to America and the families that suffered the greatest loss. Every time that you see those buildings collapse you are watching thousands of brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends die. The way that all of America debates over this tragedy, chopping up the footage to meet their perspective and desensitizing What is actually happening, is disgusting. Forgive us.
I think a lot of you are missing the point. Sure you can debunk a lot of the stuff that is descussed. I don't want to get into the semantics of "controlled demolition" or whatever. The point is the commission was detailed to find out EXACTLY what happened, find out who did what or didn't do what which resulted in 9/11.What this video tries to point out is that the commission didn't do a very good job, because previously documented facts are ignored or inaccurately intrepreted. For the sake of all the victims and victims families of 9/11 the LEAST they could do would be to do a credible job of the report, and not leave any stone unturned. At the end of the day there should be NO question about any of the findings, otherwise its a pretty innacurate report on how close to 3,000 people lost their lives and scores more had lives changed forever. Forget about conspiracies, forget about whether the government flew the plans or a bunch of zealots, and focus on the facts that are at hand, or the facts that aren't presented for that matter, and some questions might be answered.
"the government did try to plant weapons in iraq but the press found out about it, google "radio active scrap iraq" so they canceled that plan to keep from looking obvious. besides they have already admited that we went to war for BS."k So you are saying that the government was unable to get something so easy past the press. However they were able to "pull off" 9-11 without anyone of any worth noticing anything at all? And I would really like some links....if you have something concrete and unbiased to show, why would I have to search for it on google? Just post the link."besides they have already admited that we went to war for BS"this part I agree with....but I dont think BS = our government killing 3000 of our own people.
I laughed when I heard the so-called explanation as to why mainstream media & historians have “ignored” these conspiracy theories. Ignored? Hardly. Every type of journalist & investigator out there---with visions of Pulitzers, fame & fortune dancing in their heads---turned every stone they could think of to find ANY substantiation for any of the many conspiracy theories floating around. However, the honest ones move on to other ideas when they discover that when the “disturbing facts” of conspiracy enthusiasts are carefully checked, they turn out to be either outright false, or pure speculation. The dishonest ones just move on to moveon . org. In other words, they cherry-pick from their findings in order to make a splash with the anti-Bush activists and conspiracy nuts that are not interested in checking facts. They are the worst kind of hacks. Motive? One or both of the following: 1) a political agenda at any cost---they hope to knowingly mislead voters because they think their cause justifies the means; and, 2) $ $ $ fame $ $ $. David Ray Griffin just can’t stop himself from mentioning that he appeared on an Oprah-like British TV show, and that Bill Clinton appeared on the same show weeks later. Pathetic.To you anti-Bush and/or conspiracy enthusiasts, that want oh-so-badly for these conspiracies to be true: I challenge you to pick any main “disturbing fact” and carefully read the arguments of journalists that found nothing to it. Take, say, the video of the falling towers. I’ve carefully read & watched what conspiracy advocates have put out there to support the idea that demolition brought those buildings down. I’ve also read & watched critics of the theory---some Republican, some Democrat, some that express disgust for both parties, and some mainstream investigative reporters. After comparing, the evidence is clear. An unending stream of engineers with years of hands-on experience with demolitions & high-rise structures (I’m not talking about TV-show “demolition experts” that are really qualified in other areas, and are only glib observers of high-rise demolitions) have pointed out, photo-frame by photo-frame, that each tower did NOT fall as a single unit (all the lower floors moving downward in unison), as it would have with demolitions. Instead, the super-hot fires from the plane explosions weakened the steel structure holding up the upper stories. When the weight and momentum of those upper stories crashed down on the lower floors, the falling mass crumpled each floor beneath it, not all at once, but one floor at a time. The numbers support the fact that the steel structure was not designed to withstand the fantastic momentum of the broken mass of all those upper stories crashing down at once.Why was the response on 9-11 so messed up? Big bureaucracies---including our military---don’t work fast, efficiently, or well. Especially in times of crisis, when bureaucrats know The People are staring at them intently. When I look at footage, or listen to recordings, of bureaucrats on 9-11, I can almost see the thought-balloons (like in a comic book) above their heads: “What do I do? I can’t act rashly and make an ass of myself. I’ll wait for my superior to tell me what to do.” Meanwhile, elected officials at the top are thinking: “What is going on? I’m getting a hundred different stories, and the bureaucracy is just covering its behind.”
Bush Pretty Much Admits that Demolitions were used:"That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."check out the link: <a class="user" href="http://www.ealchemy.org">http://www.ealchemy.org</a>(Bush's Admission of Guilt)So will the sheepies change their story or STILL argue for a natural collapse?
The idea that demolitions were used on the trade center buildings is of course absurd. But, hello, how can a building, like WTC7, come down all at once without all the steel beams failing all at once. If there was significant damage on one side of the building, the building would 'collapse' not implode, which is obviously did. But, of course, there are plenty of these discussions on the web, which seems to fall into some kind of 'name calling'. And for those who say I am not an engineer, how can I say whatever, well, you know if I was going to purchase a house, I make all sorts of judgments about the structure even though I am not an expert in this, how about that! And, when I saw the bombing in Oklahoma I did not doubt the validity of the official story, even though 'I am not an expert'! When buildings come down at free-fall speed, it is kind of suspicious, but, however, I am just some stupid idiot who can tell where his ass is and his head. I suppose I need to just buckle down and shut up so that the 'experts' can tell me how 'absurd' it is to 'doubt' what the 'experts' are saying. And for all those 'smart ones' who observe how 'absurd' the 'conspiracy' theories are, which they are (how about that!) why is it that absolutely no one has been fired, nor has the mighty Osama (who obviously knows all about engineering, since he 'engineered' this mighty feat!) has been caught. Even if you believe the 'official' story, it is 'absurd' that no one has been tried, and there has been no public accounting for any of this, including the tremendous health issues caused by the criminal negligence of the EPA.
waterdragonSep 15, 2006
Thanks for posting this. Some truth on Digg is quite refreshing. I hope it is appreciated by many. I like to also point out that...after Larry Silverstein said they would "pull building 7", somehow, miraculously, the demolition charges had been already put in place --even though this normally takes 1-2 weeks on a building that size!The official lie-story is just soooo absurd, as is anyone who continues to believe it!
danheskettSep 17, 2006
rbk303,Sorry friend, but the burden of proof is not on the "offical story people". The fact is that for people who deny the "offical story" there will never be enough proof, ever. That's how chronic deniers work.Your whole post reeks of it from the start - "prove to me", "make me believe". It's tinged to the core.
rbk303Sep 17, 2006
yawn.
blu3screenSep 17, 2006
Regardless of what may have happened, this was a horrible thing that happened to America and the families that suffered the greatest loss. Every time that you see those buildings collapse you are watching thousands of brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends die. The way that all of America debates over this tragedy, chopping up the footage to meet their perspective and desensitizing What is actually happening, is disgusting. Forgive us.
sevenhelmetsSep 17, 2006
I think a lot of you are missing the point. Sure you can debunk a lot of the stuff that is descussed. I don't want to get into the semantics of "controlled demolition" or whatever. The point is the commission was detailed to find out EXACTLY what happened, find out who did what or didn't do what which resulted in 9/11.What this video tries to point out is that the commission didn't do a very good job, because previously documented facts are ignored or inaccurately intrepreted. For the sake of all the victims and victims families of 9/11 the LEAST they could do would be to do a credible job of the report, and not leave any stone unturned. At the end of the day there should be NO question about any of the findings, otherwise its a pretty innacurate report on how close to 3,000 people lost their lives and scores more had lives changed forever. Forget about conspiracies, forget about whether the government flew the plans or a bunch of zealots, and focus on the facts that are at hand, or the facts that aren't presented for that matter, and some questions might be answered.
flynnzSep 17, 2006
"the government did try to plant weapons in iraq but the press found out about it, google "radio active scrap iraq" so they canceled that plan to keep from looking obvious. besides they have already admited that we went to war for BS."k So you are saying that the government was unable to get something so easy past the press. However they were able to "pull off" 9-11 without anyone of any worth noticing anything at all? And I would really like some links....if you have something concrete and unbiased to show, why would I have to search for it on google? Just post the link."besides they have already admited that we went to war for BS"this part I agree with....but I dont think BS = our government killing 3000 of our own people.
cl1mh4224rdSep 17, 2006
This account has been closed by the user
suiteSep 17, 2006
I laughed when I heard the so-called explanation as to why mainstream media & historians have “ignored” these conspiracy theories. Ignored? Hardly. Every type of journalist & investigator out there---with visions of Pulitzers, fame & fortune dancing in their heads---turned every stone they could think of to find ANY substantiation for any of the many conspiracy theories floating around. However, the honest ones move on to other ideas when they discover that when the “disturbing facts” of conspiracy enthusiasts are carefully checked, they turn out to be either outright false, or pure speculation. The dishonest ones just move on to moveon . org. In other words, they cherry-pick from their findings in order to make a splash with the anti-Bush activists and conspiracy nuts that are not interested in checking facts. They are the worst kind of hacks. Motive? One or both of the following: 1) a political agenda at any cost---they hope to knowingly mislead voters because they think their cause justifies the means; and, 2) $ $ $ fame $ $ $. David Ray Griffin just can’t stop himself from mentioning that he appeared on an Oprah-like British TV show, and that Bill Clinton appeared on the same show weeks later. Pathetic.To you anti-Bush and/or conspiracy enthusiasts, that want oh-so-badly for these conspiracies to be true: I challenge you to pick any main “disturbing fact” and carefully read the arguments of journalists that found nothing to it. Take, say, the video of the falling towers. I’ve carefully read & watched what conspiracy advocates have put out there to support the idea that demolition brought those buildings down. I’ve also read & watched critics of the theory---some Republican, some Democrat, some that express disgust for both parties, and some mainstream investigative reporters. After comparing, the evidence is clear. An unending stream of engineers with years of hands-on experience with demolitions & high-rise structures (I’m not talking about TV-show “demolition experts” that are really qualified in other areas, and are only glib observers of high-rise demolitions) have pointed out, photo-frame by photo-frame, that each tower did NOT fall as a single unit (all the lower floors moving downward in unison), as it would have with demolitions. Instead, the super-hot fires from the plane explosions weakened the steel structure holding up the upper stories. When the weight and momentum of those upper stories crashed down on the lower floors, the falling mass crumpled each floor beneath it, not all at once, but one floor at a time. The numbers support the fact that the steel structure was not designed to withstand the fantastic momentum of the broken mass of all those upper stories crashing down at once.Why was the response on 9-11 so messed up? Big bureaucracies---including our military---don’t work fast, efficiently, or well. Especially in times of crisis, when bureaucrats know The People are staring at them intently. When I look at footage, or listen to recordings, of bureaucrats on 9-11, I can almost see the thought-balloons (like in a comic book) above their heads: “What do I do? I can’t act rashly and make an ass of myself. I’ll wait for my superior to tell me what to do.” Meanwhile, elected officials at the top are thinking: “What is going on? I’m getting a hundred different stories, and the bureaucracy is just covering its behind.”
thelastprophetSep 18, 2006
Bush Pretty Much Admits that Demolitions were used:"That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."check out the link: <a class="user" href="http://www.ealchemy.org">http://www.ealchemy.org</a>(Bush's Admission of Guilt)So will the sheepies change their story or STILL argue for a natural collapse?
citizenbillOct 1, 2006
The idea that demolitions were used on the trade center buildings is of course absurd. But, hello, how can a building, like WTC7, come down all at once without all the steel beams failing all at once. If there was significant damage on one side of the building, the building would 'collapse' not implode, which is obviously did. But, of course, there are plenty of these discussions on the web, which seems to fall into some kind of 'name calling'. And for those who say I am not an engineer, how can I say whatever, well, you know if I was going to purchase a house, I make all sorts of judgments about the structure even though I am not an expert in this, how about that! And, when I saw the bombing in Oklahoma I did not doubt the validity of the official story, even though 'I am not an expert'! When buildings come down at free-fall speed, it is kind of suspicious, but, however, I am just some stupid idiot who can tell where his ass is and his head. I suppose I need to just buckle down and shut up so that the 'experts' can tell me how 'absurd' it is to 'doubt' what the 'experts' are saying. And for all those 'smart ones' who observe how 'absurd' the 'conspiracy' theories are, which they are (how about that!) why is it that absolutely no one has been fired, nor has the mighty Osama (who obviously knows all about engineering, since he 'engineered' this mighty feat!) has been caught. Even if you believe the 'official' story, it is 'absurd' that no one has been tried, and there has been no public accounting for any of this, including the tremendous health issues caused by the criminal negligence of the EPA.