What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
461 Comments
- MCMookie, on 10/12/2007, -64/+172http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
From the article:
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -153/+260And OJ is innocent. And AIDS was created to kill blacks.To paraphrase South Park, what a bunch of r-tards.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -56/+159I want an explanation for the molten steel in the basement of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
- dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -110/+200Tin foil hats for sale.
Seriously, the logistics and number of people that would have to keep their mouths shut about this is unfathomable. There is no way any rational thinking person could think that it was a government conspiracy. - P5ycHo, on 10/12/2007, -26/+109Bending != Melting
- wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -52/+125I agree that jet fuel can weaken steel to the point of bending, but does anyone have an answer for WT7?
- Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -14/+75Just thought I'd post the link to the Larry Silverstein clip. (Owner of Building 7)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329& - SLP1111, on 10/12/2007, -47/+106On WTC7- "Pull it." as directed by the owner of the entire WTC complex.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -43/+96When something big happens, people are unwilling to believe simple explanations. Oswald CAN'T have been a lone nutter, he MUST have been part of a gigantic conspiracy, because the person he killed was so important!
Princess Di CAN'T have died because her driver was drunk, she MUST have been killed in a vast conspiracy to keep her from having a muslim child.
9/11 CAN'T have been due to a bunch of camel jockeys going to the US and taking flight lessons to learn to pilot a plane into a building, and then getting luckier than even Osama hoped when the resulting explosion takes out not a few floors, as the plan was, but the whole buildings. Surely a big event like that MUST have been part of a massive gigantic government conspiracy, possibly with aliens or the illuminati involved!
Every single major event in history have their associated conspiracy theories, especially when the cause of the major event is simple and pedestrian.
Add to this the fact that there is NEVER complete knowledge or clarity about any event, ever; all facts are NEVER known, and do NEVER add up completely. There's always conflicting witnessreports, bizarre coincidences, good luck, bad luck, and random chance. - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -64/+116The fire and 600+ mph collision weakened the integrity of the upper floors. The support beams failed, and once one floor collapsed, the floor below it couldn't handle the additional strain, and collapsed, leading to what architects call "pancaking". When the entire thing hit the ground, the underground levels collapsed and created a confined space where the existing fires got much, much hotter. That explains the collapse and the melted steel in the basement. Anything else, or can we finally put this stupid debate to rest?
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -8/+58It's almost as if they don't believe anything their government tells them anymore.
I can't imagine why.... - CandidateZero, on 10/12/2007, -44/+88"MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King details how the official government story violates the laws of physics and chemistry."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8533904938803031452
That video seems to be the least disseminated, yet I find it far more compelling in part because the guy doesn't say "the government did it." He simply shows how it most likely was a controlled demolition but doesn't say who is responsible. It's the best analysis minus the pretension of the other videos. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47I think this is more of a reflection of the extreme distrust that most americans have regarding the bush administration
- Shayer, on 10/12/2007, -25/+58If you believe what you said, then why didn't we go into Sudan (the Darfur conflict which started in 2003, before Iraq War), or North Korea which is the least free country in the world, Syria which is notorious for horrible human rights condition (and THE place to put people to torture and 'make people dissapear'), or even Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers are from, not to mention Saudi money is funding many conflicts in the world today.
Although i guess the U.S government missed that last fact since you can see them holding hands and swimming in their oil money. - MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -22/+53I'm no Bush supporter, thats a huge assumption. Neither are Penn and Teller, watch their show sometime. You don't have to like Bush to think these conspiracy theories are nuts. And even if some do, using the "they support Bush, therefore their position must be false" argument is an ad hominem.
While I wouldn't completely write off the idea that the government had intelligence that they were going to be attacked and let this happen I'm highly skeptical, but as far as the other whack job theories go that they actually did it themselves its ludicrous.
I think some people hate Bush so much they are willing to throw out common sense and believe anything that makes him look like a Nazi. Check out the links provided and try putting your biases aside. Those who deny there was conspiracy are not part of it. - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -20/+48@omatsei you mentioned that in a confined space the fire got hotter. huh? Fire would have been snuffed out with little air, especially in a confined space. If there was enough explosive material, like jet fuel or whatever, there would have been an explosion which would have then simply died out also. Nothing could have created those pools of melted steel other than temperates exceeding 2000+ degrees for a sustained period of time.
In case you didn't know, NIST already disproved the pancake theory on their website. They said that the building did collapse, but were unable to provide a further explanation other than structural failure. The pancake theory itself was not possible, and is certainly not shown in the wreckage. With a pancake of the floors, there would have been 100 some floors all stacked up on each other and the 40 steel core columns would have been standing straight up in the air. As it was after the crash of the building, the 40 steel columns all collapsed into a messy pile below with fairly uniform lengths to haul them away. All the floors on the other hand, including all the debris, was pulverized into small little pieces and the concrete was all dust.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
No other explanation for the concrete dust would be explained other than explosive compression and the cutting of the central columns. I personally have done a lot of research on this and kept an open mind. I don't believe in all the theories put forward, but I do believe the towers came down with assistance. The planes just did not have enough explosive power throughout the building. I am not the only person doing research, there are scientists saying the same things. Just do a little Google searching and you will find the research.
Just because we may feel it unbelievable the towers could have been assisted in falling down, does not make it false. I don't want to believe the government is capable, but who knows maybe it wasn't the government. Maybe Silverstein and his bunch of goons took out the towers, and the government capitalized on it. Think about it. The Twin towers needed all the asbestos removed, it would have cost Silverstein way more money to retrofit the towers than he paid on his insurance. He then made additional money in the tune of billions when they came down. It seems like all eyes should be pointing over there.
Of course if you think Silverstein did it, then you have to wonder who made Norad stand down. Silverstein knew lots of people, so it could have been a conspiracy between industry and a few radical groups in the government.
I am not willing to let this go, because there is an explanation beyond 19 hijackers being told what to do from an old guy on dialysis sitting somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan. That to me is the bigger lie. I hope everyone can agree there are questions, and we want answers to those questions. How we get there should not be important. How we ask the questions, and that we get answers IS important. - cyberwiz01, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35This looks like a job for the Hardy Boys.
- jodamiller, on 10/12/2007, -14/+40And how many people still think the moon landing was faked?
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -25/+49omatsei, the pancaking floors theory is absolute garbage.
the buildings collapsed at nearly freefall speeds, which means that all of the floors beneath the impact gave little to no resistance whatsoever. if the pancake theory were even plausible you would have a pile of rock or flat floors stacked up at the bottom like a stack of pancakes when it were over.... the buildings collapsed to DUST, no pancakes, no nothing. not even to mention the fact that there are 40-some steel beams that ran vertically through the center of the building supporting it. For the buildings to collapse as fast as they did these steel beams would have also have to not provided any resistance and just kept snapping all the way down (which doesn't make much sense). the WTC comission avoided explaning how this happened by completley omissing the steel beams from the final report and most drawings depicting the collapse scenarios and building makeup.
if you want to start to potentially understand what everyone is talking about without all of the conspiracy theories please watch this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9%2F11+revisited
the first half of the video is all raw news footage from 9/11, the stuff that doesn't get repeated... no fast editing, no commentary... just watch it and decide for yourself. the latter half of the video is some professionals discussing their own things ... no conspiracy theories here and they don't even mention government, so just watch this and enlighten yourself to the idea that the government may not be telling the complete truth - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -15/+38Take an engineering course or two in the behavior of Materials. What happened with the WTC is perfectly reasonable.
If you heat metal, it will weaken. The crystal structure changes. Atoms segregate themselves; grains grow. If the structure in steel didn't change, then there would be no effect from tempering or quenching or any time of heat treatment that is commonly done.
You need to do some basic research on the subject before you just accept the words on a website. I have a BS and MS in Materials Engineering, and I am telling you not to trust me. You need to check it out from text books and other sources rather than the opinions on a website. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -30/+50You moron, you act like a simple fire was the root cause of wtc7, yet you forget to mention a HUGE SCOOP was taken out of the side, look at this image and try to imagine the damage it took
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/4/44/Wtc7_collapse_damage.jpg
After seeing that, how can you say a simple fire was to blame? - LucianSolaris, on 10/12/2007, -22/+41It is things like this article that show who the true 'sheeple' are.
BTW, the ones i'm calling sheeple are the ones who deny any fact that doesn't jive with the 'wonderful' big brother fairytale.
Example of big brother bein' a big con artist:
The gov't said WTC7 fell due to fires. Silverstein (sp?) later goes on TV and says they 'pulled' it. The government lied. Why did the government lie? How could a demolition company place all the required charges in all the required locations inside the building in 8 hours? Such things take weeks of planning!
What about the missing impact holes of 2x 6-short ton Pratt & Whitney Boeing 707 jet engines at the pentagon? Seen the picture of the building before that section collapsed? Notice very little debris? No damage to the exterior of the building due to the wings? and why is the hole almost perfectly the diameter of the body? Shouldn't there be more taken out around that hole? Why were there reports of Cordite oder in the air? FYI Cordite is a fast cool burning explosive compound used in explosive devices, such as cruise missiles. How about Rumsfeld's ***** 2 months later? He slipped up in a phone interview and said '...and the missile that hit this building...'. Google it.
As far as pancaking goes, had the buildings not fallen close to freefall i would have believed it. There should have been enough resistance throughout the building 20-30 stories below the impact hole (where it would have been hot enough, according to the fairy tale, to melt steel) to possibly cause the debris above it to run off and over the sides and leave the bottom 3rd intact. If not, then the head structural engineer interviewed would have been lying by saying the buildings could have taken a 100 years storm or 2 jumbojets each (not a direct quote).
Also, how does flight 93 crash and there be no major debris? look at other similar plane crashes and you'll see a ***** of debris.
Too much about this fairytale stinks. The story told in the entire Care Bear series (and movies) is more believeable than the pile of ***** big butthead and you sheeple here on digg perpetuate!
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
-Samuel Adams - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Are you kidding? Just because Bush is brain-challenged, it doesn't mean his administration is. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, these are very sharp people with very deep connections in the intelligence and covert ops world. Honestly, I don't think Bush even knows wtf happened and was kept out of the loop for plausible deniability purposes.
- RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -35/+52@mkoby:
I think your problem is: reality has a liberal slant. - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -16/+33"I find it humorous that these guys are getting dugg down. "
They're getting dugg down because they are attacking liberals instead of attacking an argument. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -22/+39It didn't need to reach the core, it caused significant damage anyways.
Here's a good point tho, Find a source that shows it didn't reach the core, you make assumptions based on your non existant engineering and physics degree's.
The problem with 9/11 theorists is they really have no idea about their own theorys. With that said, you have no idea about the extent of the damage and what effect it had on the building, so before you stick your finger at a "shadow government" find some ***** proof. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Three Words: Gulf of Tonkin
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26@dBLiSS
"Seriously, the logistics and number of people that would have to keep their mouths shut about this is unfathomable. There is no way any rational thinking person could think that it was a government conspiracy"
--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah
"Nurse Nayirah" was a creation of public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for promoting the 1991 Gulf War. - oilcan, on 10/12/2007, -17/+33I'd be interested to see the demographics of this survey. Something tells me they don't correlate very well with the 'least educated' category. Less educated Americans are more prone to believe that there doesn't exist anything like subterfuge or sinister motivation within a governmental organization or in politics, while more educated individuals might be more prone to be a little more cognizant of how wars are very often historically sought out by means of the false flag scenario.
For those that get irrationally bent out of shape over the proposal that America might have had something to do with 9/11, I'd ask that you try to keep your emotional outlashing in check, and actually be willing to examine some of the evidence being offered from a number of sources. You can't believe everything you read, but there is more than enough inconsitencies in this official version of the 9/11 thing to merit looking at the grander scheme of things. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26The causes will ALWAYS remain unknown. There were no sensors in the building to tell anyone what exactly happened. But, the power of science tells us that it is quite possible (and much more likely) that the initial mechanism of failure was due to weakening of the support structure partially due to the exposure of steel members from impact of the plane.
The conspiracy theories are convoluted, and much like the existence of God cannot be disproven. If you want to ignore the words of people trained in the field, then no one can stop you. But, your ideas are wrong based on the basic science of Materials.
Buildings generally are not designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner filled with fuel. - btgoss, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24As a country we do back away from human rights violations (perhaps the only true thing we should fight about...) Look at Darfur... no one here, from elected officials to self appointed spokesmen (Like Sharpton and Jackson) comment on Darfur, and yet that is where we should have sent troops.
And as for people thinking the government did it, it is because it is easier to believe in the boogyman, then the reality that a large portion of the world thinks we all should die because they think that is what God wants. - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18for those who think WTC7 fell due to damage, read what FEMA said on the matter:
“Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” (Chapter 5, pg 31.)
Let me highlight the line for those who can't read:
"how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time"
They spent million on investigating this collapse and they have no clue why it really fell. - satipip, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21The Bush government lied about the weapons of mass destruction
The Bush government lied about their wire tapping activities..
The Bush government lied about their Iraq war successes.
The Bush government lied about their illegal prison camps.
The Bush government lied about their election counts and their vote rigging.
However, what they told us about 9/11, and about the 3 WTC towers collapsing was pure truthiness. Yeah! - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20How many eyewitnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon is it going to take?
Where are the passengers? The wife of the US Soliciter General was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon. WHERE IS SHE?
I suspect you won't settle for anything that doesn't conform to your predetermined conclusions. - rudyB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20yeah and 48% of Americans believe that the Universe was created less than 9000 years ago.
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19In regards to the article, I thought it was quite a balanced and thoughtful piece.
This sentence kind of summed things up for me: "The public has been presented with two worldviews, one credulous, one paranoid, and both unsatisfactory. The more the former breaks apart, the greater the appeal of the latter." "Unsatisfactory" with both sides is how I feel.
And the last paragraph was most important:
"To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie." - digduggler, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31Great! When are we going to Darfur?
- rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24@RandomEngy
1. Melted Aluminum has already been proven that it does not burn bright orange. Only melted steel burns at these temperatures and with that type of color. Melted aluminum is a dullish silver color when melted, it doesn't even glow.
2. "pull it" if it was meant to pull the firefighters doesn't make sense. Everyone was evacuated from the building in the morning, and the firefighters left also. There was no need to pull the firefighters out, because they weren't in the building anyway.
3. Read my previous post about pancake. NIST disagrees with it also, even the explanation you gave.
Not a lot of people bring this up, but the towers had 2 re-enforced floor sections each with a 1/3 of the building in between them respectively. If there was some kind of progressive collapse the first re-enforced floor would have stopped the collapse and made those floors pause or somehow stutter in coming down. There would have been another stutter or pause at the lower re-enforced floor. This did not happen, they came down at near freefall speeds.
Take a look here and read the @Npolian entry
http://forum.physorg.com/What-was-the-weight-of-a-WTC-Tower_4299.html
That article has a lot of really good research to look up. - buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Anyone that believes the government report or it's apologists are lying to themselves.
Jet fuel doesn't burn at 1800 degrees F in open air. It only burns that hot under controlled conditions. Like in a jet engine. At best it burns at most around 800 degrees F in open air. Like on 9/11. And at 800 degrees the fire would have had to burn continuously for hours before the steel even got warm enough to begin to weaken. There is a thing called thermal mass where things don't just instantly heat up, when they weigh millions of tons.
Any report that claims the fires burned that hot that day are lying to you.
Back when I was a college student I lived in a trailer and heated with a steel heater that burned jet fuel. Well, it burned kerosene, but that is all that jet fuel is. I burned that heater for months at temperatures 1000 degrees F hotter than the fuel would have burned on 9/11. Not one time did my steel heater ever droop, weaken, nor melt. Not even once. I would have noticed. I am funny like that.
The fire had already mostly burned itself out in minutes after the planes hit. Fire fighters got up to the impact zone and radioed down this:
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm
Hardly the raging inferno that popular science and the government report state.
This was also reported in the New York Times and the Guardian a year after 9/11. There is a link to the NYT archive of the article and recordings are at the above link. The tapes were held back for over a year and only a few short tapes were ever released from that day and even the small experts show data that conflicts with the official story.
For a year the federal government let people believe that nobody got higher than the 50th floor in either building. Why not tell everyone about how heroic the fighters were that day? They actually got into the parts of the building above the impact zone and had started bringing out injured people. The firefighters state that there are just two isolated pokets of fire that can be put out with a couple of hoses. Hardly a raging inferno at all.
The fact that WTC7 collapsed for no apparent reason is kind of suspicious. Any fire that raged enough to weaken the steel core in that building should have been obvious from the outside. And a chunk taken off the outside of the building wouldn't cause that building to collapse. Take at look at the Oklahoma city bombing, see how the front half of the building is just gone? Yes, steel frame buildings remain standing when chunks are taken out of them, because the rest is over engineered to take damage of that magnitude. All the rest of the WTC buildings took a lot more debris damage than WTC7 did that day, yet they all stood up exactly how I expect a steel frame building to act.
No modern steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire before 9/11 or since. Yet on that day three of them did and nobody was allowed to investigate the cause of collapse. I would have especially wanted the collapse of WTC7 studied in detail due to the apparent cause of collapse being so mysterious. The fact that nobody was allowed to investigate the collapse is very suspicious.
And no, a plane hitting a building is not good enough cause to make that building collapse. Buildings are built to take hits of that magnitude. The buildings were specifically designed to take multiple hits from fuel filled jet liners without collapsing.
A military plane hit a 10 story apartment building just after take off and the building didn't collapse:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B1EF738550C748CDDAB0994DD404482&n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fIraq
To give you an idea of the scale, this is like 25 planes the size of the ones hitting on 9/11 all hitting at the same time into a single world trade tower.
Now, let's talk about the terror pilot sitting down at the controls of a plane that he had never seen before and then turning those planes around and pegging 3 out of 4 buildings on the first try. Just one being able to do that on the first go around would have amazed me. The fact that 3 out of 4 planes did it on the first go is one of the most astounding feats of navigation ever. Especially considering that one of the pilots that is claimed to have flown that day couldn't check out on a single engine Cessna the week before. Just sitting down at the controls would have shown you the arc of a world 30,000 feet below you, everything all looking like the same brown green patches. To be able to just turn the plane and fly to new york would have been amazing. To be able to line up and hit a single building from hundreds of miles away is a phenomenal feat of piloting. You see, it's a lot harder to fly a plane that size. If you just accidentally yank the controls a little too hard trying to turn the wings fall off and you crash and die.
As to the people who say a conspiracy couldn't happen due to there having to be too many people involved. You do know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged right? Many thousands of people knew about that too, yet it didn't come to light until this past year.
Thousands of people knew about the Japanese attack on Perl Harbor for months before hand, yet that was covered up for decades.
It doesn't take more than a few hundred "true patriots" to pull something like this off, they just have to be in the right places. And then the won't talk because they believe what they did was the true and right thing to do. Like the president said, sometimes you have to break a few eggs. Except that in this case break means kill and by eggs they mean Americans.
The part that tells me that the President knew is when he was able to be informed about the hit on the second building by his aide with just a couple word exchange and then him sitting there looking guilty and scared holding the goat book. Just sitting there, waiting out the attacks before his already scheduled news conference.
If they had really not known what was going on his SS agents would have had him hustled out onto an airplane and off to some secure location in minutes of the first attack.
The fact that they didn't consider the President in danger tells me that they knew exactly what the scope of the attacks were. If they didn't have fore knowledge how would they have known that the Presidents life wasn't in danger at that point? How did they know that their wasn't a hit squad gunning for him that day. He was in a pre-announced location that morning.
Oh, and fires don't get hotter when they are stuffed into a reduced space and given less oxygen, just so you know. So no, that doesn't explain how there was even a single drop of molten steel that day.
If they want to end the conspiracy theories, bring out the black boxes. There were 3 recovered that day according to first hand accounts from people on the scene. Release all the video tape and audio tape that was made that day by everyone. Release all reports of intelligence gathered before hand and the immediate aftermath. Release what was known when and by who.
Then let a bipartisan commission, where each member gets 75% of the vote in both the house and senate, study the full evidence and come to a real conclusion. - cbulman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17All of these questions have been answered with ample evidence. All it takes is for you to open your ears to the answers and stop discarding all the facts that don't fit in with your inane conspiracy theory.
Seriously, if I hear one more person talk about the melting point of steel being higher than the temp of burning jet fuel, I'm gonna beat them to death with a materials science textbook. - cyberwiz01, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18The interior of the building collapsing and blowing out windows while the exterior stays intact for a fraction of a second longer.
- paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@ZdrowcaB said: "I don't believe any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories."
Does that include the official conspiracy theory? Let's not forget that the government's version of events is also a conspiracy theory, masterminded by Osama bin Laden, and executed by 19 co-conspirators.
Either way it's a conspiracy. People are bashing conspiracy theories, but if they believe the official story, they are conspiracy theorists as well. Let's not call names people! The point is figuring out which conspiracy theory is correct. - EuphopiaB, on 10/12/2007, -18/+29Funny. Two planes weighing over ten tons a piece run into a skyscraper at over 100 MPH filled with enough fuel to cross the country, and they think that it wasn't the reason the buildings fell.
As for WTC7, maybe it fell as a result of the other massive structures around it collapsing. I mean, the ground shook. Pieces of concrete and steel flew everywhere. Even if it is kind of odd, why would the government want to destroy the building? I mean, seriously... do people really think that "the government" destroyed multiple city blocks in NY just to destroy WTC7? In a time of disaster many weird things happen. No need to pick at the unexplained and use it to point fingers. - zadadka, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I present some relevant Oscar Wilde quotes :
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. "
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative."
"In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. "
"Of course America had often been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up. "
"Only the shallow know themselves. "
"The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. "
And this for both camps : "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. " - ZdrowcaB, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25I don't believe any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Look, I can accept that the Bush administration exploited 9/11 for their own ends. I'm even open to believing that they MAY have known something like 9/11 was coming, and wilfully ignored it to so they could have an excuse to go to war. But really, does anyone honestly believe that the same government that hired Brownie to be in charge in FEMA is capable of blowing up the World Trade Center... AND keeping it a secret?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Quit being idiots, this is how our government operates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -54/+63Loose Change has been debunked more than Paris Hilton. You can quickly write off anyone that cites it as a reference.
- mdnash, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12youre thinking bush is actually in charge. beware of the penguin who lurks in the shadows....
- sonmiles, on 10/12/2007, -19/+28@Azur2
So you are saying that false flag operations never happen and are just a fairy tale? You believe everything the elected government tells you even though their "official report" on the incident is full of omissions and vague "facts"? You're just another American Zombie then. Our country isn't as innocent as you'd like to think. Every country has a very dark side.
I'm not saying they allowed or caused 9-11, but there are still a lot of answers the current administration needs to give to the American public. Sadly it won't happen...that is what makes me question things. When they can't even produce a still frame of the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon, something way up on Capitol Hill STINKS. - Krakn3Dfx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I've read a lot about 9/11, conspiracy, rebukes, reports, none answers 100% of the questions, none are 100% plausible. I think we will probably never know everything that happened on 9/11, whether facts were buried for security reasons or to cover up events that took place. I'm not fan of George W. Bush or his administration, and I'm not blind to corruption in government and the manipulation of facts to obtain a means to an end. Men have died to protect government secrets and to further a specific cause under the guise of national security. To completely dismiss the concerns of millions is to ignore the fact that we haven't been given the entire story and likely never will be. Put 9/11 on up on the same shelf where Roswell, the JFK Assasination, Princess Di's death, and Marilyn Monroe, none with enough evidence to satisfy the facts, all with holes big enough to drive a truck through.
Do I believe the government was running the events of 9/11? No.
Do I believe they willingly let 9/11 happen to justify a war in the Middle East? No.
Would it surprise me if evidence came to light in the next 5-10 years that proved they did either? No. -
Show 51 - 100 of 461 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 