What is Digg?187 Comments
- PsycoEwok, on 10/12/2007, -6/+52"According to his opinion it was some very experienced millitary pilot making his last kamikaze mission."
He had previous kamikaze missions? - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46conspiracy is stupid. but the pictures offer a unique perspective on that terrible disaster
- ers35, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I don't think it's smart to fly closer to the Towers if they just got struck by two planes.
- jcims, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26@gardnert1
Because commercial pilots have to land. - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26sorry for abusing reply
http://duggmirror.com/world_news/9_11_Photos_taken_from_air_by_Russian_pilot/ - CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26@gardnert1
"how come commercial pilots have to go through so much training?"
You don't training for normal flight, you spend all or your time learning to deal with emergencies and air traffic control, etc.
"planes magically knocking down 3 buildings all three of which fell at just under freefall speeds (pretty weak for buildings that were designed with large jets in mind and the redundency to handle them)"
With a 727 or 707 and the associated fuel load. Not 767 - much larger. Plus they looked at the structural impact, not at the burning fuel weakening the metal.
for ***** sake people, apply some logic - it's not''t that hard to figure out. I find it hard to believe that so many people on can be that dense as to accept some of this conspiracy crap. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30@gardnert1
I won't go into all the detailed explanation of why you're an idiot. (The WTC was designed with the 707 in mind, a much smaller plane than the ones which crashed into it)
But to answer your question, real pilots are trained to take off, land, deal with unforeseen circumstances (system failures, microbursts, cross winds, etc.), and so on... If all you want to know how to do is fly an airplane once it's already in the air, there isn't much to learn. - klawz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32@gardnert1
The hardest part of flying a plane is takeoff/landing - they didn't have to do either.
Have you even read the 9-11 Commission report? I thought not - you've come to a conclusion w/o even knowing 1/2 the facts. - bravecoward, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@gardnert1
Because commercial pilots LAND and NOT crash into buildings.
Guys, you just can't have a conspiracy this big for any sane person to try to pull it off. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16it is if you want better pictures, besides, it was totally safe because the nearest interceptor was miles away.
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22i love how people digg others down simply because they dont like what theyre saying and not because they are spamming or being vulgar.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I am a pilot (admittedly not a passenger jet pilot, but..) finding one building in a teeming metropolis is far from easy. Having said that, the WTC & the Pentagon are rather clear landmarks .. at *close range*.
Don't bother discussing the point. I've seen commercial jet pilots argue fruitlessly over this very issue. Nobody can make up other peoples' minds for them.
The 2nd plane's last minute angle adjustment as it ploughed into the tower, however, was rather skillful. - Twice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16That's definitely a better description than 'shocking story of a Russian pilot'.
- cmilki, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22Don't you love it when people use the witty comments from the source here on Digg. ;)
- PDelahanty, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21This was going to be a duggmirror link, but I was beaten to it and edited it out. Digg me down, bitches.
- ThePeteStanis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19@gardnert1
All the terorists had to do was fly into a building. I could learn how to do that on Flight Simulator. Its a couple of pedals, a throttle and a yoke.
School takes a lot longer if you want to learn about take-off, landing on an actual runway (not a skyscraper), fuel mixtures, auxiliary systems, etc... - betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -24/+35Thats what they want. Now go watch Survivor : Bahamas or Nascar.
- CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@paladin144
You don't have to melt the steel for it to lose considerable strength - red hot is enough. Ask a blacksmith. Try this. Build a fire in your fireplace, and once you have a nice bed of coals, shove the business end of the poker in the coals and leave it there for 45 minutes. it will be red to orange hot - and be considerable weaker.
Consider this. you can take an empty coke can and it will support a 100 lbs or so, as long as the weight is applied evenly and gently, yet drop that weight even a half inch and it will crush. This is the same effect of bumping a car with your bumper at 5 MPH - no damage, 35MPH serious damage.
THe pancaking of the floors above exceeded the structural tollerences. period, ans as each subsequent floor collapsed it weighed that much more.
This is all basic physics. it's not that hard. - krellor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I would disagree with the statement that it would have to be a professional pilot to make that maneuvor. Ironically I am also a programmer and have had some experience flying small planes and used to be a fairly profficient amateur pilot. Honestly, handling the planes once they are in the air is fairly easy and even on the larger planes doesn't take what I would call a very high level of experience. The area where skill comes in most is take off and landing. That is the whole point of all the modern technology in the cockpit; make the flying as easy and safe for the pilot and passengers as possible. If it was rediciously hard to fly the planes the whole way we would have pilots keeling over from exhaustion/anxiety after every long flight.
Anyway, not saying that I agree or disagree with any particular point in the 9/11 debate, just stating my experience with planes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12couldn't have been that good if he had more than one kamakazi mission :D
- PFS1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10He was probably shooting out the side windows at that point.
- Phantastica, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It looks like he is zoomed in more in the later photos, which would defocus the dirt more and make it less obvious. But who cares?
- mga911, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12http://www.duggmirror.com
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8gardnert1 wrote: "The size of the plane is irrelevant when the official story claims the ensuing fire weakened the steel bringing the building down, a physical impossibility when jet fuel under no pressure is not hot enough to weaken steel enough to cause a collapse. The fire were started by jet fuel and later fueled by office stuff."
You are correct that a 707 isn't much smaller than a 767. However, what you fail to consider is the speed of impact. The 767s that slammed into the twin towers were travelling *much* faster than the assumed speed of an accidental impact of a 707.
The twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in fog, looking for a place to land. This means low speed and low fuel. Completely opposite the situation we saw on 9/11; high speed and lots of fuel.
That said, each tower took the hit like a trooper. Perhaps the impact itself wouldn't have brought the towers down, but the damage it cause coupled with the subsequent and intense fires, didn't leave much of a choice. They were coming down.
Keep in mind that steel looses 50% of its strength at around 700 or 800 degrees (I might be off, but the temperature is lower than you'd think). Fires in the towers, based on available physical evidence and computer models, were estimated to be well over 1,000 degrees.
What about any of this doesn't make sense? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, the commission report is .. not entirely exhaustive, let's put it that way.
- caffeinejunkiex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7John Titor was russian?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If the American Government investigated this tragedy fully,quickly and
to the very best of their ability in the first place, then there would be no
theories, only FACTS - mistergosh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12"If BIn Laden and his cohorts DIDN'T DO it... WHY in the HELL would they ADMIT TO IT?"
Because he still works for the US, of course.
/Tinfoil hat - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16@klawz
Yes, ive read the 9/11 commission report. I can prove it by asserting that it doesnt mention the collapse of WTC7 ONCE. You'd think that'd be part of what happened on 9/11 seeing as how it happened on 9/11. - usmevans7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The last one looks like you can see the wing, so I would agree with the side window conspiracy, theory, idea, comment...
- gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And why does everyone who are opposing them think they are experts too? :P
I think there are maybe 10 people anywhere that know what really happened, and they all seem to be getting fired :) - paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@CraigJ said:"THe pancaking of the floors above exceeded the structural tollerences. period, ans as each subsequent floor collapsed it weighed that much more.
This is all basic physics. it's not that hard."
Uh, yes, Craig, apparently it IS that hard, since the Pancake Theory has been discredited by none other than NIST! You're supposed to be on their side, dude. Get your stories straight. Here's a link to help you on your way towards memorizing the government's lies more reliably:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Okay, I'm really tired of explaining this to you dimwit conspiracy freaks but I'll try just one more time. The fire did not need to melt the steel structure of the building. All it needed to do was heat it up enough to weaken the steel and allow it to begin to bend. Since most of the load bearing capability of the building was on the outside walls, when the steel was heated to the bending point the tabs that were holding the floors up gave up the ghost and allowed the floors to collapse to the floor below. Once this process started the whole thing cascaded and the building came down. Building 7 was just collateral damage. It was pelted with falling debris and the shock wave created by the collapse of the two towers was enough to damage it beyond repair and it collapsed, too. It's not that hard to understand when you apply critical thinking and do a little ***** research. Reading the conspiracy advocacy pages doesn't count.
There was a conspiracy here. An unknown number of Islamic extremists conspired to carry out an act of terrorism on American soil and they were successful. That's all there is to it.
@Gardner1
I can't decide if you need an education or professional psychiatric help. Maybe you should try both. - erik22h, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Former airline pilot here. The statement that this manuever must have been performed by a military pilot or someone with much experience is utter nonsense. Steering a plane, even a large jet is quite simple. Advanced knowledge is really more required for the LTO (Landing Take Off) cycle and navigation. Anyone who played a flight simulator on their home computer could learn how to turn a plane in this manner. If in fact this is a true quote then I can only attribute it to his lack of experience. After all, he is flying a Cessna.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5gardnet1 wrote: "Yes thermate has THAT MUCH POWER that it can do that to steel, why do you think its used?"
Show me anything where thermite/termate keeps a metal molten even *minutes* after it's been expended. You can't, because it doesn't.
garnet1 wrote: "I can show you a video where they are at ground zero diggin with a backhoe above a pool of glowing metal."
No you can't, because anything hot enough to keep steel molten would prohibit anyone or anything from getting near it, let alone a guy dipping into with a backhoe (which would seize up due to the extreme temperatures).
gardnet1 wrote: "We KNOW its molten steel because of the samples taken of it."
Reliable source, please.
gardnet1 wrote: "They also have trace elements that indicate EXACTLY thermate."
No. Stephen Jones says he only detected, I believe, sulfur, and possibly some other trace elements. All of these exist in abundance in numerous materials that were present in the towers.
gardnet1 wrote: "Aluminum would not have been in such supply and has a distinct silvery glow whereas this was yellowy-orange, ie steel."
Ummm, really? There was plenty of aluminum (not to mention other metals) in the WTC. He's just a sample: http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=204 - CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You'd think an expierienced pilot could tell the dirfference between a 737 and a 767.
- shanimal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I didn't notice this until gcauthon's comment, but one of the photos (the fourth) actually says 9/11/06, while the rest of them say '01.
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"They were designed not to let jets force them to collapse"
"Wow, that couldnt be farther from the truth. They were designed with structural redundancy and the ability to TAKE an impact from a 707."
"-How are those the same? He says it was designed to allow jets to cause it to collapse while im saying it can take the impact and stand. That seems pretty opposite to me."
NOT COLLAPSING == TAKING AN IMPACT
"Did I say anything about a fire?"
"You probably SHOULD since thats the official storie's explanation for the collapse."
When did I ever say the 9/11 commission was right? All I ever said was the conspiracy theory is _probably_ wrong.
"The Pancake theory is the theory that the floors collapsed down, one after the other. You figured, just as others had, that this was possible and it turns out its not."
I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over and over again... when did I say this???
I said the building, if one floor were to collapse, would probably TOPPLE OVER, which the tower DID NOT do.
"There is no explosion until long after the plane is halfway hit through the reinforced concrete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8"
"Im not sure why you are mentioning this but the delay is due to where the fuel is stored, which would mainly be in the wings. The front houses a cockpit, radar, electronic equipment, and first class, not fuel."
My point was that it started to vaporize before it started to explode, so mass and velocity pushing something can vaporize materials. I probably worded that poorly.
"No, again, it cant. Listen to what some demolition experts have to say. The only thing that pulverizes concrete in such a way is demo charges. And of course i admit the concrete was pulverized! What are you, 12 years old?"
I'm not talking about the airplane causing the towers to pulverize the concrete. You're saying that the building should not be falling at freefall speeds after it started falling. I'm saying, yes it should because a giant mass falling above it would vaporize the standing concrete below it. I know it may have been confusing using an aircraft hitting concrete like that, but it wasn't intended to be explaining an aircraft hitting concrete, but concrete hitting concrete, with no explosion, as explained above.
"Think the opposite of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Very little mass with great velocity caused parts of the cities to vaporize. With this, very large mass with little to moderate velocity."
"LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! I knew it! you ARE 12! The Atomic bomb used FISSION NOT VELOCITY!"
I agree this was sort of a stupid argument since fission involves explosions, but yes it does use velocity. It projects mass and energy very quickly, which involves velocity. It doesn't just magically appear 2 miles away.
"People probably wouldn't work there if they knew they were sitting next to a bomb."
"ok....? The building isnt around anymore so we dont have to worry about a drop in employment."
Me: NYC could have put bombs on the WTC as a preventative measure for more death.
You: Why did they hide that fact?
Me: People probably wouldn't want to work at WTC if they knew they were sitting next to a bomb.
You: But the building is already gone!
Prior to 9/11, the government wouldn't have tried to prevent chaos because the building is gone... NOW?
"You are very wrong. Theory is a scientific term that can be applied to nearly any subject. A conspiracy theory is simply a theory about a conspiracy (two or more people plotting something)."
You are correct, and I was stating that people do not treat it like a THEORY, they treat it like a religion.
"Hardly refuting, you weren't directly talking about a single thing I said. PLEASE learn to address actual arguments, and I'll be happy to have a civilized debate rather than your skillful dodges."
"Awww! Thats sooo cute! The little tike is taking cheap shots now!"
How is that a cheap shot? You are ignoring my arguments and assuming I believe in things that outrightly say I DON'T.
"When you learn to read then you will realize what a moron you have made yourself out to be. Good luck in second grade big man!"
You are ignoring the word "not" multiple times, pulling random beliefs out and saying I believe them, and randomly calling a sentence a cheap shot is knowing how to read?
For the record, I failed first grade, so I'm taking it again this year. My mommy loves me very much and I need to go breast feed now :) - Pattyo13, on 05/14/2009, -7/+10where did all of the bugs and crap on the windshield go in the last few pics
- rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We are not moving anywhere. I personally love this country, and it is our duty to stand up and demand answers and make the government accountable. That means about facts relating to 9-11, the commission, reasons for Afghanistan, and Iraq.
The 9-11 commission itself stated that the Pentagon was lying to them about many facts. The 9-11 commission report itself does not have all the facts correct, nor complete. Those two things in themselves are fact.
This country was founded and is still guided by the principles of questioning and keeping the government in check. It is our duty to do so. The Declaration itself requires us to keep vigilant against government. How do you do that but keep asking questions, writing FOIA requests, and keep on top of everything they do.
I personally keep an RSS ticker with government news, laws passed/signed, and current world news to stay current. I write a blog to keep things straight in my head. I also talk to people about the country, and where they think it is headed. I get involved the best I can with the resources I can muster. I recommend everyone doing the same thing.
A democratic republic is HARD work to keep alive. The worst thing that happened during 9-11 is this:
American Citizens After 9-11 said to the president "…what could we do. What can we do to become engaged and take some responsibility"? President Bush unfortunately said,
"Go Shopping, Go Back to the Mall, Go back to your normal lives, we'll take care of it".
Spectatorship is an invitation to fear. Citizenship is how we fight the politics of fear. The politics of citizenship, the politics of engagement, taking responsibility is a much better way to deal with terrorism -- than hunkering down and being spectators and allowing the government to rob us of our liberties, to rob us of our multi-culturalism in the name of protecting us. - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"They were designed not to let jets force them to collapse"
"Wow, that couldnt be farther from the truth. They were designed with structural redundancy and the ability to TAKE an impact from a 707."
Those sentences say the exact same thing...
"Any ensuing fire would be inconsequential because fires dont bring down steel highrise buildings. Never have, never will."
Did I say anything about a fire?
"The pancake theory has been abandoned by those who defend the official story (those that care about the truth) because it is a physical impossibility. If it had occured it would have taken considerable more time to collapse. The central core of the building prevented this from happening though so the point is moot."
I don't know what "the pancake theory" is, to be honest, I don't follow the naming conventions of modern conspiracy theories. I used the word "pancake" because I figured layers of building collapsing layer by layer was what the pancake theory was, and I refuted it myself by saying it would make the building tip over. Unless I'm mistaken, it didn't.
"There ARE experts at that and you dont have to be one to point out the documented similarities between 9/11 and CD. If it was CD it would have been a top-down demolition so as to not look exactly like a typical CD for obvious reasons. Sheer mass is not capable of pulverizing concrete into fine powder, thermate explosions, however, are. The fact that there was little rubble and a lot of dust gives merit to the CD theory as it is a classic example of CD."
There is no explosion until long after the plane is halfway hit through the reinforced concrete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
Mass * velocity, much like gravity (same thing, essentially), CAN turn anything into dust. Regardless of whether you think it could happen QUICKLY, you have to admit that it at least happened because we saw the dust spray all over NYC, and very very very very very few bodies/furniture, etc were found.
Think the opposite of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Very little mass with great velocity caused parts of the cities to vaporize. With this, very large mass with little to moderate velocity.
"If this is the case why hide it?"
People probably wouldn't work there if they knew they were sitting next to a bomb.
Also, I don't really believe this one is true, it's just a theory. Not a conspiracy theory, mind you, a theory. A theory is a thought someone has that is open to turning his opinion 180 degrees around. Conspiracy theories tend to be followed like religions or political parties.
"Just some thoughts, feel free to refute them."
"Done and done."
Hardly refuting, you weren't directly talking about a single thing I said. PLEASE learn to address actual arguments, and I'll be happy to have a civilized debate rather than your skillful dodges. - erik22h, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Turning the transponder off merely means that you are no longer sending out a signal for ATCs or aircraft to see. Autopilot is a seperate system. Operating the autopilot is very easy and would allow for easy navigation without ATCs.
- Pattyo13, on 05/14/2009, -1/+4i wasn't suggesting conspiracy, just noticed it and it bugged me - sorry
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@Herkmeir
You make it so much more fun when you get insulting! Here we go!!!
"Okay, I'm really tired of explaining this to you dimwit conspiracy freaks but I'll try just one more time."
Please enlighten us oh great one!
"The fire did not need to melt the steel structure of the building."
They werent hot enough to do either yet somehow molten steel was found in pools under each building and was recorded as being hotter than the fires in the towers for WEEKS on end! Explain THAT one!
"All it needed to do was heat it up enough to weaken the steel and allow it to begin to bend. Since most of the load bearing capability of the building was on the outside walls, when the steel was heated to the bending point the tabs that were holding the floors up gave up the ghost and allowed the floors to collapse to the floor below."
Wrong! The load was shared between the outter skin and a solid inner core. If a damaged side were to bend under the weight then the tops wouldnts have gone straight down. You can actually see the tower with the antenna, when it began to collapse, the antenna fell BEFORE the rest of the rest of the building indicating the central supports were knocked out before the collapse began. We ALSO see this in WT7 when the penthouse, supported by a main column uneffected by the collapse of the towers, collapsed before the rest of the building.
"Once this process started the whole thing cascaded and the building came down."
Again, the pancake theory is WRONG!
"Building 7 was just collateral damage. It was pelted with falling debris and the shock wave created by the collapse of the two towers was enough to damage it beyond repair and it collapsed, too."
It was enough to damage it beyond all repair, but it held on for 7 hours before falling neatly into its own basement without and substantial damage to buildings FEET away from it. Oh yeah, and it left a nice pool of molten steel too.
"It's not that hard to understand when you apply critical thinking and do a little ***** research. Reading the conspiracy advocacy pages doesn't count."
Is critical thinking the same as regergetating the same tired arguments like so many before you only to be shot down with every single one? If so then i think i have it all backwards! Oh noes!
"There was a conspiracy here. An unknown number of Islamic extremists conspired to carry out an act of terrorism on American soil and they were successful. That's all there is to it."
Sure, that is a valid conspiracy but is by no means fact as it cannot be proven and will not be proven.
"I can't decide if you need an education or professional psychiatric help. Maybe you should try both."
Psychiatrics sounds like fun, but i think ill just stick to good old mind-numbing college instead. (btw i go to a military college so dont try to pin my viewpoints on liberal teachers and students, we dont have em ;) - rockefeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your tactics for handling conspiracy theorists are the same I use for people who believe in ***** religion.....
"you won't be able to convince the people who believe in "religious" theories that they're wrong. So the only thing to do is blatant attacking use of profanity."
With that being said....***** you, Christians. - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"You have got to be the dumbest person alive!"
Finally something we can both agree on.
"You claim IM not reading what you say when you sit there and contradict yourself!!! You MAKE UP and REWRITE LAWS OF PHYSICS! Explain to the class how falling concrete can vaporize concrete beneath it... mass, you say?"
If mass * velocity is equal to a high number (IE: acceleration), as demonstrated in that video, the plane started to vaporize before the explosion. The only force acting in relation to the two objects was acceleration.
Likewise, gravity, or a constant acceleration (9.8 meters per second) pulling on one object (the top of the building falling) hitting another object (the bottom of the building not moving) would cause it to vaporize in the same manner.
"How does the atom bomb work? Velocity, you say?"
I never said that, I said my argument was stupid, but velocity is involved because in order for any matter to be moved from one place to another, it must have velocity in between. How is this rewriting physics? This is BASIC physics.
"Stop trying to debate people until you figure out what YOU mean. Im done here."
Stop trying to debate people until you can read the word "not", and can address the arguments I give instead of picking out words and saying I believe in something I don't.
Me: It won't pancake.
You: Pancake? He believes in the pancake theory OGM! - BruceDeuce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 There are some questions to the authenticity of the Bin Laden confession video. I suggest that you do more research before you go on a caps lock rant.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
http://www.teamliberty.net/id284.html
Also, to the CT's. Stop echoing the endless arguements about why the buildings fell. It is annoying people and there are many other anomalies associated with 9/11 that you can post about without pretending that you are an expert building engineer. It is not the only physical evidence implicating the governments complicity or foreknowledge.
Western intelligence agencies DO use false flag terror as a tactic for advancing their goals. Here's a story that "dissapeared" rather quickly.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972 - webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here's something fun to do.
If you regard the 9/11 attack as a conspiracy, just for a moment think what the implications would be if it was not, in fact, a conspiracy.
I you regard 9/11 as a terrorist attack, just for a second think of the implications if, in fact, it was not.
If you are unable to do either of the above you are missing out, as thinking about different possibilities is quite an important skill in life. Not simply in this context, but in other situations. I'm pretty tired of people simply asserting it's one thing or the other without really thinking about it. Try. Please. For a change.
For example, I wonder about flying so close to an obvious air disaster in a Cessna; I have read, for example, about the lack of aircraft in the area at the time, and wonder why a Russian pilot is flying past at the exact moment with a camera taking fairly decent (as in, steady and focussed) photos from a light plane whilst piloting. Conspiracy? No. Interesting point? Yes. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4More "oxygen-starved" fire: http://www.flickr.com/photos/finbar/sets/72157594180296683/
- BruceDeuce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788054,00.html
A more reliable source but doesnt mention the car bomb. -
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is