digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Damn it, I said it before, Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

video.google.com — I'm not giving up on you Diggnation, Colbert Nation, 42 Nation, whatever nation you're in. I want you to watch this, and pay close attention. It's 30 minutes that could change your life.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • hotbeefman, on 10/12/2007, -26/+32David Ray Griffin says Philip Zelikow, specifically came up with the idea of using planes as weapons of terrorism. Well who is Philip Zelikow? He's the head of the "9/11 Commission." Just wait, it's only the beginning.
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -14/+88Actually weren't the Japanese the first to pioneer this movement?
    • jemanuel, on 10/12/2007, -22/+42I didn't get far into this because David Ray Griffin's claim that Zelikow was closely connected to the Bushes is the first in what is probably many lies. Zelikow did not join the Bush administration until his 2nd term after the 911 Commission was over. Zelikow was a professor before being named to the Bush Administration (assistant Secretary of State, I think) and even throughout the 911 Commission. I should know; I was in his class the fall of 2001.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -33/+24"Actually weren't the Japanese the first to pioneer this movement?"

      Rediculous statement. the Japanese used planes as weapons of war, however unconventionally. If you want to call any act in battle "terrorism" then I suppose the term has taken on a new, even more vague definition yet again.
    • RenZ87, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29From now on we should consider the "official story" as one of two, conspiracy theories. The commision report is as much a theory as the alternative.
    • crash999, on 10/12/2007, -29/+26I remember years ago when I visited the World Trade Center, one of the blurbs in the construction details was that it was built to withstand the impact of a 737. I remember that until now because it's rather an usual detail.

      That said, the buildings DID withstand the impact of those larger aircraft, at least initially. As much as Griffin raises interesting questions, the idea that the government was somehow involved in controlled demolition of the buildings is rediculous and frankly, after having worked in the government before, it's a huge overestimate of the goverment's capability to do something like that.

      The reality is that Congresswoman McKinney's comment is closest to the truth- we have a trillion dollar defense industry that is supposed to protect us from ALL threats- a structure that was completely blindsided by the 9/11 attack. A complete failure, showing how inept and out of date our defense was at the time. THAT is the real issue that has never been accounted for.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25"Zelikow did not join the Bush administration until his 2nd term after the 911 Commission was over."

      So you're saying that anyone hired after the fact could not have possibly been hired based on the favour? Seems that his work on the commission was a perfect audition for Bush's administration.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -29/+33"the idea that the government was somehow involved in controlled demolition of the buildings is rediculous"

      Wow... you believe a false flag oiperation commited by your government is "rediculous." Interesting... maybe you should check out some of the ones they have admitted to:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

      Does it seem so rediculous now? Welcome to the fourth Reich.

    • choicetoes, on 10/12/2007, -37/+48The idea that the collapse of the larger towers is consisdent with controlled demolition is laughable. Anyone watching the videos of these towers falling can see that they do so in a way unlike any controlled demolition ever seen.

      Also the videos presented here on the collapse of WTC 7 are deliberately misleading. They're shot from the north, which was the side opposite WTC 1 and WTC 2. They do not show the huge amounts of structural damage, and also what has been described as "significant bowing" of the entire southeast corner of the structure prior to collapse.

      These people keep talking about how a "failure of $1 trillion infrastructure four times in one morning" is next to impossible. I think a conspiracy on the scale they are suggesting, carried off with as much success as they are suggesting, is far less likely.

      They endlessly noodle over the details of frantic communication between large agencies in a situation totally new. People remember things differently and will make differing reports later: this is the nature of crises.

      I am a committed reviler of the Bush regime, but this is paranoia running rampant. These people need to cease their witchhunts.

      Occam's razor says that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." This means that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. Let's bury this.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -26/+14choicetoes:

      You are quite adept at doublethink. A prime candidate for the inner party Congratulations.
    • mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -40/+35Popular Mechanics - Debunking the 9/11 Myths

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
    • choicetoes, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17farfromsubtl:

      That was sure snappy but you didn't actually say anything. You just summarily paint me as a shadowy manipulator without any statements of fact. I am just some dude. You are the one clouding the waters with your oblique references and cynicism.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -22/+18choicetoes:

      Your statements were simply blatent dismissle of the contradictions discussed in the video.

      "Anyone watching the videos of these towers falling can see that they do so in a way unlike any controlled demolition ever seen."

      University professors, demolition experts, and firefighters all over the country have said differently. You sound like a fox news reporter speaking for the masses like this.

      "I think a conspiracy on the scale they are suggesting, carried off with as much success as they are suggesting, is far less likely."

      The US government couldn't pull it off... but somehow Al qaeda could? Wow... the resources they must have...

      "Occam's razor says that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." This means that the simplest explanation is often the correct one. Let's bury this."

      So you're saying that because the powers-that-be have presented one "entity" we should ignor all possibilities that another party was involved. I wish the government had listened to Occam's Razor instead of draggin Iraq into all of this, huh?

    • jackarmstrong, on 10/12/2007, -24/+19farfromsubtl:
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

      Does it seem so rediculous now? Welcome to the fourth Reich."


      Um... what does this have to do with 9/11? Right. Nothing.
    • autospike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Eh... This stuff was in a Tom Clancy Novel back in 1994. He had a Japanese airline pilot flying his plane into the white house and killing everyone.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30jackarmstrong:

      - Operation Northwoods -
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

      Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government...

      The suggestions included:

      * Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
      * Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming it on Cuban forces.
      * Firebombing and sinking an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base—reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War—or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using unmanned drones and fake funerals instead.)
      * "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
      * Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
      * Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees

      -----------------------------------

      There is more... or would you like to actually like to go read it now?

    • choicetoes, on 10/12/2007, -18/+18farfromsubtl:

      "University professors, demolition experts, and firefighters all over the country have said differently."

      A lot of people have said a lot of things. Experts who have said anything like this are an extreme minority. Please note: extreme. Like I said, you're reaching.

      "The US government couldn't pull it off... but somehow Al qaeda could? Wow... the resources they must have."

      Now you're being deliberatly obtuse. Al qaeda just had to hijack some planes at the same time and that's it. In order for all this cloak and dagger ***** to have occurred, hundreds of american people sworn to protect the country would have had to commit treason. Can it be any clearer?

      "So you're saying that because the powers-that-be have presented one "entity" we should ignor all possibilities that another party was involved. I wish the government had listened to Occam's Razor instead of draggin Iraq into all of this, huh?"

      I'm not even going to gratify this mishmash of paranoia and impotent anger with a response other than to mock it with this sentence. What is wrong with you?


    • babayada, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12MattyG,

      Thank you for that link. I noticed you received a digg down. It's sad that someone would try to bury a comment that provides a link to more information on this issue.
    • jackarmstrong, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Farfromsubtl:
      "University professors, demolition experts, and firefighters all over the country have said differently. You sound like a fox news reporter speaking for the masses like this."

      Reallly? name one. How about i name some experts who knew the wtc was going down? and some who say that it makes sense that it did?
      Here is an analysis of the three building collapses done by a professional demolition firm. What you're looking for starts on the bottom of page 8.
      http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

      Oh, and here's a picture of some of the damage to WTC7 prior to its collapse:
      http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1809/wtc72sw4.jpg
      And of the OTHER side of the building, which most conspiracy theorists seem to forget:
      http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/45/200px-WTC7.jpg

      Also, penthouse of the building actually crashed down first. That doesn't seem to be in-line with a controlled demolition.


      Out of time to take your second comment cause i just saw it, i'll do it in another reply.
    • jackarmstrong, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10reply continued to farfromsubtl:

      I've read it, a couple times. And i'll ask again, what does this have to do with 9/11?


      "* Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
      * Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming it on Cuban forces.
      * Firebombing and sinking an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base—reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War—or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using unmanned drones and fake funerals instead.)
      * "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
      * Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
      * Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees"

      Notice that only two of those even bring up the possibility of a few civilians dying, let alone 3000; they were actually just planning to use a drone aircraft. Also, this has to do with blowing up a plane, not using it to blow something else up. And then this plan was rejected by JFK.

      I repleat: What are the connections to this and 9/11?
    • Veritas77, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10So...the fact that over 50 years ago the government engaged in conspiracy against *another country* that later served as a potential launchpad for Soviet nuclear missles somehow lends credence to theories about the government intentionally destoying the WTC?

      Someone call the straw man and tell him his non-sequitors are getting cold. ;)
    • choicetoes, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Awesome, it got buried. (:
    • pgiessel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
    • magicstuff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10David asserts that there were many instances of intentional human delay to action but his case is weakened when you look at the timeline of events - The time duration of the 911 events was only 1 hour and 17 minutes. Not a lot of time, people.

      The North Tower was struck at 8:45 am and Flight 93 was crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03 am. This equals a total of 1 hour and 17 minutes to figure out what's going on, determine which of the thousands of jets flying in U.S. airspace were hijacked, scramble jets, intercept them and shoot them down. It can take up to an hour all by itself just to catch up with another moving aircraft - that leaves you with only 17 minutes to place the call, ensure that it is not a drill, determine which aircrafts are hijacked, exactly where they are, where they are heading and get the fighter-jets up into the air. It can't be done - Murphy's Law laughs in your face every single time. Murphy's Law applies to everyone - even to Tiger Woods and federal agencies.

      This extremely short period of time is a testimonial to the forethought that the terrorists put into their attack. A lot of people don't know this but Flight 93 was DELAYED 20 minutes from taking off due to, you guessed it, Murphy's Law - flights are always delayed -- but do you realize what this means? It means that if flight 93 took off when it should have, it would have taken off in the same 20 minute time window that the other three flights took off in -- this means the Flight 93 Washington D.C. target would have been struck 14 minutes before the passengers decided to revolt and several minutes before the White House evacuation order was given. It would have hit it's target with the same unexpected surprise that the World Trade Center and Pentagon were struck. This was a short window of time and it is what the terrorists intended.

      Isn't it reasonable to believe that there was human delay just due to the fact that at the time, we weren't psychologically equipped to instantly ascertain the enormity of the situation? We would instantly react now - but then? I'd chalk off 20 minutes lost due to just this fact alone because top CNN journalists were still theorizing that there might have been a navigation malfunction even 15 minutes after the SECOND tower was struck - looking back, this looks stupid to us - it also looks stupid to us when the CNN journalist repeatedly reported that the second tower strike was just a secondary fuel-tank explosion from the first attack. But give him a break - he was probably frantically scanning a memo update when the 2nd tower was struck and missed seeing the jet flying into it. Why do we always assume that there's something evil behind everything? Was this journalist part of the conspiracy? Why not add him to the list of conspirators? He was spreading and prolonging misinformation, right?

      Conspiracy theorists imagine a universe where things always work perfectly - that day, it didn't even work perfectly for the terrorists.

      Here is the wiki timeline of 911:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks_timeline_for_the_day_of_the_attacks

      This is even more convincing when you have this wiki timeline in front of you while the CNN real time Live coverage of 911 is playing. The timeline is accurate and it all was over and done only 1 hr and 17 minutes after it began. The day long replays of the towers being struck over and over again gives the false impression that the window of events was longer but it was just 1 hr and 17 minutes.

      This is real life...real pre-911 life...not Jack Bauer "24"
    • culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4farfromsubtl -

      You'll notice that in the first paragraph about Operation Northwood, it states:

      "The plan, which was not implemented..."

      So while they did plan something rather despicable, they never acted on it. Likewise, we never acted on the plan to nuke much of the asian theater during the 50's and 60's.

      I think there is enough for the American people to be outraged about without making wild leaps about as-yet unproven conspiracies. It's painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that this administration was woefully neglect in its national security duties as evidenced by their a PDB notifying them that Bin Laden was planning to attack within the US and mounds of other intelligence.

      I'm not saying this is outside the realm of possibility, but people don't take you seriously when you jump on every conspiracy theory that comes along, and rightfully so. Worse yet, people who insist on publicly spouting off such allegations taint the already demonstrable crimes of ineptitude, apathy and corruption at our nation's expense.

      The evidence we have it damning enough. Don't taint the cause with unproven theories.
    • falstaff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6He says that each tower producing an enormous amount of dust is an indication of controlled demolition, because the explosives pulverize concrete. Uh, sorry to burst that bubble, but the explosives in a controlled demolition only destroy a very small amount of a building (support structures), the rest is destroyed by the kinetic energy of the buiding itself. The WTC had kinetic energy like -literally- no other buildings ever brought down.

      What a joke.
    • marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Would you be surprise that war colleges plain the take over of our government with our own military? Or we had plain ready for the invasion of Canada?
      War colleges are tasked with scenarios every year and the more "out-of-box" thinking the better.

      I've seen this first hand while in Quantico for OTC.
    • kabewm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@pgiesse
      "http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons"

      For the record, I believe that the Gov hasn't told us all the facts, but that they had nothing to do with 9/11. However I don't understand a few things.

      How come it's easy to believe that 19 foaming at the mouth Muslim loonies orchestrated the biggest attack on US Soil, but you're called a moron when you believe the Government had something to do with 9/11. Occams Razor would dictate that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and 19 lone loonies pulling this off isn't the simplest answer.

      The latest polls of NY show that 60% of the population belives the Government has lied to them about 9/11. These are the people that lived through the disaster, they don't believe they've gotten the real deal from the Gov. Why do we dismiss their concerns so easily?
    • futuna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In this new world we are often faced with telling truths.I think 911 is one.Cast your mind back like I do all the time and imagine if you had a plan.....how long would it take to implement a massive Crime of the Century ? l like this 911 as it has a certain taste to it ?..do you have time to implement such a scenario ?...yes lots of time.I think a lot of people really think day by day but if you get your thinking cap on you realise there are many master plans out there coz those with them know you-the reader here- only deal in the present day,TV etc.Nuff said,lets look at 911.Can you imagine that this plan was in process for over 40 years,towers falling-probably not but yes maybe it was,they -the powers that be-have time you see,the man on the street only has his TV,temp time call it if you will.What is convenient is all these controls have been in place over time,they have no fear they only give you the fear,sorry if this is frightening but over time I realise we are controlled in such a way that only 1 % will see it.911 was such an op.perfectly done in buildings that were condemmed anyway because of their asbestos content-did you see the rolling smoke clouds as they collapsed ? Of course all the helpers had respiratory diseases afertwards they were breathing carcinogenic asbestos,no wonder the EPA said it was safe to breathe after all, they work for the powers that be as well as the media,its all a conspiracy as has time been forever.The towers were designed to be brought down perfectly by whatever means,the planes added to the effect,very clever I would say.So now you have, as in the UK/USA, people's rights been taken away,its all part of the plan.Have you watched Vendetta,it says it all.I would say its very very clever yet some of us saw it coming,I would name George Orwell here,read his books to enlighten your soul and I would get out of whatever rabbit hole you are in and seriously consider going somewhere else to live coz its happening now !!
      If you study history you can see this happening,if you have not studied enough then you will come up with this ***** gut reaction that I see everywhere and they like that, keep it up your on their side.With the internet you can enlighten your mind,you choose,its only you te see what you want to see so see if you can what is happing,its quite contrived actually !
      So maybe you feel betrayed,no worries as its just started,this is the beginning,act lilke sheep you will be hearded like sheep,act like individuals and then they are afraid,vote to get them out of power now as it is your last chance,the interbet will be soon closed down if they get back in again,trust in your feelings,your democratic rights and wake up.Ignore the assholes that say its all a conspiracy,they muddy the waters you see coz its all a conspiracy,watch Vendatta its a great movie at a great time when we need it,thankyou Guy Fawkes,
      Futuna.
    • Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Jemanuel It's sad that your misinformation is being modded up. Do a bit of research on Zelikow and you'll find he was involved with the neo-conservatives over the years including the Bush administration.

      "[Zelikow] served in three different offices of the U.S. Department of State in the second Reagan administration."
      Zelikow co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice in 1995.
      "Zelikow joined the National Security Council in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration"
      "Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team in 2000-2001"
      "Because Philip Zelikow's significant involvement with the administration of George W. Bush, many have questioned the propriety of his position as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, which examined the conduct of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Zelikow
  • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -33/+45Thanks for posting this. Some truth on Digg is quite refreshing. I hope it is appreciated by many.

    I like to also point out that...after Larry Silverstein said they would "pull building 7", somehow, miraculously, the demolition charges had been already put in place --even though this normally takes 1-2 weeks on a building that size!

    The official lie-story is just soooo absurd, as is anyone who continues to believe it!
    • hotbeefman, on 10/12/2007, -34/+20The truth can only be spread with an open mind, Water Dragon. I appreciate your comments, but don't confront people with this and expect open arms. You as a knower of the truth must take the higher ground and listen to those that disagree.

      You are here today because you listened to this story. Just hope that others will do the same.

      Show this to someone you know, and then discuss it. And discuss it some more.

      I know that the truth is in all of us.
    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25In the interest of openness, I just have to give Silverstein's rebuttal. He said that his comment was taken out of context.
      Apparently he was talking to the fire chief, and when he said 'pull it' he meant, 'pull the fire fighting group out of the building'.
      Where is the truth? I have no clue.
    • farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Protonz:

      Note that, while he did give this explanation, it was far after the interview with PBS, not during. It should be noted that at the point of him using the demolition term "pull it", the fire fighters had already been taken from the building.
    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@farfromsubtl:
      Yep, it was a while after the interview. And if I recall it wasn't even Silverstein that made the rebuttal, but a spokesperson for him.
      I haven't seen a conclusive time-line of WTC7 events, I know the firefighters were pulled out of the building 'a few hours' before it collapsed, and Silverstein says he gave the order 'then' they watched the towers fall. All times are pretty relative.
      Why would he tell the fire commissioner to 'detonate' the building? Doesn't seem like a standard thing the fire department does. Or is the fire commissioner part of the conspiracy too?
    • Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"using the demolition term 'pull it''

      Please.....find me some place that says the term "pull it" is used in common demolition terminology
    • futuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You have to realise who Larry Silverstein is and who he represents,probably one of the biggest donors of AIPAC,they are all in it so deep its outrageous,you really need to do som research its all here on the net.Go sit in front of a screen doe days on end to find out where the f..k you are going its all there to see.
    • citizenbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The idea that demolitions were used on the trade center buildings is of course absurd. But, hello, how can a building, like WTC7, come down all at once without all the steel beams failing all at once. If there was significant damage on one side of the building, the building would 'collapse' not implode, which is obviously did. But, of course, there are plenty of these discussions on the web, which seems to fall into some kind of 'name calling'. And for those who say I am not an engineer, how can I say whatever, well, you know if I was going to purchase a house, I make all sorts of judgments about the structure even though I am not an expert in this, how about that! And, when I saw the bombing in Oklahoma I did not doubt the validity of the official story, even though 'I am not an expert'! When buildings come down at free-fall speed, it is kind of suspicious, but, however, I am just some stupid idiot who can tell where his ass is and his head. I suppose I need to just buckle down and shut up so that the 'experts' can tell me how 'absurd' it is to 'doubt' what the 'experts' are saying. And for all those 'smart ones' who observe how 'absurd' the 'conspiracy' theories are, which they are (how about that!) why is it that absolutely no one has been fired, nor has the mighty Osama (who obviously knows all about engineering, since he 'engineered' this mighty feat!) has been caught. Even if you believe the 'official' story, it is 'absurd' that no one has been tried, and there has been no public accounting for any of this, including the tremendous health issues caused by the criminal negligence of the EPA.
  • BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39I was just about to change my mind on the whole 9/11 cover-up thing; then they started to plug their books. I think that the people who are in charge of preventing stuff like this were just so incompetent that by the time they realized they ***** up, it had happened. The real cover up, I think, is people covering their asses for incompetence, and having to lie for that reason. Just a thought
    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -14/+56And if the gov't is so good at tricking us, why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? Sounds like a much easier task than planning 9/11.
    • Clevinger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Actually, the book he 'plugs' is really very informative. I've read it. He's essentially paraphrasing his book in this speech anyhow, so if you want a fuller account, read the book.
    • mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
    • milkmage, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2the 'incompetent' people that ***** up allegedly planted charges that made the Twin Towers and building 7 collapse upon themselves. omitting things, or messing up the chronology of events is one thing but the most striking thing for me was the fact (we've all seen the footage) that those 3 buildings came down EXACTLY like they do in a planned/controlled demolition. incompetentcy is the last thing that comes to mind.
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7mattyg:

      that article is misleading and has been debunked already.
    • turbo2ltr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I don't freakin get it. This whole controlled demo thing is so stupid. "It looked like a controlled demo". Welll who the hell has test crashed 747's into 110 story buildings to say that they SHOULDN'T collapse like controlled demolition???? Just because it may have collapsed in the same manner doesn't mean it must have been controlled! The logic is very flawed.

      Lets think about it. Controlled demos take out the structural beams, causing the buildings own weight to crush it. The planes weakened the structure and the burning fuel took the remaining strength away from the beams. (which happened just about an hour after impact, which is the same time the fireproofing on the beams was good for) The top collapsed causing a chain reaction. You cant expect the floor below the origin of the collapse to handle the shock of a 20+ story building dropping 16ft onto it's already weakened structure. A simple chain reaction ensued.

      So whoever has collapsed a 100+ story building in a controlled environment, please speak up.
      [holding breath]
    • Flynnz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@turbo2ltr

      very well said. Sucks you got dugg down, instead of people discussing your comment (even if they disagree) If you ask me the whole CT thing is based on emotion, not logic or fact. And the fact that you got burried for no reason seems to back this up.
    • neuroelectron2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7so your saying as soon as a beems fire-proofing has failed, that the beam has failed too? thats like saying after you take your winter coat off you freeze to death instantly.
    • neuroelectron2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5the government did try to plant weapons in iraq but the press found out about it, google "radio active scrap iraq" so they canceled that plan to keep from looking obvious. besides they have already admited that we went to war for BS.
    • Flynnz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"so your saying as soon as a beems fire-proofing has failed, that the beam has failed too? thats like saying after you take your winter coat off you freeze to death instantly."

      umm prime example of not using logic. Why do you think they have fire-proofing on the beams? If the beams would be fine after the "fire-proofing" wears off, then why the hell would they need the fire-proofing in the first place?! Thats right! cause without it, they get weak, and it doesnt take long for them to be weak enough to go beyond what they were rated to do.. you know hold up thousands and thousand of tons of building.
      And if I took my jacket off at 2000 below YES I would instantly freeze to death! (of course it would have to be a well rated jacket to begin with)

    • Flynnz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"the government did try to plant weapons in iraq but the press found out about it, google "radio active scrap iraq" so they canceled that plan to keep from looking obvious. besides they have already admited that we went to war for BS."

      k So you are saying that the government was unable to get something so easy past the press. However they were able to "pull off" 9-11 without anyone of any worth noticing anything at all? And I would really like some links....if you have something concrete and unbiased to show, why would I have to search for it on google? Just post the link.

      "besides they have already admited that we went to war for BS"
      this part I agree with....but I dont think BS = our government killing 3000 of our own people.
  • unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11" In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called ‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Zelikow
  • carlnewton, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Hopefully something will come of this, I'm so sick and tired of not knowing where we stand. When ever anyone mentions this the reaction is usually to humor them with claims of being crazy conspiracy theorists. But the evidence does seem overwhelming. When was this recorded by the way?
    • hotbeefman, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15About a year ago, last September 2005. David Ray Griffin and Michael Ruppert are trying their hardest to get the knowledge to the world.

      Do your part.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29"When ever anyone mentions this the reaction is usually to humor them with claims of being crazy conspiracy theorists."

      Because the conspiracy theorists keep bringing up the same debunked anecdotes and half truths over and over again. Watching a session sponsored by Cynthia Mckinney is like attending a tech symposium sponsored by Ted Stevens.
    • UNL1M1T3D, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17http://digg.com/security/9_11_Debunking_the_Myths

      I posted it before and I will post it again.
    • shank2001, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17It is sad that a digg article that shows the scientific proof on 9/11 is hardly dugg at all, yet a article wrought with conspiracy theory is dugg like crazy. These kooks who think the US Gov. was somehow behind 9/11 are as bad as the people who think the moon landing were faked. Real science does not support either of these popular kook myths. When I saw that poll on MSNBC that shows that over half of those polled thought the government set up 9/11, it just made me sick to my stomach. Are my fellow peers really so gullible. Thanks for a great link UNL1M1T3D! But I doubt the people who really need to understand the science that causes their conspiracy theory to go up in smoke have the mental capacity to understand the science anyway.

      Here is a closing thought. If something like 9/11 could be orchestrated by our government, why were WMDs not planted in Iraq, which would be far easier to accomplish. It would be silly to think that 9/11 was a scheme to justify war in the middle east (yet the government has said time and time again Iraq and 9/11 are not connected, and that 9/11 had nothing to do with the reason we went to war with Iraq), yet all they had to do to justify the war was plant WMDs. Which was the easier task?! Planting WMDs of course!

    • fahrenheitlf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Because the conspiracy theorists keep bringing up the same debunked anecdotes and half truths over and over again."

      Debunked is your mind does not mean it was really debunked, logically or truthfully. People view "facts" differently. It is easy to convince someone of something if they want to believe it in their heart... or if they're ingorant and/or illogical.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"People view "facts" differently."

      Which is why the Flat Earth Society existed well into the 20th century.
  • TonySki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9worst description ever. good vid tho.
  • stacheman, on 10/12/2007, -35/+32Are you people serious? You actually believe anything that comes out of Cynthia McKinney's mouth. She's one of the biggest wack jobs in the Congress.
    I had no idea DiggNation was a bunch of liberal conspiracly theorists, but I guess the truth is out there. You know we never landed on the moon either, right?
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -22/+33you say 'liberal' like it's a bad thing. Tell me, what's so good about making the rich richer, and poor poorer, being pro-life, ***** over the environment, and education, being upper-class white christians, who put all their faith and politics into a white God? ***** that, I'd rather be a 'liberal conspiracly theorists'.
    • TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9No..no.. Lberal conspiracy theorists are just as dumb as white Neo-cons. :)
    • jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Yes, because all conservatives fit inside the narrowly defined, biased view that you gave. You just made it sound like all conservatives are evil people who are out against the poor, the world, and are all wealthy and white. That's a foolish generalization.

      What might be better is if we all stopped towing the respective party lines, stopped labeling ourselves 'liberal' or 'conservative', stopped always attacking the other side, and instead focused on doing what is right.

      The problem is, both the liberals and conservatives see things in black and white or white and black, and it impedes truth and progress.
    • argoff, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6@mywhitenoise
      Do whatever you want with your own freakin money, but did you ever get a job from a poor person? ... and what you really meant to say is "screwing over entrepreneurs in the name of the environment". And education, what education? you call public schools education! And who said God is white, every race makes God look like them and most Christians are African and Latino. BTW being upper middle class is never achieved by being on the dole, but by understanding that you are responsible for you and not some system.
    • crash999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Griffin's testimony was only part of this event- it has been edited in this video to make it look like it was actually the focus.
    • mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5@mywhitenoise

      you say 'liberal' like it's a bad thing. Tell me, what's so good about making the rich richer, and poor poorer, being pro-life, ***** over the environment, and education, being upper-class white christians, who put all their faith and politics into a white God? ***** that, I'd rather be a 'liberal conspiracly theorists'.

      Hmmm
      a) responisibility, you want money, you work for it
      b) not having 39 million murders on my hands
      c) f-ing the environment? hardly.
      d) that would be liberals screwing up the education with their stupid unions and blaming everything on race.
      e) more like middle-class. liberals are more likely to be the richest and poorest people, while conservatives are mostly middle class.
      f) white God? thats neat, since God doesn't have a human body, and Jesus was a little darker than white, but almost.
  • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14So we have witnessed the most outrageous cynical far right government plot in the history of mankind, with the express purpose to start a miserably crap executed war on terror, on purpose attacking the wrong country (that happens to have massive oil reserves), using completely inadequate resources and manpower, some of which are nothing short of retards (like lindy england, who doesn't even look intellectually qualified to work at McDonalds), and they use a completely incredible president like G.W. Bush?

    What ... am I in the MATRIX, but it is infected by ADWARE ? ? ?
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10and yet Bush seems to have more power than any president in recent history...you don't see a slight connection?
    • jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Yeah, I think he has intentionally or unintentionally taken advantage of this whole situation to increase his power, but that doesn't mean he put this all in action.
    • mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6you guys and the oil argument are so idiotic. if we wanted oil we could invade mexico or alaska. oh, wait, thats right, liberals won't let us have alaska.
    • marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6"and yet Bush seems to have more power than any president in recent history...you don't see a slight connection?"

      How did you come to this concussion? What is Bush doing that every president hasn't?
  • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3What nation? I'm in the US, as a citizen. As for what nation I belong to, I'm indifferent. They are all the same. America is just the least-worst of them all.
    • billymachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Excuse me, not all nations are the same. If you'd ever *gasp* been out of the country, or even just talked to a foreigner, you wouldn't make this absurd assumption.
  • yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24you lost me at Cynthia Mckinney
  • mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22This is such garbage, and belongs in political opinion anyway, not world news.
    • mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Wait, let me correct myself. It does belong in world news, Weekly World News that is.
    • DougieD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Ba dum chi!
  • AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5911 truth gets the front page? o god, i knew i just had to wait and the truth would be seen. we arent just conspiracey theorists. thank you diggnation
  • PradaPete, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21yawn...more "loose change" "just asking questions" bull for easily fooled people
  • yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4is there an election coming up? Back to the old, failed, vote against them tactic..
  • beachchalet, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14Cynthia Mckinney - nuff said...silly woman...wack job is right..

    Cynthia, time to get a real job, babes.
  • socoolisme, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20PULL IT is NOT a demolition term, stupid conspiracy theorists.
  • hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18This guy is trying to peddle his book by offering conspiracy theories about 9/11. This guy thinks the American gov't was behind the hijackings and that is plain retarded.
  • cosmid, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13Since when did digg turn into moveon.org? Anyone who raises concern (or facts for that matter) cannot so much utter "uhm..." before being labled a close-minded, hate mongering, bigot.

    Maddux best sums up the conspiracy theory issue here: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
  • hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18Dumb and Dumberer:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
  • takehiro12, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13What a waste of my time. People see conspiracy everywhere. 99% hooey.
  • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern
  • wanderingkale, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11Cynthia Mckinney is an idiot. I'm so glad we gave her the boot out of office. I'm no fan of Bush, but for the love of god enough with the whack-o conspiracy theories.
  • AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6i personaly feel accepting the main stream story and not the way more valid alternatives is a disgace to the dead. these people died for tirents, theirs no way im going to sit back and accept the pentagons story that the media repeats
  • Gimpishi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7I love to hear these ideas as to how the buildings collapsed and who was behind 9/11. Both sides fail to provide evidence that convinces me of their stories. For example "fire had never caused a steel framed, high rise building to collapse" Yeah, but how many building have been hit by JET AIRLINERS full of jet fuel. Maybe Jet fuel wont melt steal. But if a large metal object fly at high speeds breaks a few columns AND fire weakend the columns, who knows? So what if they pulled Bldg 7? Firefighters would do that if the building is not saveable etc. And it would be believable that owner wanted to destroy some financial evidence. I would accept that theory. I prefer to think all the way through, rather than agree with a certain group of opinions. Anyways just my 2 cents :) Could go on, but you get my drift.

    Cheers
  • OropheR, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9The fact that the two planes managed to reach the twin towers, is maybe a mistake of the chain of command. Note that the two planes were heading toward New york and were hijacked as they were closing from NY. But what do you expect when planes get hijacked, they get re-routed by the pirates and try to land somewhere else. Nobody would expect these two planes would be transformed in two human guided missiles.
    Second thing about the two towers collapsing: What do you expect from a building being hitted by a super heavy and fast object full of fuel. Considering the size, the height the masses involved, these two buildings were doomed. Internal structure or not: These towers were not built to resist such thing. The boom boom boom, im sorry, I did not hear any recording where we could hear it. And by looking at the picture, i do not see flashes or materials being expelled by explosions...and who would have put secretly the charges? making holes in main structure without attracting the attention of the people working there?
    What this Griffin is showing is only that US chain of command were simply not prepared to this, and it took them time (minutes..) to react to the situation.
    All the other technical details he is talking about is bullsh*t. He said at the beginning, he has two many points to mention to go through them precisly one by one, but he took a few minutes to quote what the firefighter heard when it was happening.
    Thank you for your comments, Griffin, you may pack your papers and leave.
    • Flynnz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4you will never get an honest reply to what you said. Cause you use logic and fact. The CT side is mainly based on emotion and need.

  • drunkjack, on 10/12/2007, -19/+15Buried as innacurate. From now on, I'm doing the same to any conspiracy theory *****.

    Tired of this crap. Tired of people not willing to accept the truth because it doesn't fit with their worldview.

    • sillywampa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19"Tired of people not willing to accept the truth because it doesn't fit with their worldview."

      just as you're not willing to accept opposing views because it doesn't fit with your worldview.

      I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means and I am not buying into the conspiracy theories. However, I also don't believe the 9/11 commission report. Griffin brings up some good points and backs them up with quotes from people who were there, were interviewd and/or testified. Why were these people's words not included in the report? Fireman who were in or near the building all saying that they heard explosions before the towers came down. Even if there were no real explosions, it is worth investigating their stories in the interest of full disclosure. Say what you want about his conclusions, but keep an open mind about the points he brings up.
    • igotdugout, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8@drunkjack

      Buried for being ignorant. From now on, I'm doing the same to any deluted simpleton's *****.

      Tired of this crap. Tired of people not willing to accept the truth because it doesn't fit with their worldview.
    • drunkjack, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2igotdugout

      It's deluded, moron.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Griffin brings up some good points and backs them up with quotes from people who were there, were interviewd and/or testified."

      Eyewitness testimony, in most cases, is the most unreliable form of evidence. It tends to get muddled with hazy memories, misinterpreted statements, prejudical thoughts and sometimes outright lies.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8while i wont go so far as to say thinking government involvement is absurd, despite how incompetent they seem.

    we have had heated discussions on physorg.com( physics forum) and they are a bit more detailed than what i expect to find here in the digg comment section. Lets just say i believe planes took down the towers without help. I used to be sort of leaning with the loose change crowd until most of it was very scientifically torn apart on physorg.com.
    I just ask for the loosechange crowd to also watch
    BBC - Horizon - The Fall of the World Trade Center (2002).avi
    which gives the governments position. I can understand if people dismiss this as bias as well but wouldn't it make sense to see well done representations of both views before settling on your own.

    they even have nice slow mo video showing the core was the last to fall, parcially obscured by smoke.
  • bookmarc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You should promote this video on http://www.vurbs.com also if you really think the word needs to get out.
  • AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5in hine site these so called conspiracey theorists will be seen as the lone lanterns of freedom in this new revolution
  • doctabu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I must say I'm still skeptical of this entire "lie" business.

    However, I am not putting it down for good. It's very interesting how they have not released much evidence on the event which they could do easily. Why don't they release the tapes that were used in the surveillance cameras around the pentagon? This information and much more could be released to the public easily, but it hasn't. Why?

    Once that is complete, I'll be happy.
    • billymachine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Actually, they did release the tapes.
    • marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Why release the tapes?
      We have tapes of us going to the moon yet the same people believe we didn't go. If these tapes did show anything the theorist would bust out their expert Martin Sheen to say it was faked.

      If you look into these people that are leading this conspiracy you will they have questionable legal pasts and always support theories only for profit (books, movies, speeches) .
    • neuroelectron2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1do you know of another way to communicate with mass amounts of people when the TV is owned by corporations? oh wait the internet...
  • cappslite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Just what America needs.... Another politican advertising their book.
    • 6pintsofbitter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3billymachine:


      yeah? got a link?
  • artman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13You know what? If you believe that this administration orchestrated the 9|11 attacks (remote control planes, missiles or controlled demolition). The terrorists have won. You are doing a disservice to the victims, victims families and hero's of this attack. Channel your questions to respected, experienced professionals not college students or career conspiracy theorists. If you look hard enough you find the facts. If you just look and listen to the evidence you'll find even more.

    I've made a text file on my computer now for these occasions. This is ONLY concerning the 9|11 attacks*:

    Here. Copy/paste this link and turn up the volume. If this doesn't prove that fully fueled jet airliners flying at 500 mph could not cause structural damage, then you might need some professional help.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

    No tickers, no slow motion, no announcers and no seismographs. Just pure, real, unedited and raw footage. REAL. As in REALITY. Something you and others here severely lack in your lives.

    Now about WTC 7 and the term "pull". Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why HE PULLED EVERYBODY OUTTA THERE.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYlVmTHjHe8

    Need evidence from a professional group? How about the Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.

    Link to article...

    http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html

    Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...

    http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

    And for 9|11 reading, here are some PDFs online:

    "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1"
    http://www.jod911.com/

    * As for political/corporate world domination, that's a whole other ball of *****.

    Of course the government have powers to manipulate the laws, media and investigations. But it doesn't mean they and we are players in a James Cameron film. Ask why FEMA and the NYC leaders are covering up the fact that there was toxic dust at Ground Zero. Ask if this government if they ignored the warnings or left the door open for the terrorists to perform this attack. Finally, vote for the leaders that will change the course this country is taking. Because if that won't work. Revolution is in order.
    • tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I watched that first one and it links to this one, kinda random:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhDOq305oh0&NR
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If I believe the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was *****, and I disrespecting the soldiers that fought in Viet Nam ?

      How about the Liberty? Am I disrespecting those dead if I don't buy the "tragic accident" line and believe the now mainstream view that it was a failed false flag operation to make the U.S. go to war with Egypt?

      And what about those WMDs in Iraq? Do I now have permission to doubt they existed?

  • Visceral, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13People who believe this stuff are an embarrassment to the Human race. Seriously.
    • achoo5000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8People get very emotional when things like this happen, I don't think they are stupid or dishonest in their desire to find the truth. It is good to ask questions, the problem is that most of these questions have been answered, but people hold on to the theories they already believed.
      Look, I don't trust this government, I think they exploited the tragedy for political gains, but I certainly don't believe they caused it.
    • 6pintsofbitter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Did you WTFV? I can't understand how you wouldn't have some doubts after all that has been presented to us. You should be glad there is some one out there willing to ask questions instead of just eating up all of the information presented to us through the mainstream
    • GuernUK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2On the contrary,

      conspiracy theory or not, thinking sceptically, and not uncritically accepting the current orthodoxy, is not stupidity.

      Cue proud Republican: 'Shut your face you f*cking liberal!'
    • evaneus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2
      >conspiracy theory or not, thinking sceptically, and not uncritically accepting the current
      > orthodoxy, is not stupidity.

      Sure, but stupidity can surely be defined as an inability to effectively apply reason to a situation. Some of the people who believe this theory would fall under that category.

      For others might be a case of delusion. Which is when people are inclined to suspend effective critical reasoning due to some psychological cause.

      For most it's probably a mixture of both.


      You have to set the bar somewhere on what is worthy of serious consideration. This theory belongs somewhere in the filing cabinet between 'elvis alive' and 'my stepmother is an alien'.

      >Cue proud Republican: 'Shut your face you f*cking liberal!'

      I'm a liberal, and now I'm worried because I thought the other guys had a monopoly on wackos. The thought that someone holding the position of Congresswoman actually believes this ***** is mind-boggling.

  • artman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Great. None of the links work. *****. Copy paste.

    /i give up trying to convince the morons in this world.
    //go back to watching survivor and american idol, nothing to see here...
  • cmilki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Not long before neocons mark this inaccurate.
    • goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well, you don't have to be a neocon to mark this load of crap as inaccurate. For chrissakes, just because George W. Bush and his puppetmasters are a bunch of opportunistic, lying, belligerent assholes doesn't mean anyone who comes up to challenge them has to be saying the truth. There's ample refutation of the claims made by Loose Change and the like from people from all over the political spectrum, try listening to them for a change. Being critical and sceptical means trying to get all of the facts in, not just the ones that support your ***** thesis.
  • AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3if u like this video you should watch Aaron Russo Talk http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2947267143366647266&q=lonelantern.org
  • tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't think most of that interview is spot on ... as far as actual covered up facts/omissions ... I think most are just incompetent gov't lackeys who have been in their jobs through both parties having control of the White House and never having had to actually DO their jobs in "real time" .... but come "game time" they fell on their collective rumps. People want to believe that its all conspiracy, but most of these things are not - they're just simply human errors. Look at the Big Dig tunnel in Boston, that surely just had design/building woes ... could not the buildings have been not up to spec and didn't withstand a large airplane after all?

    The one part I will not argue based on specific information regarding where I work is Flight 93 being shot down. That part should be looked into quite carefully for perhaps timestamps on the voice recorder and perhaps omissions to the tape / data. Of course, it's better to have them heroically fighting the bad guys and winning one for the home team on a bad day ... and it limits the lawsuits that would probably be brought out for America defending itself... but of all of the claims here, I don't think any of them float as much as the one that says that we shot down Flight 93.
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I hate the conspiracy theories but I'm going to watch this anyway to see different perspectives.

    As long as it isn't *****-ridden like Loose Change, I'll take it seriously.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I have watched it. I have never been closer to being convinced. I actually feel pretty sick right now from hearing information that has been squandered.
  • pcheaven2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If you want to know more facts than what where listed I suggest you do research on digg.....For a quick list of some of the main ones I have found check my blog here: http://blog-maniac.blogspot.com
  • gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -6/+69/11 conspiracy theories are rubbish. If it was the "neo-cons", why have they screwed everything else up so badly?

    That's neither here nor there, these theories are not built on a single fact.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6596630292015140276 (Screw Loose Change) They should have titled that movie Loose Ends instead.

    To top it off, debating conspiracy theories is a waste of time. People who believe them do so because they *want* to. Not because of fact. They can never be convinced of their folly.

    Innacurate. Not News.
  • Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6God......the Loose Changers are just going to hold onto anything they can get.

    This is just an extension of all of that Loose Change ***** that makes itself known on Digg all the time. Just because people can't deal with the fact that terrorists actually did fly those planes into those buildings doesn't mean that everybody in the US govenment was involved with this.
  • loudnobnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Cynthia McKinney is an ignorant jackass, no one takes her seriously (except jackasses just like her). Self-important individuals are trying their hardest to sell their books and make the almighty dollar off of America's worst tragedies, which isn't surprising. Conspiracy theoriests love to come up with ***** because they are stuck in a world that doesn't exist.

    "you say 'liberal' like it's a bad thing. Tell me, what's so good about making the rich richer, and poor poorer, being pro-life, ***** over the environment, and education, being upper-class white christians, who put all their faith and politics into a white God? ***** that, I'd rather be a 'liberal conspiracly theorists'."

    Making the rich richer and the poor poorer? I'm guessing that is precisely why witholding was passed during wartime by the DEMOCRATS. Perhaps the same reason Republicans are pushing like hell for the FairTAX and the Democrats are bitching because it'll do exactly as you are saying. Well it won't but they play partisan politics nowadays and because it's main proponent is a Republican Senator they wont' budge.

    My thoughts: If the poor are complaining, they need to get off their ass and get a better job or go to school. The problem is anyone I know who is poor sits on their ass at home watching TV, doesn't have any formal education past high school, and loves to wait for the "system" to clean up after their worthless asses. This is my own personal experience.

    ***** over the environment? What do you mean by that? Are you saying everyone who owns a construction business or piece of industry is a Republican? Oh come on!

    Upper-class white Christians? So ALL Republicans are white, upper-class, Christian, and believe the towers fell because planes flew into them? This is just hilarious.

    White God? So you're bringing the race of a deity into all of this?

    Hell, maybe off a little off base but you seem like a person with a huge complex of racial inferiority? Or maybe I could be wrong.... but I doubt it.


    Sooo.....after all of this discussion does everyone feel that the fundamentalist Muslims have always loved America and that the first Islamic fascists showed up after 9/11? Or better yet, was this the first terror attack of modern times? Better do your homework.
  • Zayphar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Cynthia McKinney!? Are you kidding me?

    What a waste of time.

    Buried for being inaccurate.

    *Sheesh*
  • Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A quick question for anyone who can be bothered answering...how do you go about placing enough explosives in a building to bring it down in a controlled manner (assuming it's not like in the movies where they just stack piles of C4 in the basement) without anyone noticing? People have pointed out it can take weeks, and has to be embedded deep in the structure for it to work properly (not, once again, like in the movies, taped to a wall). this is a question, not me trying to be a smart ass...is there an feasible explaination out there?
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well you'd have to have a crew of maybe a dozen guys and access to the building for two weeks. (The WTC towers were shut down for "upgrades in wiring" in the months prior to 9-11 and the security people still there said this had never happened before). I'm glad you're asking questions but I have to admit being bothered that people in discussions haven't bothered to do any research beyond watching FOX news or reading the PM crap article.
      (I'm not aiming this at you)

      Unless you've at least read the PNAC documents (Rebuilding America's Defenses) or studied the 9-11 Time-line running around bitching about 9-11 truth discussions just displays your level of ignorance. Most 9-11 truth people have read the debunking sites and articles, most 9-11 truth haters haven't bothered to read anything from the 9-11 truth movement.
  • qode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6After watching this video, I was just shocked. Going back in the comments a bit when someone mentioned the popular science article. Notice the frequencies analyzed were only around three quarters of a hertz. Usually bombs have a much higher frequency and on that graph it was ignored. Hm..

    I believe that the reasoning in my view just shifted, and it likely will stay there until someone also does extensive research and proves in a much stronger way that the buildings did not collapse due to explosions.

    Through audio recordings and videos you can clearly hear/see tiny explosions going down the building when it started to collapse. Just watch a video of either building collapse and notice the (very quick) puffs of smoke coming out of windows well before the pancake effect got within 20 floors or so of that area. Many probably would say something like "well, the windows shattered and the smoke and pressure broke them" - then someone tell me why there where small amounts of fireballs along with that dark smoke (just a little) and why the same smoke effect didnt do the same to the some odd hundreds of windows already opened? Ahh.. Hm..
  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5All the debate on the collapse of the towers is pure conjecture. Even the much lauded PM and 9-11 Commission report scenarios are a "best guess" based on no science.
    If you want to read something credible go here:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/
    Read the discussion between Greening and Ross. Two very qualified engineers debating the possibility of the collapse being from the planes and the fires based on mathematical calculation of the energy required. As it stands right now only one of the towers comes close to meeting the requirements for a "non enhanced" collapse and examination of the calculations on that one reveals a deficit of energy required. This really is the closest thing to a credible discussion around.

    As I've said before, debating bombs in the buildings will result in years of nothing. We have tons of evidence proving prior knowledge and failure to act / intentional obstruction. That's where a new investigation, a criminal one, should begin. From there - with subpoena power we can get the rest of the answers. When they call in the FBI agents to testify and they say, "we passed on 85 action reports about the 9-11 hijackers and our superiors failed to act on them" we can then call in the superiors and find out why they failed to act or who told them not to. The chain will just keep going from there and if there is complicity involved it WILL come out.

    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Even the much lauded PM and 9-11 Commission report scenarios are a
      > "best guess" based on no science.

      But the NIST has modelled the triggers for the collapse, using finite element analysis...

      This, among other things, is included in 42 companion reports: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

      Very few people seem to be aware of this. The media doesn't talk about it (too "dry" of a topic) and neither do the conspiracy theorists.
  • mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I really hold in contempt anyone who is so ignorant as to ignore what actually happened on 9-11. It is beyond ridiculous to believe that we have enough people working in the government that would truly plan and carry out this attack, operation northwood was an idea, no group of people can be so sadistic as to do anything like that to their own country. The buildings looked like a control demolition because the building collapsed, what is everyone expecting to happen? for the building to fall over, for it to collapse in stages? Please Please Please stop posting this inaccurate garbage on Digg, 9-11 was a tragedy and caused by real people, not by the government, grow up everyone and stop being a moron.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8The majority of the victims families and around 80% of the police, firemen, medics etc who were there that day believe 9-11 was not a result of the "official story" and support a new investigation. Be sure to add all of them to your list of contempt. You're entitled to your opinion even if it's a result of ignorance.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Pulling numbers out of your ass doesn't give you the moral authority to claim someone else is "ignorant". Back it up.
  • masterkenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Conspiracy theories? Think I'd need more solid evidence to undoubtedly believe that the US government was the evil mastermind behind it all.

    However, the Bush administration using a bad situation and spinning it for their own personal gain and agenda? That I can believe.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Undoubtedly the real story is complex. It also probably involves at least one government other than our own.

      It is now clear as day that the WMD story was a lie.

      Take a look at the anthrax letters, and you will find a lot of bogusness there, too.

      What are the odds the official 9/11 story leaves out a lot, shades other things, and lies about a few things?

      And when was the last time one of our wars was NOT started on a lie?
  • marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I suggest anyone questioning the facts watch the Discovery Channel program that deals with the art of demolition. Building that are going to be demoed are completely gutted and weakened. Each support beam is cut 3/4 of the way through and the explosive is meant to cut the last 1/3. The amount of explosives to bring down a structurally sound building would be at least 3 times as much as a normal demo.
    I have seen a demo in real life (the Arena in St. Louis) and the concussion of the blasts could be felt a mile away in my chest. Just think of the noise of an explosion 3 time that. We would have had a city full of deaf people.
    Also, how in hell would the explosives survive the plains hitting the building or are we to believe they were perfectly placed in an predetermined area the would not be effected by the planes or fire.
    Also the term to demo something is "drop it" not "pull it"
  • cloudbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Question:

    One of the big reason's I don't buy the conspiracy theories is because I find it difficult to believe that such a huge secret could be kept secret (this is also a big reason to believe we actually DID land on the moon...). In my experience, getting so many people to keep such a huge secret from so many other people is, in short, impossible. This is why things get unclassified with time - time reveals secrets.

    What are the chances of a secret this huge staying secret? What's been the world's biggest secret? (and with an obvious nod to the fact that the world's biggest secret may still be that...)
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The Manhattan project involved over 10,000 people.
      I love all the Digger's who call 9-11 truth "*****" and support it by making uninformed statements of pure conjecture.
    • marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The Russians had the plans for the bomb before the first bomb was dropped. The Manhattan project wasn't very secritive at all. Hell, everyone in Santa Fe, NM knew what was going on. They saw the test mushroom cloud.
    • danheskett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The comparison to the Manhattan project is laughable:

      1. America was engaged in a war that they desperately wanted to win. The country was making regular significant sacrifices. The idea of "loose lips sink ships" had been beaten into the heads of people since the first shots were fired.

      2. Communiation was far less immediate and far less common, especially over distances.

      3. The majority of the Manhattan project took place in the middle of nowhere in an area constructed entirely for that purpose.

      4. The people involved with the project believed that they were saving the country. It was something honorable. It was something to be proud of.

      Anyone involved in the 9/11 conspiracies paraded around would have none of these more noble motivations and qualities. There is absolutely no pretense of nobility if the theories or a single sinister theory was true.

      It is highly unlikely - given the political state - that anyone who was invovled wouldn't turn and reveal the truth in a first person late breaking news type of way. America idolizes celebrities, and idolizes "insiders blowing the whistle".

    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are many examples far better than the Manhattan Project of secrets successfully kept for a long time, by many people.

      Have you ever heard of a place called Mount Weather? It is a top-security underground installation an hour's drive from Washington DC. It has its own leaders, police, fire department and laws. A cold war relic, it has been given a new lease of life since 9/11. No one who's been inside or who has worked there has ever talked.

      In addition, let's talk about places like Groom Lake testing facility in Nevada. It existed for decades before being finally admitted to by the government, due to satellite photographs being released. There are huge underground hanger facilities for aircraft (the SR-71 Blackbird & the Stealth F-117 planes were tested and based there initially) built into the mountains. Presumably such huge facilities need engineers, workmen and later military staff of all levels - yet none of these people ever blew the existance of the site or their work there before it was finally revealed to the public. Even today, it is impossible to find accounts from the engineers who built the huge complexes into the mountain.

      There are many other examples of successfully maintained secret operations that last for decades. While I find the 9/11 false flag theory implausible for many reasons, the idea that it would take thousands of people to pull off is in fact not the case. Perhaps only 50 individuals would have had to have an understanding of the 'big picture'. The rest would only know as much as they needed to know to do their jobs. This is called compartmentalisation - it is a standard operating procedure in the military and intelligence services to maintain security. No one individual knows any more about his duty than what he needs to accomplish it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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