What is Digg?95 Comments
- ZombieFlanders, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Because they are working at the Speed of Government, which is only slightly faster than geologic time.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21I wonder if Rosie is TRYING to get fired so she can go over to her own new show and sue ABC for being sexist or something?
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10A couple pictures? Those are the same picture, only one is zoomed out.
- arabesque, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Here are the engineers who built the Twin Towers:
The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960. Consequently, there was a considerable amount of planning:
“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”
In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”
Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “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.” As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”
In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:
“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”
One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”
This indicates that the building designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It is likely that the designers considered this speed of impact for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph. Both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and that the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower. Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.” This statement is supported by the following chart:
property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph
In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”
Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”
In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11. This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.” This ‘white paper’ concluded that:
“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.” In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”
The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from a ‘whistle-blower’.
Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:
“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”
One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:
“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”
Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”
Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11. - Wosat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17If you're an engineer then I'm Michael Jackson.
That word, engineer. It's not just some feel-good title that anyone can bequeath on themselves. There are standards that have to be met. If we let any dip-***** like you design a building or a bridge because they had confidence and an 8th grade education most structures would fall down before they were finished. The reason? Real engineering is hard. Luckily, we have professionals who know what they're doing.
You and Rosie need to stick to what you're good at and leave the engineering to the engineers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17Despite the complete omission of WTC7 from the 9/11 Commission Report, here's a few other tid-bits
1) FEMA, then NIST in more than 5 years have failed to give an official reason for
WTC7's 47 storey, complete collapse in it's own footprint in 6.5 seconds,
not damaging buildings only a few feet away (akin to aims of controlled
demolition).
2) NIST's failure to report has resulted in them having to outsource to a third party (ARA) to fabricate a
reason for it's collapse, only took them 5 years... doh such experts.
3) If it was common knowledge that WTC7 had to collapse (reported collapsed
by the BBC 20 mins before it did), then why were people nearly crushed when
it did...
or that the editor (Bill Manning) of Fire Engineering Magazine said,
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official
investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil
Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by
political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield
of full disclosure."
F.E. Jan 2002 Edition Link :
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:eLleB9EV2v0J:fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm%3FSection%3DARCHI%26ARTICLE_ID%3D133237
All the Securities and Exchange Commission's lost evidence, resulting in the SEC spokesperson
in the NY Post on 12-Sep-2001 stating...
"it's devastating, they'll have to scrap many cases, and start from scratch
on others"
I suggest you (or anyone interested in real issues opposed to personal insults) watch "WTC7 Smoking Gun"
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739&q=wtc7
Xvid Download - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9J1DX75Q - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=275113059872848770&hl=en
- payfone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6and here's another picture of WTC7
http://judi.kw.nl/uploads/fok/wtc7-sw-corner1.jpg - EdGallagher, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Truth hurts to some people. WTC 1 & 2 collapsed under their own weight due to weakened structure and fire (caused in part by burning jet fuel), WTC collapsed due to damage sustained by a huge building beside it collapsing, fire and damage.
It's the truth now get over it. - anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13is there an application process to become a goverment shill? i think most 'troofers' are deeply deluded, and i debunk the self-styled debunkers every chance i get. and i never get a ***** dime for it. and i'm out of work! i have a mortgage to pay, dammit. i want my paycheck for pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the troofer movement. how come some people get checks and i don't? it's not fair!
- bentman78, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8if you believe that, I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.
- MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12All the deniers and buriers, YOU AVOID acknowledging and examining the truth because IF you did, the moral imperative to DO something about it would be undeniable. INSTEAD you'd rather go back to your video games and ogling at Britney's pudenda.
Read all about yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism#Characteristics_of_pseudoskeptics
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics
The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 argued that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt[2]
* Double standards in the application of criticism[3]
* The making of judgements without full inquiry[4]
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate[5]
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks[6]
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof[7]
* Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof[9]
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims[10]
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence[11]
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it[12]
* Tendency to dismiss all evidence
The official lie is crumbling.
The pseudoskeptics and disinformationalists are outnumbered.
The criminals aren't gonna get away with this one.
They're all going to prison.
Let's put the "Patriot Act" to good use.
Traitors and tyrants: Don't ***** with my country. - CyanSnowHawk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Beautifully said.
- AmericanEagle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6How much damage had Building 7 sustained before it collapsed?
- bandelier, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut
Popular Mechanic clownies couldn't even hold their water against these guys. If for one minute (or second) you think that Bill O'Reilly has a single ounce more "credibility" than Rosie O'Donnell with his sworn pledge to Herr Bush and Herr Cheney, y'all got another thing coming. The man is a paid professional LIAR. Faux News Chief Propaganda Desk Jockey, I believe is his official title. Instead of attempting an open mind and trying to get FACTS, he and the rest of you who don't want to know the truth offer NOTHING but personal attacks. How convenient. Watch the movie, then get back to me. Until then, your deafening ignorance is bliss. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Rosie is an attention whore...actually a lesbian attention whore and will do and say pretty much anything to attract eyes and ears. Some of those sets of receptors apparently belong to the dullard supporters of hers appearing on this diggathon of who can spin up the biggest conspiracy theory.
- Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I agree with you, facts lead to the truth but Rosie is presenting zero facts, instead she makes unsubstantiated claims. The problem with Rosie is her influence with weak-minded people and her less than responsible attitude toward her statements. She's just one step down from a person yelling fire in a crowd when there's no fire.
I do agree she has the right to say or question whatever she chooses but she should be doing it in a much more responsible manner otherwise she's part of the problem not the solution. - bagelred, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Oh really Popular Mechanics? 25% destroyed you say, WTC7? Show us one video or picture that backs up that claim. Every video I see shows a rock solid, non collapsing, non swaying, structurally sound steel reinforced building with limited fires.
Why did every steel beam give way at once? Why was the building 100% destroyed? Why were firefighters all told the building was "coming down"? Why did BBC report the collapse 23 minutes early? Why did it "look like" the most perfect controlled demolition we've ever seen in our lives? Why were there explosions heard around the scene? Why was all the steel and evidence quickly recycled without investigation? Why did Professor Jones confirm that thermate was used for explosions? Why did Silverstein tell them to "pull it"? Why was there molten metal found at the base of the building? Why did the top penthouse come down first? Why wasn't there one steel column remain standing? Why was there a classic pyroclastic flow that comes only from controlled demolition? What was everything in the building reduced to a fine powder? Why did it collapse at freefall speed?
Just keep ignoring all these questions PM. Keep sticking to your very weak damage and fire story that's already been debunked. - davidlt, on 12/23/2008, -0/+2Rosie is a typical Hollywood trouble maker. I really hate it when celebrities get free press to promote their political agenda. Sure, she has a right to her opinion, but it always is contrary to my way of thinking. Therefore, I can easily tune her out!
http://buyingafurnace.com - japanskeptic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@anastrophe
You shouldn't lump all "truthers" together ... I don't believe in "no-plane, space lasers" theories either. I just know that the official reports are filled with lies, that's all. Every time Bush/the administration opens itheir mouths, lies come out:
I won in Florida
Saddam's buying yellowcake
Saddam's buying aluminum tubes for his nuke program
I may have met Ken Lay
I saw the first plane hit on live tv
If anyone is found to have been involved in the Plame leak, I'll fire them
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States" memo was only historical info
We're not engaged in any illegal wiretapping
We don't engage in torture
"Downing Street memo"? What "Downing Street memo"?
I'll get Bin Laden dead or alive
There's no truth in any 9/11 conspiracy theory
As for what Rosie O'Donnell said about building 7, it's very well-established that the building was blown up -- you're either very late to the issue, or retarded, or both. Do some homework other than Popular Mechanics.
Here, I'll give you a head-start. NOT mentioned by Popular Mechanics:
***** "Additional Investigative Topics Identified as the WTC 7 Investigation Progressed
-Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
-Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance
-Awarded contract for evaluation of hypothetical blast scenarios"
-- excerpt from The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee teleconference of Thursday, December 14, 2006
read it for yourself, if you'd like to catch up to where the rest of us are before you go shooting your mouth off again (click the "Presentation" pdf link):
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec06.htm
NIST can't, after 6 years, explain what happened to building 7. So they are FINALLY looking at "BLAST SCENARIOS." Go read more and stop being sidetracked by "no-plane" crap. - ericodom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The bury brigade must have pounded this post. There is a story called "Tesla Coils" that made it to the front page with only 81 votes. This story, with now 144 votes, didn't come anywhere close.
Such is Digg... - Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Rosie O'Donnell is an ignorant, pompous ass. She uses her celebrity and TV exposure to demonstrate to viewers she is were better informed and smarter. She's NOT.
She's speaks about how something is impossible by the laws of physics as if she could name one of Newton's Three Laws of Motion is unimaginable. Well Rosie you want to know something that's impossible by the laws of physics but true? You being a horse's ass! - dltros, on 12/23/2008, -0/+2Do you think rosie is really dumb enough to fall for all this conspiracy crap or is she just that much of a Bush hater? I think the latter. Now that it's been well over a year since all this conspiracy junk started surfacing, if any of this had even a shred of truth to it, the media would've been all over it to make the republicans look bad. so, in MHO I really think this is all a big farce!
http://myhoststore.com I think I will add this goofy story to http://pliggvote.com too! - BenZacharia, on 10/12/2007, -17/+19I expected more posts from the truthers. Last round of meds and lights out in the ward came early tonite.
- BruceDeuce, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11You sound like a conpiracy theorist. We can't have that type of thinking. You are straying to far from the normal talking points on Rosie's weight. Please check back with Bill O'Reilly on how you are supposed to think.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8The whole back side of it was carved out from the collapsed building behind it. The report shows that it was hit with the force of a volcanic eruption. All the pictures show the front which looked fine, which created the consiracies, yet the back of it was completely destroyed.
It's kind of like Donald Trump. From the front, his hair looks stable, then you see the back and it's... holy ***** that's messed up! - timoflores, on 01/01/2009, -0/+1
******************************************************************************
minneapolis furnace repair
http://hoffmanheating.net
furnace install mn
http://hoffmanheating.net
gas furnace quote minneapolis
http://hoffmanheating.net
gas furnace estimate minneapolis mn
http://hoffmanheating.net
minneapolis furnace repair, st. paul, saint paul, minnesota, mn, install, installation, quote, estimate
http://hoffmanheating.net
******************************************************************************************
pornbzh , sex , porn movies , free sex , porn tube , movie sex , amateur porn , sex movies
http://www.pornbzh.com - harrylook, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Truthers" are the definition of crazy. WTC was rigged with explosives? It was a fully occupied office building. But no one noticed the explosives being set up all over the building? Duh. What else can we get these idiot conspiracy theorists to believe?
- SnowKat, on 10/12/2007, -25/+26Where's all the Diggbats? "Come out, come out, where ever you are" Rosie needs some more meds.
- anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10yeah, i'm getting dugg down because the content the link goes to is so nutsy-kookoo. i'm a 'troofer' debunker myself.
hey, i highly recommend this already buried article - http://digg.com/world_news/Scholars_file_challenges_to_NIST_reports_on_9_11
i strongly recommend everyone read the formal complaints, because they are *freaking hilarious*. these lunatics are claiming outright that what hit the towers were not jetliners. period. so, what we say on 9/11/01 was *special effects*. oh, and one of them contends the towers were hit with 'high tech directed energy weapons', or in other words, bushco shot a ray gun at the towers and that's why they fell.
if the authors of these hilarious FORMAL complaints to NIST are not wearing tinfoil hats, i'll eat my hat. and i really do mean it - wearing tinfoil hats. tinfoil is the only known protection from directed energy weapons.
seriously - read those formal complaints, found here: http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619
spread them far and wide. this is some of the strongest evidence out there that the 'troofers' need to be medicated and sedated for their own protection! - dicktater, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Over five long years and still no final report from NIST. What could be taking NIST so long to put the controversy surrounding WTC 7 to bed? I mean, if a monthly magazine for gear heads and wrench monkeys can do it over and over again, why can't NIST. I wish they would hurry so Popular Mechanics can spend more time on stories about the things they know best, like lawn mowers, shop tools, and DIY garage-built space ships.
I hope that everybody caught Tool Watch: Drill Bit Blowout (with Video). IT WAS AWESOME! - gettarat, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1The loons are out in force tonight. Hey truthers, even Art Bell thinks you're nuts.
http://homedepothours.com/ - smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5 Why did building 7 collapse? It wasn't even hit by anything, (save a small amount of debris. It was a whole block away from the burning twin towers. And yet it collapsed in exactly the same way - a perfect implosion at free fall speed in it's own neat little footprint - (on 9/11). Buildings that were much closer to the twin towers were not destroyed, nor collapsed.
Then there are Squibbs. "Squibbs" is a demolition term for the puffs of smoke that are visible as the explosives are detonated in sequence. They are visible here on WTC-7: ( you can also see squibbs on the twin tower footage).
WTC 3 Was Structurally Destroyed by Falling Debris, Yet Did Not Uniformly Collapse at Free-Fall Speed Like WTC 7
World Trade Center Building 3 -- known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the Twin Towers-- was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally-- but rather a crater of inconsistent breakage.
Yet, Building 7, which was comparably far removed from the two buildings hit by airliners, suffered only minor fires and sudden, uniform collapse-- typically indicative of a controlled demolition.
Clearly, the difference in damage between the two steel buildings is remarkable and untenable under the explanation offered by the government's official story.
http://www.freewebs.com/911Truther
http://911scholars.org/ - CmdrBob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not enough damage to do *****. And NIST gave up on the stored fuel tanks as the result as their was no evidence of fuel exploding an' if it did would have looked different yes but taken out the building, no. WTC 3 was many times worse and it didn't fall in a few seconds on its own footprint. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3des1.html Nothing can convince these indoctrinated sheep what laughingly seems elementary to the majority of Americans with more than a 6th grader education. Why when you mention the Madrid skyscraper to these fools it just somehow doesn't register? What F'd up line of non logic are they using to function? DUH! Engineers design and test and test and test scale models to withstand such things before any construction begins. DUH! Snap out of it! http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html I'm fairly certain as a devout "faither" certain annoying facts, as it doesn't dovetail neatly with your "programming" (compliments of the Zionist owned propaganda machine) will remain firmly in the distant black-hole some call reality.
- smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Popular mechanics..LMFAO... They are not professionals. !!! I can't stop laughing,,, OMG, my stomach hurts.. LMFAO.. Whew... The debunkers should have had home depot do the story, Too Funny.. But know whats not funny... but is truthful and very serious? The fact that 9/11 was an inside job.
- CmdrBob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2All you deluded fools blather on and on. The crap they keep parroting consists of nothingness. Popular Mechanics is a C.I.A. operated propaganda outlet for the interested but gullible. NIST (Not Interested in Scientific Truth) fired anyone who dared to suggest the slightest deviation from the "official" lie. Why? The mentally handicapped cannot comprehend how very impossible it is to have entire buildings transform into equidistant lengths of steel ready for haul without something in which to cause it. See? It's called cause and effect. The blind faith they hold dear to doesn't begin to explain how airplanes and kerosene many times smaller than the structure it met with somehow managed to transform chairs computers, tables, people, you name it, into tiny fragments. They snicker at us "truthers" interested in the truth. The "faithers" laugh at anyone who suggests that tons concrete turning to powder before it can reach the ground was caused by anything but kerosene and airplanes and the fake war on "Terrorists". They ignore the documented and admitted fact Bin Laden known C.I.A. asset on their own website does not list their Patsy as being responsible for the crime. They ignore completely the fact the 666 Pentagram was busted red handed making FAKE Bin Laden tapes to scare the general public. Yes, to you "faithers" out there, I feel such sadness and hope you will wake up to the reality in which the mainstream propaganda matrix you receive your daily programming from is failing and 9/11 will be exposed for what it is. Okay lost sheep now go ahead and summarily Digg me down but it won' stop the TRUTH the TRUTH the TRUTH!!!!
- davidlt, on 12/23/2008, -0/+1EXACTLY! - Because it's not! If there was even a shred of evidence to go on, the media would be all over it!
- inactive, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1Great, thanks for such extensive resource. Mike
http://www.squidoo.com/inklineglobalpcboosterrevie ...
http://www.squidoo.com/jamoramareviewbenedwardsjam ... - anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3yes! another citation of the idiotic '911scholars.org' people. thanks for that.
the "scholars" filed three formal complaints with NIST - found here: http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619
i HIGHLY recommend that people read these complaints, as they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are ***** crazy.
here's just a few tasty samples from these formal complaints:
" NIST apparently failed to interview and document the photographers of each video, chains of custody (e.g., the Evan Fairbanks video allegedly was in the hands of the FBI on 9/11 for several hours and only a portion of the video was returned) and failed to investigate to insure no manipulation of pixels. For unknown reasons, NIST relied on obviously fraudulent data (e.g., faked videos) for its “analysis.” If NIST engaged in conscious fraud, as is likely, the British would call it “fixing the intelligence to fit the policy.”
(so, what millions of people saw live, as it happened, on 9/11, was special effects. yeah baby!)
"Nor has NIST or any other official investigation agency produced a single time-change part with its unique serial number from any of the alleged commercial aircraft of 9/11 matched against each aircraft’s maintenance log to prove aircraft identity."
(so, like, what does that mean with regard to the families of victims who were on the planes who are also associated with the Troofer movement? those family members are fakes - maybe CIA plants?)
"combined with these other effects suggest the probable use of high-tech, directed energy weapons."
(ray guns. bushco-rove-rumsfeld-cheney-devil shot ray guns at the towers. here, this should fit right in with that line of thinking: http://gwb-sim-911.freewebspace.com/ ) - bentman78, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6It's amazing how people on Digg are suddenly civil engineers every time a 9/11 conspiracy comes up.
- jchemie, on 01/15/2009, -0/+0I hope such conspiracies stop to happen. World has had enough of terrorism. I hope people begin some spiritualism. http://www.thespiritualhealth.com (Get some tips you terrorists!!). World has become a bad place to live. I hope things go right soon
- heavensent52, on 12/31/2008, -0/+0Attention...
She says these things for attention.
If we didn't pay her remarks any attention, she would stop, and make more sensible remarks.
Then, she would get no attention.
http://www.quicksilverinfodesigns.com - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6The designers of the Titanic said it was unsinkable as well.
The thing that you aren't covering (and what they missed) is that there was damage to all 4 sides of the towers, the jet fuel, while not enough to melt steel, did heat it up enough to reduce it's rigidity and thereby make it more prone to collapse due to the static load above it.
All that coupled together likely stressed the steel to a mechanical(not thermal) breaking point and down they went. This could also account for the time difference between impact and collapse. - stacybholcomb, on 12/18/2008, -0/+0Kripke explained that one of the more intriguing ways that the writers of Supernatural create character development for Sam and Dean Winchester along their journey is by creating morally challenging situations and people for them to face. That as much as the series is about action/adventure, rock music and the
http://www.advanceddatarecovery.co.uk/
http://www.easyrecovery.co.uk/
http://www.artistWar.com/Warartist
http://www.Ashiqanaviswanath.com/viswanathAshiqana - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8>>"I don't believe anything anybody says. I only determine feasibility through personal study and investigation."
>>" A hobby of mine is researching theoretical and quantum physics."
Now taking those two statements, I have to ask, do you have a particle accelerator in your basement? I'm curious as how one might research quantum physics without believing anyone else. -
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 