What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.171 Comments
- mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -14/+88Actually weren't the Japanese the first to pioneer this movement?
- 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.
- 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
- 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? - 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.
- 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. - yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24you lost me at Cynthia Mckinney
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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! - 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.
- 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. - mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22This is such garbage, and belongs in political opinion anyway, not world news.
- 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'.
- inactive, 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. - roostersheep, on 01/16/2009, -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?
- 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. - 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 - 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! - inactive, 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. - 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 - 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 ? ? ? - 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.
- 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. - PradaPete, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21yawn...more "loose change" "just asking questions" bull for easily fooled people
- inactive, 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. - inactive, 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.
- 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] - 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? - 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.
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18Dumb and Dumberer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin - 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 - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"People view "facts" differently."
Which is why the Flat Earth Society existed well into the 20th century. - 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. - 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.
- 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" - 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.
- TonySki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9worst description ever. good vid tho.
- 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?
- 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. - mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Wait, let me correct myself. It does belong in world news, Weekly World News that is.
- inactive, 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - Zayphar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Cynthia McKinney!? Are you kidding me?
What a waste of time.
Buried for being inaccurate.
*Sheesh* -
Show 51 - 100 of 169 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
