digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Financial Times on 9/11: "The truth is out there"

ft.com — “It’s very interesting to see, ” he says, “particularly in the United States, how the anti-war movement has been largely co-opted in many places by the 9/11 Truth movement. And we desperately need an active anti-war movement, because there is a lot of reckoning to be done.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DIGGADEEP, on 06/09/2008, -12/+5i want to believe
  • Herkimer56, on 06/09/2008, -27/+20"Jones entered into truther lore in 2006 when he was put into early retirement by Brigham Young University in Utah after giving public lectures on his paper “Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?”"
    No, he was forced in to early retirement because he lied about having the paper peer reviewed. None of "Dr." Jones' papers on 9/11 have ever been properly peer reviewed.

    "Still, Jones is no fool."
    I'll take that bet.

    This is just the same old truther ***** and propaganda. Buried as insanely inaccurate.
    • card51short, on 06/09/2008, -4/+9"No, he was forced in to early retirement because he lied about having the paper peer reviewed."

      Fair enough, sir. Please forward us to the evidence you have that you used to determine this. I'm sure you have a bunch and I'm sure you will post it. (Herkimer will not post any evidence and ignore me completely...watch ;) )

      "None of "Dr." Jones' papers on 9/11 have ever been properly peer reviewed."

      No way! Another lie? Couldn't be!

      http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm

      ^^^ Steven Jones recently had a paper published there. He currently has 3 other papers being reviewed.
      Herkimer knows that. Why would he lie? Hmm...
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -4/+8"Herkimer knows that. Why would he lie?"

        He can't get his lips to move otherwise?

        ;-)
      • thebaron2, on 06/09/2008, -6/+6Link to the paper? I checked the site out and can't even find a category that 9/11 papers would fall into.

        And as far as evidence, it's up to Jones or you or any of his proponents to furnish everyone ELSE with the peer reviewed paper and the process behind the review. I could claim that I've had a peer reviewed article submitted there and it wouldn't be fair to make you prove me wrong - you'd have to spend all week digging through each individual article.

        You didn't really provide anything concrete in your post at all, so I'm not sure what kind of response you're expecting from Herkimer.
        • Herkimer56, on 06/09/2008, -5/+5What the idiot Card is referring to is a "Letter to the Editor" that Jones paid to have published in some no-name vanity journal. It was in no way peer reviewed nor did it offer any original research or even scientific content. Card is just trying to sell his same old line of ***** again.
        • thebaron2, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Wow - this must be one of the first posts on digg to get buried for saying that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

          Go figure...
  • Seldon2639, on 06/09/2008, -11/+14Your title implies that the writer for the Financial Times is not only speaking for the paper itself, but also wrote what you quoted. He's a deputy comments editor, not even a member of the op-ed board, and was writing from his own perspective, not that of the Financial Times. You smear an excellent newspaper by the implication that it has bought into the "9/11 truth" movement. Not once does the writer of the article actually espouse an agreement with that view, he is merely reporting on a view that is held.

    Your title is like saying that someone who reports on scientology is saying that there's some validity to scientology. Buried, buried as far into the earth as possible
    • sgiffy, on 06/09/2008, -3/+3Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I took the title as poking fun at truthers, not as supporting their views. But maybe I tend to to try to not construe people as idiots when I possible, and thats probably not a great outlook on digg...
  • Berkana, on 06/09/2008, -12/+4Before anyone goes off dismissing those who would cast doubt on the official account of what happened on 9/11, please consider the evidence with an open mind:
    http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=147
    • sgiffy, on 06/09/2008, -6/+9Already did. Its a pile of nonsense built on a few pieces of 'evidence' that have much better explanations then wild fantasies.
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3Like hating us for our freedoms !!!

        Makes perfect sense...
        • sgiffy, on 06/09/2008, -2/+7Yup because the only two options are bush's nonsense or the truthers. How about a group of religiously and politically motivated extremists sought to attack a country in opposition to their aims.
        • Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3Sgiffy - Absolutely that they were those people. The question is how? How could they do it? How come on the day it was to happen so many other things failed that allowed it to come through? It was a comedy of errors - that just so happened on that they were practicing the exact attack - then officially said "No one could ever have thought of that attack"?

          The truth is you, nor I, nor anyone at this point in time has the answers, because those in charge of finding out the answers gave us a partisan hack job that was admittedly politically driven, and those same people that delivered this have been caught in lie after lie to hide, and obfuscate the rational for a war we now know was pre-drawn prior to 911

          How is that not enough for a non-partisan, transparent investigation?

        • sgiffy, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5There was an investigation, and a it was reasonably through by rational standards.

          Were there failures of intelligence, sure. Did we not take Osama seriously enough, yup. Should we have had more security at airports and a quicker response to hijackings, of course. And sure the government has practiced all sorts of attacks. Don't confuse post-event spin with a conspiracy.

          While it was something considered by some part of the government at some point, every hijacking up until that point had not ended in crashing the jet. Nor was it. and really still isn't, that hard to get small weapons onto a plane. Once the first plane hit, you couple bad communication with the lack of a response plan and little action is taken. Why does that require anything beyond incompetence on the part of the government. Something they tend to excel at.

          But to equate that with anything approaching "the government did it" would be like saying because we were not prepared for Katrina, that means we caused the hurricane. I'm all for laying both disasters at Bush's feet, but not because he caused them, but because, he failed to prepare for them.
        • Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2@sgniffy - Yes there was an investigation - but it was partisan and closed. It also came at a time when the nation was less than equipped to oversee the media reports of it - Assuming this time the media would actually cover something important. Wouldn't it be nice to have a "do over" for the patriot act? Wouldn't it be nice to have a clear(function of time), unpartizan(Function of them being transparent), court ordered strength to finally be able to shut those that would question the government? Not that history hasn't provided ample evidence that when it suits their purpose they wouldn't. Does it?

          In fact, that is the single biggest block to people seeing the truth. There is these innate feelings that "your" government is more trustworthy or at least benign. The Chinese Government will kill theirs, the British will spy on theirs, the Russians did all sorts of things to theirs - but our government is somehow more noble...

          Now, I am not saying that Bush did it, or that OBL did it, or that terrorists did it....what I am saying is that it is impossible to know fully what happened that day, that day that changed everything, because at the very least there are some very questionable cases of competency that effect national security. To have an investigation the way the "official" one was done, is a shame. It is partisan, to facilitate the "healing", is the way I imagine they would have put it. But the reality is the official handling of that entire thing is questionable.

          After 7 years there is no more national security that can be compromised, the complete thing can be transparent stopping this endless parade of questions..
    • hillkiwi, on 06/09/2008, -3/+5If Bush had any prior knowledge of the attacks wouldn't he have a better game plan on how to react when he got the news that they were under attack (rather than sit and stare in a classroom like an idiot).

      If the whole thing was a conspiracy to invade Iraq wouldn't it have been easier to say all the terrorists came from Iraq?
  • Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -7/+10I think it is fairly obvious that the "official" report was nothing more than a political ploy. It is also fairly evident that many don't want another investigation on it.

    Makes you wonder how an Admin, and there supporters, could claim that only those with something to hide should worry about the wire-tapings and mail openings - yet pull a complete about face and claim there shouldn't another investigation....

    As more and more people ask questions, the amount of unanswered questions will grow until the stench of this cover up reaches even the most beautiful mind.
  • suzywang3000, on 06/09/2008, -6/+9what the hell is the "9/11 Truth movement"??
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -4/+12The same people that told you that there were no WMDs, that Saddam was no threat, that America was going to get bogged down in Iraq, that Iraq would be the new Vietnam.... They also warned you about Bush, and that the official story of 911 - much like the original stories of the preceding points - are filled with partisan BS used to drive for a war.....

      In a word - they are looking for some truth.
    • Herkimer56, on 06/09/2008, -13/+9They're a bunch of conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the US government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Of course, they have exactly zero evidence to back up any of their idiotic assertions but that doesn't stop them from screaming those assertions at every possible opportunity.
    • sgiffy, on 06/09/2008, -7/+3They also believe that the government, while able to organize the largest and most complex cover up in history, is completely unable to get Alex Jones and his band of morons to shut the ***** up and stop blabbing all their secrets to anyone with an internet connection.
  • coffee200am, on 06/09/2008, -6/+2One for the truthers...or whatever they call themselves...

    http://digg.com/users/coffee200am/gallery/6913842
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -8/+4You lost me after Cythia McKinney.
  • wynja, on 06/09/2008, -2/+10I call BS. It's not been co-opted. These seem to be the only people that give a ***** in this country. I sure as hell don't see anyone else organizing protests against the federal government.
  • JKap, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center Twin Towers before the rapid onset of collapse at near free-fall speed cannot account for the energy released as the towers collapsed, such as the ejection of structural steel members and one-quarter inch human bone fragments 500+ feet as can be observed in various videos of the collapses and verified by means of the actual evidence.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/06remai ...

    The alleged gravitational collapses of both World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 do not withstand proper scientific rigor and defies Newton's Law of the Conservation of Momentum.

    But I am sure that disinfo trolls and people suffering from cognitive dissonance will tell you otherwise.
  • woodrow8292, on 06/10/2008, -4/+1Zzzzzzzzz

    http://www.debunking911.com/quick.htm

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar ...
    • akston, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Zzzzz to your zzzz.


      Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
      http://jonesreport.com/articles/100806_debunking_l ...

      The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.