What is Digg?61 Comments
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34Probably a Mac for $5000. Then paid an extra $1000 when they upgraded their memory.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21yes stark...the "movement is full of retards. I applaud you for your great analysis of people who have a diferent opinion then you
- cbdgr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14ah now it may be friends with my printer :)
- ndansmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html
Here is an excellent walkthrough which goes over the highs and lows of loose change from more moderate conspiracy theorists. - qaddafi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I try to be moderate on this issue on if the United States carried out the attacks, but Screw Loose Change sometimes takes it too far, and they make some stupid posts and comments. I'm sorry if my left wing beliefs make me blind to what they say, but they're affilated with all these right wing blogs and it makes me wonder.
- gurgle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10printer friendly version:
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/060717roco02?print=true - RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Don't be too quick to dismiss the theories as infantile. They actually present good questions. What I'm disappointed on in this magazine is that it fails to mention World Trade Center 7. Which in my opinion is the Truthers smoking gun. I'm a skeptic to the official 9/11 report but that doesn't mean I am willing to eat up everything the truth movement comes out with. But I do admire the fact that they're willing to stand up for what they believe in.
"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." - RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Keep in mind that consulted is not the same as supported. In the nines pages, he hardly uses a testimonial from the 300 plus the site claimed to have consulted. If the list of the 300 names were clearly sources of information then I would understand the usage in a works cited but it seems to me that the names were strictly used to project the illusion of credibility not an actual one. If the facts the site presents are true and supported by evidence then I'll gladly take it as such.
- steve693, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11What'd they spend the $6,000 on? =/
- Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@mbayaq
Somehow I don't think the main intention of Loose Change is to be slick and entertaining. As for Popular Mechanics see the following rebuttal.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
Fun Fact to try to not read anything into: The editor of that particular article is Ben Cherthoff, cousin of Michael Cherthoff, Secretary of Homeland Defense - see http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm - revolution1x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't think anyone said that Bush himself orchestrated this...
"Blaming the President for the country's woes is like yelling at a puppet
for the way it sings... Who's the man behind the curtain pulling the strings? "
-- Woody Harrelson, "Thoughts from Within" - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5On a side note, that link contains errors of its own. In the pentagon investigation section it states that secondary explosions are rare in building fires, it uses this point to discount Loose Change's contention that there were explosions in pentagon attack. It then says that a man in Loose Change who reportedly heard explosions going off in the WTC prior to collapse may only have been hearing secondary explosions cause be gas pockets. So which is it? You can't claim secondary explosions are rare and invalidate one person's point and then use them to make a point of your own. I think Loose Change and this investigation of Loose Change are both full of errors and good points. Take them both with a grain of salt.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8RenZ87 wrote: "What I'm disappointed on in this magazine is that it fails to mention World Trade Center 7."
I'm not sure what's so "smoking gun" about it. Everyone thinks the building just sort of fell for no reason, but it suffered significant damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and burned for about 7 hours.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/WTC7.jpg
Interviews with firefighters:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: ". . .we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o%uFFFDclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o%uFFFDclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
Captain Chris Boyle: "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."
The collapse of WTC7 really is nowhere near as anomalous at the conspiracy theorists would like you to believe. Don't be fooled by them. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The left"? Who the ***** said this had anything to do with "the left"?
- mbayaq, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1
Read that, then look at that crappy, boring documentary again. - Akufen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's a very sad day when people still belief the popular mechanics story holds any truth. Not because it's written by a guy who might be related to a homeland security fella, but just because it's the biggest joke ever printed on paper, and anyone knowing his head from his ass will realize that after reading it.
- RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I respect that I'm able to hear both sides of the argument but I have to say. Some of the points against the theories are fairly weak. It relies heavily on coincidences and special circumstances.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
- Zlaya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4
That Popular Mechanics takes a look at 16 claims.
There are literally over 100 serious unanswered questions about 9/11, and Popular Mechanics looks at 16 lame ones? And that's to prove that there was no conspiracy?
Are you seriously that naive? - L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12That's awesome. Nine solid pages, just slamming the daylights out of the conspiracy theorists.
This was a nice ending touch: "PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories. The following were particularly helpful.", followed by a long list of specific names, organizations and credentials.
That has a little more credibility than a couple of jackasses with a macintosh. ;) - RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not going to pretend that the truth movement is gospel but in the same case I'm not outwardly going to rule it out. The problem with the official story on WTC 7 and as well as the other 2 towers is that, it has no precedence true but it also defies many things that I've learned about engineering. The circumstances of the collapses are so unique, that I personal have to doubt the official story. I'm not saying that people should believe the theories, I'm just saying that there are good and unanswered questions on 9/11 that it warrants another look. I support a new investigation on 9/11.
- majorbabu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i'm soo sick of this conspiracy or not debate.... i really don't know what to believe in any more... i'll wait for the answers in a history lecture 40 years from now.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Moderate conspiracy theorists land somewhere between the leftist moonlanding hoaxers and the rightwing lochness monster hunters.
- Zlaya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3By then it will be too late. Join the truth movement now, spread the truth and sleep with a clean soul.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10It saddens me that people like you are so immature by bashing people with different opinions then you.
- Pifman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I thought the documentary was enjoyable to watch. A bit too drastic through most of it, but it atleast made you think about what happened.
- juanbobo808, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5$5000 mac? They might've needed to pay for the video editing software, let alone the video camera, as well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I completely believe the video, infact, I was watching it again just the other day with my good friends Elvis and Tupac... They believe it too
People just think the truth is too boring so they create things like this and succeed at persuading weak minded individuals that did not otherwise know much about the event in question.
There was not a monetary gain for the Government, infact, it crippled the economy, and temporarily cut off trade. - smartypants, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://universalseed.org/ for more food for the head
- RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They didn't create the 9/11 theories. They simply made a movie about it. Don't confuse the two. There are actually first hand accounts, evidence, and not to mention physics to support the theories. If you rather listen to scholars, professors, and engineers as oppose to just kids and politicians here are links to their studies.
http://www.st911.org/
http://journalof911studies.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth - cyborg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How retarded do you have to be to critcize loosechange like this, its a documentary of facts, not an absolute truth, I can prove that there were thermite and explosives planted inside the WTC's
look at this video of thermite coming out of wtc http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=thermite
then look at this video of thermite http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1241595747072069657&q=thermite
dont think of conspiracies as bs from the start - cyborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1research.......
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Avery takes a lot of information which came out right after 9/11 when nobody knew what was going on, uses this lack of information, adds a little personal ignorance and wraps it up in a "documentary." He interjects his own uninformed, ignorant, uneducated perspective to conclusively define what happened and elucidate "facts" which have eluded thousands of credible journalists. He takes, as fact, the opinions of bloggers and other conspiracy theorists and their own misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and packages everything up in a "documentary". It is so obvious, with even the most cursory background research, that most of his claims are easily explained or otherwise disproven.
If this conspiracy were so obvious "three kids from a hick town in Upstate New York" including Avery an 18 year old, high school graduate, former employee of Friendly's, Starbucks and Red Lobster, could uncover it, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. - cybe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Another interesting look at the lows:
http://judicial-inc.biz/Loose_change.htm - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Exactly. It would be different if the 3 idiots (heaven forbid) witnessed something first hand, and wanted to get "the truth" of what they saw out there.
But no, all they did was take news footage, and "witiness testimonies", and edit it to make it look like whatever they want. - ktchpmn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"'We beat the woman getting punched in the face,' says its director, 22-year-old Dylan Avery"
now that's something to write home about - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I read that sentence over and over again about 5 times before I finally understood what they were talking about....
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3A step by step debunking of Loose Change's claims here: http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
- gamerage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I watched the whole thing and I'm embarrassed that it gets so much credence. There were some very misleading comparisons made to prove points such as:
- no building has ever collapsed due to fire so how could the WTC have collapsed to fire
- the black boxes were not found but a passport was
My favorite technique to prove a point was:
- "the evidence required to prove conspiracy theory A is missing so "I guess we'll never know"
In my opinion if you watch this doc with the same critical eye that the documentarians scoured the 911 report with you will be left with very little. - antsun85, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2the vanity fair article by the end, does not seem to be giving a flattering view of Mr. Avery. he ends up sounding like a pompous jerk who only takes advice from Tony Soprano rather than taking a real critical thinking classes. women need to find better mates than that.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2thanks bookmarked it for later.
- theotherbastard, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Ale and whores.
- webfeed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1So, by saying that, are you conceding that Islamic terrorists are geniuses? Careful...
- CasualAffair, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If anything, the article was entertaining.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4moderate conspiracy theorists? Is there such a thing? Is that part of the conspiracy theory political spectrum?
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Not all CTs are "leftists". I'm no fan of the Bush Administration, but Loose Change is a load of crap.
- Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3It tells you in the story what they needed the money for, go look ;)
Here's a keyword to search for though to save you reading the whole thing, i know how you guys hate that. "ebay". - juanbobo808, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Check this out. Takes a crack at debunking Loose Change; step by step.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ - Ashex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@L0t3k
It was a Compaq Presario.
RTFA - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6It is truely amazing how watching a captivating documentary twice can detect what chemicals are in your water
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 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 
