What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
466 Comments
- xerus, on 10/12/2007, -63/+180I love when conspiracy theorists with no engineering background say that a building collapsing makes no sense to them.
- sonofdy1, on 10/12/2007, -74/+150You have inaccurate information. The entire building was in flames and the water supply to the fire fighters was cut off. Not only that, the back 1/4 of the building was gone and there were huge tanks of gas for the cities emergency center's generators that were burning. Most of the 9/11 "truth" ers will not mention this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -35/+88When did stupidity and paranoia become viewpoints?
And, why isn't O'Reilly entitled to his opinion? That is what this is, you know, his opinion. - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -59/+111I want Rosie O'Donnell fired, what's wrong with that?
She is an absolute nutcase and a crazy bitch to boot. Bill O'Reilly says a lot of stupid stuff, why jump all over him the few time he actually makes sense?
And, FYI, fire doesn't need to melt still for it to collapse, it just needs to weaken it. Or have enough of the other supporting beams taken out so that the weight is imbalanced. Or explosives--but that seems a BIT far fetched compared to the other two, don't ya think? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -54/+99You state that you are not a believer but then you repeat, for the sixth million time, the same old theories and charges against Bush. Of course you are a truther. Why don't you just admit it? Embarrassed to be seen as standing with these defectives?
- Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -40/+74Can't we just fire them both?
- Kaboom108, on 10/12/2007, -34/+64I love these comments. Every single one of these WTC conspiracy lunatics does not know the first thing about the design of the buildings, or the engineering that went into them, or any of the huge amounts of actual data recovered from the site (the NIST has conducted one of the largest (if not the largest) investigations into the collapse of the WTC buildings in history. Their conclusion, and the ONLY conclusion supported by the tiniest shred of actual evidence, and agreed upon by all the experts (I'm talking about people who are actually qualified and analyze engineering failures for a living, not the idiots news channels dredge up who are willing to make claims before actually seeing any real data) is the planes brought the towers down. You can find details of their investigation here http://wtc.nist.gov/ now please STFU and kill yourself for listening to a jackass on youtube over real engineers.
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -22/+49Hey, this is the NO SPIN ZONE.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -21/+45"I find the idea that planes are kept up by air hitting the bottom of their wings very unlikely."
Actually, this is unlikely. A wing provides lift by the low pressure vacuum created by the air flowing over the wing. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -26/+50I feel alittle strange when I agree completely with Bill Orly.... But this is one of those times
- fluidfoundation, on 10/12/2007, -14/+35Seriously, what the hell does it matter?????
"libs" want "neo-cons" fired.
"neo-cons" want "libs" fired.
Christ, people, get ahold of yourselves. Get yourselves out of this he-said-she-said OCD disorder.
But I guess I must just not "care" about America by telling people to just GROW UP. - cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+36You forgot BBD, Blame Bush Disease.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -26/+45@tyrannysucks
I have to say, I constantly hear "truthers" calling for the execution of those in power, a bloody revolution against the government, etc. Maybe you (and others) could be reasonable, but many other "truthers" are from from it. - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -24/+42@trannysucks
No, you do not just call for a fair investigation. There already was one, you just don't like what was found and want investigation after investigation until your crazy views come out on top. Now you and your gang of 9/11 conspiracy loonies which are running around in this comment section go ahead and digg me down--I know you're out in force today. - tb0n3r, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25"9/11 was an inside job. Examine the evidence. Ask questions."
You forgot the following:
Ignore evidence that counters your preconceived notion that it was in inside job. When you ask a question, and get a reasonable answer, claim that the person who just gave you the answer is a "sheep", and willing to believe anything that the government tells them. Try not to dwell on the fact that you yourself are a "sheep", willing to believe anything that your fellow conspiracy theorists tell you on some website. - adc89, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Why can't they argue the facts rather than resorting to childish name calling?...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I hate these stupid ass digg stories that start off with "Let me explain whats going on:" and continue on with a hate-filled opinionated speech. ***** digg submitters that do this *****. Learn to write a couple unopinionated sentences and let the audience determine the validity of the article.
Damnit. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22@sultantravi -- I can guarantee you that you do not have a aerospace engineering degree. This is simple physics and the source (wikipedia) that you cited confirms what I said. From your soruce:
"The force on the wing can also be examined in terms of the pressure differences above and below the wing"
"In order to generate lift one must create a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the airfoil." - gallagherFTW, on 10/12/2007, -51/+64Like Bill said, cable news and daytime network tv are two different things. Rosie O'Donnell is a little puppet for the left wing fanatics and while we're at it...she's an assclown. At least Bill expresses his own opinions, even if you don't agree with them.
BTW, the way she ripped into that hot Republican girl was above debate, it was very disrespectful. There is a fine line between trying to express your opinion constructively and just being insulting. Bill is yelling at guests (he has only told them to shut up 3 times), on Rosie's side: this is a person she is supposed to be FRIENDS with, or at least work with her daily. - fluidfoundation, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26and yeah, i realize I just did "OCD Disorder"... Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Disorder. Party on.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25Science with the sole intent to prove a political point is not real science.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27"unprecedented loss of freedom and unprecedented death and suffering"
You've heard of WWII? Idiot. - Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27@sonofdy1
You forgot to mention that WTC7 was not built like a normal building. The geometry was insane because it had to straddle a power substation. It was questionable when it was constructed about how strong it would be.... Anyone interested should dig up some pictures of the construction of WTC7 and the rethink your conspiracy theories. The thing looked like it shouldn't stand on its own, let alone while on fire. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+30@dooley
That's a huge misconception continually perpetuated by media and low-level science textbooks. And I'm not kidding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)
It's from air hitting the bottom of the wing. Angle of attack. - Allymarie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Bill works in media. Media is supposed to be our "watch dog." I hate the guy, i think he's a sensationalist that accomplishes close to nothing on his show. That being said, I dont see why we should attack people on "The View" for having "A View. " Dont like it dont watch it. Dont like what Rosie has to say about 911 conspiracies? Make an investigation and prove her wrong. Obviously enough people are curious about this subject. QUESTION EVERYTHING that’s what I say
Why cant the American media have debates anymore? anyone remember debates? The fourth estate has been reduced to name calling and screaming matches
and on a side note, stop using "lesbian" as an insult. - euphemizeme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Reminds me of the scene from Austin Powers where the fembots' heads blow up. Digg hates Rosie, but it hates Bill even more... so when one criticizes the other, what is a digger to do? Hence, none of the top comments receiving nearly as many diggs as in any other article ever to receive this many comments.
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -6/+16And also BCD: "But Clinton..." Disease.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The NIST never tested for explosives
so it is unsurprising they never came up with that explanation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+251. He never said she should be fired.
2. Valid viewpoints? Seriously...it is time to give that craziness up. Bush did not plan 9/11, and absolutely NO ONE will ever take you seriousoy again as long as you continue that.
3. O'Reilly was right on. What if Ann Coulter said someting like that? She would have been crucified - cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -22/+30You ***** idiot.
How about the part when that fat bitch said that if we are nice to terrorists, they would leave us alone?
"Truthers" are a bunch of ***** freaks. Big ass gov't conspiracy, yet they can't even fire a couple of attorneys without being investigated...
Give me a ***** break!
... - grobinson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14yea they both make extreme comments to boost their ratings, but I think the point is Bill O'Reilly is not one to talk.
since he mostly gives his own opinion anyways. - tynos, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22Top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd
In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely collapsed.[1]
Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock solid proof that the official story is true. I am writing this list In order to help remedy this situation. All of my claims are documented—I am not making this up. Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to be true, but they are. I have provided the footnotes to prove it.
This is for anyone who still takes the NIST report seriously.
#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.[2]
#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.[3]
#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.[4]
#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.[5]
#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.[6]
#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.[7]
#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.[8]
#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.[9]
#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began![10]
NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?
#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”![11]
This statement is stunning evidence that there needs to be a criminal investigation, as well as a new investigation.
Most of this information is in an essay I wrote about the NIST report. For a more complete examination of the NIST report, read:
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4324
[1] www.nist.gov/
[2] This is NIST’s theory in their own words: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”
Taken from: NIST: “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers” page 4.
Therefore, the NIST theory is a “fireproofing theory”. If the fireproofing was not removed the buildings would not have collapsed according to NIST.
Plane damage was therefore insignificant:
Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).
Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California:said “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, Oct 5, 2001.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html
See also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006.
[3] No steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire in history according to the New York Times:
Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
[4] Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory:
“It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”
In other words, the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where they were struck with the shotgun blast. Their own photos clearly show that the shotgun blasts removed little fireproofing, disproving their theory.
taken from: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged
See also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006. at 36:06, and the NIST study that has photos of the shotgun blast tests.
[5] Eyewitness testimony: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
[6] As Seen from in NIST’s FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
“How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”[6]
NIST responds:
“…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics] The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”[6]
Jim Hoffman explains why this is impossible:
“NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd. It:
* Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
* Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
* Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.”[6]
Physicist Steven Jones, who has written over 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, agrees [see page 28]:
“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”[6]
[7] Here are NIST’s own test results:
* Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
* Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)
* Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
* NIST found that there was no floor collapse.
* "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis
and here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests
[8] “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
[9] What data did NIST use for these computer models? We don’t know exactly, but they did reveal:
“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.
This does not prove their predetermined conclusion so they change their data until they get the desired result—building collapse:
“The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.
NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports. Does this “evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to fool around with?
NIST also revealed:
“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
[10] NIST: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.
The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Essentially, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it started.
[11] I can’t believe they actually stated this on the record! NIST truly sets a new standard for absurdity.
NIST: “The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.” Read it here! http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13
NIST is trying to say that the molten steel was created after the building collapse. How do they know that? If so, why isn’t it mentioned in a 10, 000 page report to show this? This statement defies belief. - fatesdefiance, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@pleiadianagenda
"No one wants to believe 9-11 was an inside job."
Au contraire. There are many, many people who wanted to believe all kinds of far-fetched conspiracies--regarding everything from the moon landings to UFOs. There are absolutely people who "want" to believe ill of our government, and the less popular some of our government's policies are, the more people want to believe that.
Every scrap of "evidence" I've seen for a conspiracy surrounding 9/11 relies on taking statements out of context or examining facts in isolation from the larger picture. "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel", or "a building can't fall that fast from collapse", etc., etc. The statements often appear to make sense by themselves, so people seize on them to formulate conspiracy theories. However, when the all the information is examined *in context*, it's perfectly reasonable that the towers did, in fact, collapse due to the planes crashing into them.
I think people need to employ Occam's Razor with a little more sense here. - cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@Herkimer56:
I agree with your well articulated post.
The discussion of a conspiracy, vast or not, has been greatly disputed and shot down. I don't see how people are "afraid" if it, we just see it for the utter ***** that it is. That is the difference, no hidden Bush protection agenda is present. These so-called "truthers" are basically left wing nutbags that shout out "Inside job!!", and yet if they even bother to graduate beyond that, they spew forth vile crap that has been disputed countless times before.
The level of fear and hatred that comes from these folks is scary. Not scary to the point of being afraid of them, just scary knowing that these whackjobs live and work with us day to day. Their thoughts are irrational and irrational people are the ones that you really need to keep an eye on.
Rosie is a stupid fat bitch pitted with less powerful women and she gets to use The View as her platform that is popular only to people who actually believe this *****. She has the opportunity to express her ideas to a group that is mostly at home moms, who are usually politically ignorant. I am not saying take away her free speech, what I am saying is that I am concerned that a company such as ABC gives her a soapbox to stand on.
These hate filled "truthers" are afraid to defend their positions if it means not using some ***** ***** website as their proof. Or "Hey, Mr. Jones said he saw it, it must be so!" "I know it is a fact, because this website has the facts nicely laid out."
They cannot discuss the reality of facts, they hide behind lies. They are the cowards of our society, they place blame on others kind of people, the ones that are the first to always look for some ridiculous hidden agenda that makes no sense to sane people. It is actually amusing, if you really sit back and look at it all.
And that is what it really is at this point... We just laugh at them, and that is what makes them the most pissed off. They HATE being ignored. The only people that take them seriously are the choir that they preach to. - fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18First time steel was melted. That is a statement that sounds good for about 1 second, before you go "wait a minute..."
- scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15You are comparing a precise number (speed of a falling body in a vacume under the force of 1 G) to an estimate (how long it took the tower to fall) - about 9 seconds. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a video between 9 seconds and 9.23 seconds. Not only that but you are refering to seismic activity located some miles away. It takes time for sound to travel that distance. Also it is highly unlikely the clock on the camera and the clock on the siesmagraph are in sync to any reasonable degree of accuracy. Also due to the massive amount of dust etc. you can't tell when the roof hit the ground - so you stop the clock way too soon. In addition, since there is ruble the roof didn't make it to street level, but some amount short of that. So you see your approximation gets worse and worse. But let's not let any facts get in the way.
- rnwen2750, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I would put good money on Rosie.
- mrcaseyj, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12>The buildings were only damaged near the top. Why did they offer NO resistance at all to the load coming down on them ?
NO resistance? Obviously it did provide some. But when a building that big starts to fall, nothing can slow it down much. - depburns, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14OK, so what is the big deal about educating ourselves about 911, asking questions, testing the validity of the facts presented, testing theories and rejecting those that don't fit the facts? Notice Bill won't ever discuss 911 facts on his show. Instead he attacks instead insults Rosie and screams for her to be fired. Some debate.
What is it about exploring these 911 questions that freaks some of you government apologists out so much that you have to insult people if they keep pressing for answers? What is wrong with learning, being our own master and insuring we are not just being sold a bill of goods? Since when was insulting someone a debating tactic unless of course your argument is weak.
Since when was America afraid of open, honest and free debate. After all, 911 really has been the central event of our times. Many people died. Isn't it reasonable to want to know what happened, and if the explanation doesn't fit the facts, keep digging?
Do we live in Amerika now? Land of the coward, home of the indoctrinated? If not, you should have no problem with a healthy and respectful debate.
Let's list a few of the lies and attacks aginst the American people we have been handed by the Bushies, shall we? Let's see, we've had secret wiretapping and monitoring of citizens, the politicizing of the legal system, torture prisons, torture memos, the erosion of civil liberties and habeus corpus, the North American Union negotiations, WMD in Iraq, to name but a few. But we are foolish to question the government about anything that happened on 911, right? I'd say your trust of the Bushies is either niave, willfully ignorant or you want a join them. Some of you most definitly are on the payroll, $1.6 billion goes a long way.
In addition, bones from some of the victims of 911 have now wound up as pothole filler. That's a nice metaphor for how the Bushies view us, I believe.
They spent $80 million investigating Clinton's blowjob but I believe $16 million on the 911 Commission. Does that seem right to you? The biggest mass murder on American soil?
By the way, Mr. O'Rielly, many family members of people killed on that day question many aspect of the official story, so don't be writing that I am hurting them by discussing this. I am helping them find closure by discussing this.
I don't believe the facts about what happened to WTC1 and 2 support the official explaination. I have seen mainstream media reports of a number of huge explosions in the towers prior to the collapses.
Both towers had massive steel columns all up the center which -- in my mind -- should have resulted in massive central columns sticking in the air. I have seen photos of steel support columns that appear to have been cut at a 45 degree angles. I have seen videotape of molton metals streaming out the side of one of the WTC towers shortly before it collapsed, and firefighters talking about pools of molton steel, "like a foundary" under the rubble. Everything was turned to dust, and massive pieces if the support columns were thrown 400 feet away from the towers.
I also have seen the BBC reporting on the collapse of WT7 almost a half hour before before it fell. WT7 has fires but otherwise was hit by very little. When WT7 does collapse, it appears to fall like a classic demolition. Free-fall speed. The only three steel structured buildings that have ever collapsed due to fire collapsed on that day. Coincidence. These facts, in my mind, don't line up with the official story. Something else was going on there.
If I believe the official story raises serious questions that demand answers, I think it is reasonable to explore those questions, dangerously naive not to. I see it as natural to discuss this with others to gain other perspectives and test ideas. If I'm proven wrong about my suspicions in the exercize, all the better. If not ...
Remember, Ghandi said, to paraphrase, first the truth is ridiculed, then attacked, then accepted as common sense. The truth has a nasty way of poking its head up again and again and again. All I want to know is the truth. What could be wring with that?
What are you so afraid of, really? - adc89, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Those people do not love America they are contributing to it's downfall, the sooner everyone faces up to this the better.
- bratpack8, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17They are both idiots. If you don't like 'em, don't watch 'em. That's what that remote in your hand is for.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13For O'Reilly to talk about liberals trying to take away our rights on a regular basis, but then wanting someone silenced because he disagrees with them, what a two faced hypocritical little *****.
I think O'Donnell is an idiot, but if someone wants to pay her and give her an outlet for her moronic opinion on television, then so be it. I just won't watch. Like how I don't watch O'Reilly. - gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Why the hell are mainstream news corporations right wing..."
What ***** rock have you been hiding under? NY Times, CNN, NBC, CBS, The Washington Post and LA Times are right wing? Only an imbecile would say such a thing. - randf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@ tyranny
i do agree with one thing....tyranny sucks...but not nearly as much as tyrannysucks sucks - nathanstarr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9First of all, Tynos, a lot of your sources are these crazy leftist websites who of course are going to say this crap. (I didn't sat all). You use the muckrakker report in a lot of your sources. It's interesting to note how Princeton defines the word "Muckraker" (one who spreads real or alleged scandal about another (usually for political advantage).
Anyway, does anyone else smell a Celebrity Deathmatch coming? - tynos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133 - Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10sil5er:
and designs never fail...
whenever someone brings up that design thing regarding a plane crash, they never have much to respond with when they are told the real facts of that. it was designed to withstand a plane smaller than what it was hit with, at MUCH slower speeds.
fact: a 757 going 200 miles an hour is going to cause far less damage than a 747 going at 600 miles an hour.
But that is all immaterial, because apparently in your viewpoint that because something is deisgned for something, it will be successful in it's fuction. because designs cannot fail - Ninja337, on 10/12/2007, -22/+27http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Maddox is law. Conversation over. - southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -19/+24but I thought Rosie likes "bush"............
- billyvnilly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This was my first time visiting foxnews.com
I was very hesitant clicking "allow foxnews.com" under noscript in ff. -
Show 51 - 100 of 466 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is