digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at rawstory.com

Navy official: 9/11 Flight 93 was shot down

rawstory.com — Interesting statement indeed during Gitmo war crimes trial...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Cordier, on 07/24/2008, -273/+400Why isn't this the lede on page 1 above the fold on every newspaper across America?
    • GlobalistShill, on 07/24/2008, -72/+126Rupert Murdoch. David Rockefeller.
    • canewediggit, on 07/24/2008, -17/+638it's not the lead b/c you didn't rtfa. the navy official is quoting an al-qaeda prisoner, not making a claim. buried as inaccurate. look at the digg title above and now look at the raw story title "Gitmo prosecutor repeats al Qaeda deputy's claim: Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11"

      see the difference?
      • didiman, on 07/24/2008, -28/+110raw story is pathetic, this headline is one of the most misleading i've ever seen. Rawstory = always buried as inaccurate.
      • TreatsTheBear, on 07/24/2008, -13/+79I agree. Buried for inaccurate, 'truther'-baiting headline.
        Shameful.
      • blah247, on 07/24/2008, -4/+26You only have to read the first two paragraphs to decipher this information. So he didn't even really get past the title.
      • DooM, on 07/24/2008, -3/+35The submitter was innaccurate - just to be (ahem) ACCURATE the Raw Story headline is: "Gitmo prosecutor repeats al Qaeda deputy's claim: Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11"
      • ZincSaucier, on 07/24/2008, -6/+18rtfa. awesome. sorry if thats a common acronym ive never seen it.
      • TobiasParker, on 07/24/2008, -5/+18New here? I will help R___ T__ ***** A______, fill in the blanks
      • mshtml, on 07/24/2008, -28/+5No plane crashed or was shot down over PA. Here's the footage from the crash site taken on 9/11. There's no jetliner wreckage for one simple reason, it never happened.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
      • ObscuredCelery, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11At least someone else out there has a ***** brain! RTFA indeed! The key here being he repeated what a prisoner said.
      • lusenok2, on 07/24/2008, -6/+7Does the sole fact that Al Quaeda deputy told this makes it lie?
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/25/2008, -3/+11The fact that it was said by an Al Qaeda deputy means that it was said by someone who has absolutely no inside knowledge of US military movements and therefore would not have a clue about whether or not flight 93 was shot down.
      • HerbertWest, on 07/25/2008, -2/+7This is stupid. Why is this on the front page? It's non-news. Anti-news even.

        I'm sure the terrorists claim amongst themselves that the plane was shot down. They couldn't very well go around believing that a bunch of regular people kicked their buddies asses on that plane.

        Geeze.
      • Rabbit63, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2Not so. The al-Qaeda dude wouldn't have used the slang term "Dome".

        That was an attempt at damage control afterwards.
    • s0l0s0ul, on 07/24/2008, -23/+9lead
      • Cordier, on 07/24/2008, -0/+22in journalism the correct word is 'lede'
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -32/+9wait a second...an al qaeda member said that?
        Isn't that the main evidence you guys have when it comes to bin laden doing 9/11? "bin laden and al qaeda ADMIT they did it!"

        Yet here, it is immediately discarded as not evidence.

        Makes sense in denier land, I guess!
      • belumaves, on 07/24/2008, -3/+8you replied in the wrong place, but anyway.

        there is a difference between the min planners saying that they did something and a person having details when they were halfway around the world. Bin Laden knows what he was involved in planning and facilitating, but only the people who were present know the exact order events happened. so when this guy says the final target was "the dome" we can believe it because that was the plan, but when he says that it was shot down, that must be taken with a grain of salt because he was halfway arround the world when it happened.
      • DooM, on 07/24/2008, -2/+11Unless this terrorist dude was sitting in NORAD on 9/11 he wouldn't know much about what happened to the plane - but he WOULD know what HIS organization was doing. See the difference here..?
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -7/+3i understand...so bin laden is a trustworthy source but his low level minions cannot be trusted...unless they support the official story.
        I see...
      • belumaves, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4no, you missed the point, if this guy had been picked up in a field in PA we would be far more inclined to believe that the planes were shot down because he was a credible witness.
        Bin Laden can be trusted on Al Qaeda's actions because HE IS THE BLOODY LEADER! This guy is also trusted on what the targets were, because he was privy to those discussions. The only thing that he is not an authority on is if they were shot down because he CAN'T know. if Bin Laden said they were shot down I would say the same thing.

        Here is an example of what I am trying to say:
        Imagine that you tell someone that I speak english and that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast. no one will doubt your assertion that I speak english, after all, you talked to me. But getting someone to believe that I had bacon and eggs is different because you weren't there and don't know anyone who was. I might have had bacon and eggs for breakfast, it is a common meal, just as a plane full of terrorists going after a building could logically be assumed to have been shot down.
    • FeargusMcDuff, on 07/24/2008, -18/+135Because the newspapers would lose credibility over being associated with such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated theory
      • ancalagon73, on 07/24/2008, -8/+21Wait, newspapers have credibility?
      • Pixelante, on 07/24/2008, -7/+10Yes, they have credibility in the public eye, which is all that matters. They have credibility and authority, over any website, over any blog. It's not going to change. Deal with it.
      • mikelieman, on 07/24/2008, -7/+6You're saying the VERY SAME newspapers which printed the Bush Administration's lies without bothering to even check the alleged facts retain *any* shred of credibility?
      • thecatcantalk, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3What credibility?

        Newspapers have been losing customers like a call girl with weeping sores on her face, for years.

        There's a good reason why journalists are almost universally despised in America.
      • Pixelante, on 07/25/2008, -2/+0And yet newspapers and TV news are still THE source of information all through the world.
        If you tell someone you read it on the Washington Post, the Times, the Le Figaro, the Frankfurter Allgemeine, the Corriere della Sera, the El Pais and so on, the item will have an aura of credibility. If you say you read it on the internet, you'll get a snicker.
        We can kid ourselves as much as we want, people may declare they despise journalists but in reality they swallow down their crap by the truckload.
    • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -34/+8so canwediggit...everything else they said about 9/11 ("we did 911" "we planned it from A to Z") should be taken off the record, too, right?
      Since it is al Qaeda making the claims, right?

      So, without the words of the terrorists, what other evidence do you have that 9/11 was done by bin Laden? Please share with us.

      Also, I'm sure you are for waterboarding, right? If you are, then why would the information be useful? It is from the mouth of al Qaeda so it is a lie, right?
      • PleaseJustDie, on 07/24/2008, -5/+28How many terrorists have first hand knowledge of what happened on flight 93? Now how many of them died on that flight? Oh, that's right, all of them. I seriously doubt terrorists have more information about what happened on that flight than we do since their only witnesses to the event are dead and if they were shot down they wouldn't have had time to call and say they were shot down.

        Not to mention the phone calls from the people on the plane to their loved ones saying that they were about to rush the cockpit, etc right before the plane crashed.

        I'd be more willing to bet that this prisoner was told by Al'Qaeda that the infidels shot down the plane as some sort of propaganda.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -5/+7so...you don't have one piece of evidence that supports bin laden and al qaeda?
        Not one thing?
        Nothing?
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -5/+7wait...i'm not joking around guys...there are a lot of you in here calling us moonbats.
        Can one of you post the evidence that leads to bin Laden being responsible for 9/11?

        I'll check this on and off over the next few hours. I'm actually anxious to hear the evidence from the sane people. I'm tired of being a moonbat :(
      • kemp34, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Wow, no evidence at all other than what has been "floated".
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -4/+7it's so weird...it's almost as if there's no evidence at all bin laden did it yet you're a complete and utter lunatic if you think bin laden wasn't involved.
        Weird...
      • PleaseJustDie, on 07/24/2008, -5/+4card, I'm going to use wikipedia because, although its user edited content its well referenced at the bottom and the lines I'm copy/pasta are all referenced.

        from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda (this shows a link from Osama to Al'Qaeda)
        "Characteristic techniques include use of suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[4] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the organization, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous "al-Qaeda-linked" individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan or Sudan but not taken any pledge.[5]"

        And from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_at ...
        "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States. On that morning, terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2]"
      • card51short, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5so your evidence is some guys on wikipedia saying they did it?
        I'm convinced!
        I don't mean to sound like a jerk, I really don't...but is this really the only evidence you have?
        Cmon, man!!! Why do you believe these liars?!
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/25/2008, -3/+0And card your evidence is you saying.....show me evidence? So we should follow your lead because you........don't have your.....own.....evi...dence. wha...? How about the tapes of bin laden speaking about the attacks....before they happened? The tape of him saying he directed the hijackers. He has said he's responsible. He has said he got the idea from watching bombings in Lebanon? He said he did it....how can that not convince you. Or have you never watched all his released videos in fear of realizing that you and all your ass monkeys are wrong? (Your ***** spewing mouth will probably try and claim a double was used or something....but will never back any of it up)
      • card51short, on 07/26/2008, -1/+4"And card your evidence is you saying.....show me evidence?"

        We've shown you all our evidence...you guys have said it's all bunk. FINE...it's all bunk...now what evidence is there that bin laden did it?

        "How about the tapes of bin laden speaking about the attacks....before they happened?"

        OK here's a start...so you have the word of the most wanted terrorist...open and shut case, right?

        So that's all the evidence you have? Do you honestly think that would stand up in court?
        If I announced I did it would you believe me?

        How about John David Karr? Did he kill Jon Benet Ramsey? He admitted it, right?

        So...is this really all you got? The word of the most wanted terrorist?

        Powerful "stacks of evidence"!
        I'm blown away!!!!!!

      • card51short, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2you're all intellectually dishonest for ignoring me and you know it.

        Why do you want to be lied to?
    • dafragsta, on 07/24/2008, -19/+3Think about that the next time you fly off the handle without even considering the subject matter the next time you (or anyone else, if you haven't) called someone a conspiracy theory nutjob.
      • dafragsta, on 07/24/2008, -10/+2That's right ***** sheep. Bury away. I didn't even offer a conspiracy up for theory, but you're so ***** afraid to identify with those that question the possibility that conspiracy once was not proceeded by "theory," so go ahead.
      • ZincSaucier, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6both your comments make very good points. Really, its not a garbled mess of mixed words and confusing statements responding to each other. I know exactly what you're saying. Well done
      • yodaj007, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4What the hell are you talking about? Think about what? Who flew off the handle? Who's the nutjob here?

        Why can't you use proper punctuation?
    • OwdenBowden, on 07/24/2008, -19/+6Tell me something I don't know.

      There is no question in my mind that the passengers did a revolt but this plane was shot down because it's target was Washington DC (White House, Capital, Pentagon). The only reason I can see why it would not have been made public because at that time it was a (for lack of better words) ray of light in a sea of despair.
      • ePuck, on 07/24/2008, -6/+1@cordier cuz it's some guy flapping his mouth
    • brundlefly76, on 07/24/2008, -5/+35Other headlines featured on the same website's ad-banner-slathered frontpage:

      "Moon-walker claims alien cover-up"
      "ACLU OBTAINS CIA TORTURE MEMOS" (in caps)

      Also note that there is no context given to the Naval officer's use of the quote - it is simply stated that he repeated the quote made by the defendant. I suspect he was simply quoting the defendant's testimony in reference, not reinforcing the assertion or in any way establishing his own knowledge of the incident.

      Any clue whatsoever as to the context of the naval officer's remarks would have cleared this up, but 'rawstory.com' chose not to give any.

      This is exactly the techniques tabloids use to back up sensational headlines to draw readers to sell advertising without exposing themselves to slander or libel. Don't be so freaking gullible - check your news source and your head when reading stories on the internet, don't be drawn into believing conspiracy because it excites you - that is exactly what is intended by the publisher.

      • sonstone, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3Headlines on this pages banner right now for me:

        "Get your free astrological reading today" from joypeaceandhappiness.com. Is it really that much different...
    • JointVenture, on 07/24/2008, -16/+5Because you're a stupid ***** ***** who cant read.
      • yodaj007, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Get back on your anger management medication.
    • dwninjungleland, on 07/24/2008, -10/+19This is stupid as *****. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of rawstory also have a controlling share in a tinfoil supply company.
      • sonstone, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3RS did nothing wrong here. The headline and the article are very clear and in no way deceptive.
    • deleo, on 07/24/2008, -9/+3This should be a top story on the news, as should the story below about a U.S. astronaut who walked on the moon during the Apollo program said that he knows that aliens exist as does the U.S. Gov't. Why is this not the top story on Digg today? I have never believed that aliens have visited us, but now I'm not so sure.

      http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24070088-1376 ...
      • jerrycurley, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2You obviously have actually done the research yourself. You just read one article (in this case, just the misleading headline) and form your opinions htat way.

        Kind of a sad way to go through life.
    • cawpin, on 07/24/2008, -5/+25"Why isn't this the lede on page 1 above the fold on every newspaper across America?"

      Because it isn't true?
    • ptsuk, on 07/24/2008, -5/+13Because it the typical "RAWSTORY" *****, just like huffingtonpost, the guardian uk, and other ***** sites that are constantly whipping up the "digg community" since its like shooting fish in a barrel. Here are some topics to have your article hit front page:

      Government Conspiracies (namely the US)
      Marijuana (anything, medical, laws, legalize it, etc)
      Police Brutality
      Bashing Media (mostly fox (who deserves it) but other 3 are also prominant)
      OS of choice vs OS of others choice
      iphone (pro and sucks)
      • TheSkunkMonkey, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8Up next.. Is the media giving enough coverage to the brutality of police handling people that smoke pot and use Linux because they think MS and the government are in a conspiracy to only allow illegal immigrants to have iPhones...

        More at eleven..

        I even threw in an "illegal immigrant" meme for good luck.
      • krolm, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3you forgot about the weekly cancer and aids cures
      • Tweekster, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5Diggers really are sheep when it comes to that sort of garbage
      • nick1971, on 07/25/2008, -3/+1Out of interest what do you have against the UK Guardian? Its to left wing for my taste but its still one of the major serious newspapers in the UK.
      • ptsuk, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1nick1971 Yeah the Guardian is a serious newspaper, and the national enquirer is taken as "gospel"! (and if you're referring to the article FROM THE GUARDIAN, on the survey of the guardian being the most trustworthy newspaper in the uk, then i've got "huge tracks of land" to see you for the cheap price of 10,000 Euros!
    • Haecceity, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12"Why isn't this the lede on page 1 above the fold on every newspaper across America?"

      Terrorist suspect says: "George Bush is the spawn of Satan."
      Navy officer testifies: "I heard the suspect say 'George Bush is the spawn of Satan.' "
      Digger posts: "Navy Official: George Bush is the spawn of Satan."
      You ask: "Why isn't this the lede on page 1 above the fold on every newspaper across America?"

      And I don't think you know what the word "lede" means. It doesn't mean "lead story." So much ignorance in such a short comment -- you may have earned some kind of record.
    • robbh66, on 07/24/2008, -3/+8One conspiracy nut should trump thousands of other people's testimony?

      Yes, this should obviously be on the front page.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5which thousands of other people's testimony were you referring to?
      • ZenMojo, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2I'm not signing onto this because I don't have time to read it, but I have to say...

        What, were they on the plane?
    • JordanE, on 07/24/2008, -2/+12You're still getting dugg up. Unbelievable.
    • jamessavik, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2Probably because its *****
    • mattkuenzel, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2Because he was QUOTING an al queda guy, dimwit
    • BlackMask, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2is the snorg tees model on the upper right hand side wearing panties?
    • CicurateGroup, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2Because you are a ***** idiot, just like the imbecile who submitted this *****.
    • DismantleRepair, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Because there's no such thing as a "lede story", *****.
  • rald84, on 07/24/2008, -88/+55"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

    wtf?
    • jmpeagle, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12it's a reference to the Capitol building
    • MacEnvy, on 07/24/2008, -4/+77Why stop quoting in the middle of the sentence? Or right, because you're trying to mislead people. Here's the continuation FTFA:

      ""If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, repeating Bin Laden's deputy's claim.

      The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol."
    • vegask, on 07/24/2008, -9/+11More important, whey the f@ck is there a scientology ad at the bottom of that page???
      • drunkinbda, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8you got to the bottom? :P
      • elipabst, on 07/24/2008, -3/+13Personally I find the Scientology Xenu space-alien story about as credible as this one...
      • jimbohawkins, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6What are these ads you speak of? AdBlock Plus FTW...
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -12/+4NOOO SCIENTOLOGY WE MUST STOP THEM NOW!
        HOW DARE THEY PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION IN AMERICA!
        ahahah you guys are hilarious...why must you set out to destroy everyone who disagrees with you?
        Who cares if crazy people believe in Scientology? This is America...move to Russia if you hate it so much.
      • yodaj007, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3@Card:
        Unfortunately we live in the United States, where people are free to express their opinion and organize for whatever purpose they want, minus violence and threats to the State. If you don't like this, perhaps you should move to Russia.

        Scientology is not a religion. It's a ***** cult. The founder himself said that to become rich and famous you had to found your own religion. At least research the ***** topic before you tell everyone else to shut the ***** up.
    • curtis87xc03, on 07/24/2008, -6/+30"'If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome,' Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, repeating Bin Laden's deputy's claim."

      Actual quote, nice try editing it by changing the last comma to a period and leaving out the most important part.

    • trollick, on 07/24/2008, -20/+1Hmm. But they did shot it down and, as a result, it hit the dome?
      • wedges, on 07/24/2008, -3/+6it didn't hit a dome. it crashed in a field.
      • fenderbiz, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1are you completely retarded or just a little?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9I don't think the confusion is about the Capital "dome" its that the plane was nowhere near the dome when shot down.
  • InsideJob11Sep, on 07/24/2008, -124/+60Another farcical trial in a kangaroo court!!!

    Google WTC-7 & learn the truth!!!
    • eatasandwich, on 07/24/2008, -12/+32Is that how you get your truth?
    • Monk22, on 07/24/2008, -10/+5nice job picking up the third comment on the page and repeating it here. your a winner.
    • Gryffydd, on 07/24/2008, -15/+32Google Bigfoot & learn the truth!!!11!
      • ApokalypseNow, on 07/24/2008, -7/+19Google Loch Ness Monster & learn the truth!!!11!1eleventy-one1
      • Asim0, on 07/24/2008, -4/+10Google the answer to life, the universe, and everything &learn the truth!!!!!!
    • Lunchbox37, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5There are kangaroos in that court!?!? Why is that not on the news!?

      The US Military is using large marsupials as litigation officials, and I haven't heard a thing about it!
    • KungFooJesus, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2The more things like this are brought up and believed inately by large portions of the public, the more i wish i had saved my feces in a salad bowl so as to return the favor of feeding those people the ***** they just love to eat. Shut the ***** up. Grow the ***** up. Or get the ***** out of the gene pool.
    • jack104, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2dude that whole conspiracy is ***** and if you'd open your eyes and look for explanations actually supported by science you'd see the truth too.
  • obliviousfool, on 07/24/2008, -79/+309All four planes should have been shot down. NORAD was asleep, doing drills, standing down, and playing war games. I'm glad at least a portion of our air defenses didn't get that memo.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/24/2008, -19/+87NORAD was first notified of a possible hijacking at 8:37 am, nine minutes before flight 11 hit WTC 1. How could they possibly have made an intercept in that amount of time?
      • ssn697, on 07/24/2008, -10/+78It defies logic, but this story would have you believe that after they did intercept, and shoot down the plane, they gave Bin Laden a call to let him know. Cuz, you know, that's what best buds do.

        "Sorry Osama, I know we agreed to let you fly that plane into the White House, but we had a last minute change of plans. I know this was planned out meticulously, with the planes hitting some places, but then blowing up the buildings, then not using planes elsewhere, then using planes but shooting them down. We thought we'd call to let you know we shot the last plane down, just to ***** up our evil plan a little more. Thanks for understanding", or something like that. Yeah, makes PERFECT sense.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/24/2008, -9/+72Bohica - truthers have an overinflated expectation of our military when it suits them. Despite the fact that we do not normally have planes around the NY area on ready alert, they expect the military to shoot down planes within seconds of getting a warning.
      • Dohko_Xar, on 07/24/2008, -38/+10I still believe this was done by terrorists, and by terrorists I mean Americans.
      • MorphicMusic, on 07/24/2008, -20/+3LASERS COULD HAVE SHOT IT DOWN IF WE WANTED TO
      • iamthearm, on 07/24/2008, -13/+7They couldn't of possibly shot them down. There was not near enough time. These people just hate American for ANY reason available.
      • Hotortillas, on 07/24/2008, -10/+4Pirate, how long is the standard time, we are still waiting for a Response...

        Also if Norad was not notified on time it should be investigated, you mean the guy at control spend a lot of time just talking with himself?
      • schultenick, on 07/24/2008, -6/+1magic
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11@Hotorillas: It was investigated. It's called the 9/11 Commission Report. I know it's not good enough for you because it contradicts your theories, but it's actually a pretty good read. It also outlines exactly what happened in that time. If you can trouble yourself to post uninformed comments on Digg you could certainly read a few pages of a book.
      • fullphaser, on 07/25/2008, -2/+7Because its bad tact to shoot down a civilian plane, imagine if they had shot it down, Imagine if they had shot down all 4. Can you imagine the public outcry against the military? Even if the military had been right, the public would have been outraged. They waited until a confirmation that they were under attack to scramble planes, otherwise yes, they should have been able to shoot down the aircraft, but you are looking at a 20 minute scramble time
    • GlobalistShill, on 07/24/2008, -24/+8@BohicaTwentyTwo

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTdAkhd6Dcw
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/24/2008, -8/+35Oh, a Youtube video. Didn't see that one coming.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -30/+7YOU TUBE IZZZ EVIL LEFTIST CONTROLLED PROPAGANDA!

        Bohica will only trust the real evidence :

        Bin Laden's admission of guilt. Hard evidence!!!

        Unless of course you have some other evidence that bin Laden was involved.
        No?

        Well, the word of the most wanted terrorist is all you need. It's open and shut. ;)
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -21/+6what?! are you saying i got buried FOUR times and not one of you can post one piece of evidence?

        Pwoof?
        You have none...you're all jokes and you know it.
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/24/2008, -7/+4Its probably because we all know its just not worth showing you anything, you'll take it out of context and then go straight to youtube. Then you'll run to your next truther meeting and you'll all laugh at the ingnorant people that don't believe this was an inside job as you all masturbate together to your "god" Michael Moore. Thats why
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -6/+4"Its probably because we all know its just not worth showing you anything, you'll take it out of context and then go straight to youtube."

        HAHAHAHAHAH yes...that's it. So all 20 people that buried me just dont' wanna bother with the evidence.
        hahahahahahahahahahahhahaha i understand ;)
        Just look into your heart man...forget about me...forget about Digg...you know in your heart you have no evidence. Why do you believe these liars? Why must you be on the winning side no matter what?

        "Then you'll run to your next truther meeting and you'll all laugh at the ingnorant people that don't believe this was an inside job as you all masturbate together to your "god" Michael Moore. Thats why"

        Wait a second...Michael Moore? Do you know anything about truthers yet? You know we're not evil liberal leftists, right?

        I understand though...i'm literally cracking up so hard.

        Not one of you can provide ANY evidence that bin laden did it....YET WE'RE THE MOONBATS!!!

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
      • brycelb, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1WOW! Card, you are out of your mind. Your ramblings are all over the place so how could anyone begin to respond, we have no idea what you're talking about. Now go crack up so hard some more.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3bryce...i'm just looking for evidence. I'm a wacky moonbat who needs evidence before I indict someone.

        I'm not like you rational, intelligent thinkers out there..

        "But...but...but...he SAID he did it!!!"
      • yodaj007, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2@card

        The only reason I'm digging you down is your angry, I'm-so-persecuted attitude. Calm down and take a ***** break. No one is trying to one-up you. There's no conspiracy against you.
      • card51short, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3*takes a deep breath*

        yoda....so...no evidence?
      • card51short, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2i mean...you got NOTHING?

        This is unbelievable...people...wake up...you are being lied to. Think of how ridiculous this is. NOT ONE OF YOU CAN POST ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE YET WE ARE THE MOONBATS!!!?!????
    • Herkimer56, on 07/24/2008, -16/+57Obliviousfool is both oblivious and a fool. Discuss.
      • floridiot2, on 07/24/2008, -4/+7But is he also foolishly oblivious?
      • kevxross, on 07/24/2008, -2/+22Chickpea - neither a chick nor a pea. Discuss.
      • Gonthim, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2Lies and trickery! Chickpeas are peas. Britannica says so.
      • iamthearm, on 07/24/2008, -10/+3Well, maybe, if you kids are lucky, your boy Obama will start another war with Iran to give you more fuel for your hate of America. I dislike the government as much as the next guy but you kids growing up are a new kind of dislike that I call hate.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/24/2008, -6/+9Britannica is part of the global conspiracy. You would know that...UNLESS YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -5/+8"Britannica is part of the global conspiracy. You would know that...UNLESS YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"

        That's moonbat talk111!!111111!1

        We all know the only people conspiring against us is a group of dirt poor terrorists across the world with AK-47's.

        AND YOU MUST FEAR THEM!!! THEY ARE COMING!!!
        JIHAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!

        moonbat.
    • SpudgeBoy, on 07/24/2008, -19/+13It was Cheney that kept the planes grounded. Well documented, but even if I gave you a link, one of the tards here was scream "Fake!" So ***** it.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/24/2008, -6/+10Because it is fake. And I can say that because I already know that your documentation will quote Cheney as answering the question, "do the orders still stand?" as "yes." Then your source will state that the "orders" being referred to MUST be stand down orders although there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5"Then your source will state that the "orders" being referred to MUST be stand down orders although there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this."

        Bohica...what do you think the orders meant, then?

        Were they ordering out for lunch or what?
      • rodgerdodger5, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1It is my understanding that it was Norman Minetta that gave the orders to ground all planes. That is interesting - that he was the first to actually do something. Here is his (very strange) testimony before the 9/11 commission.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

        This is also worth a read - no matter what you think.
        http://cpjc.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?arti ...

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCtb9nlV_20
        This last video is odd to say the least. There are two recorded instances of him saying this.

        Then there is this oddness.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqh2aof6W80

        Seriously, take the time to watch these.
    • chamberlanderic, on 07/24/2008, -10/+4the french secret, the spanishes, the italians, services had advise the cia month before too
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/24/2008, -4/+5Are you suggesting that we should have had continuous fighter coverage over every single city in the US for over a month?
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3"Are you suggesting that we should have had continuous fighter coverage over every single city in the US for over a month?"

        Yes I think his comment is pretty clear...that's EXACTLY what he meant.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/24/2008, -9/+12OK, having concluded that this plane was shot down -- while being called a tin-foil-hat for doing so. Let me just say that it is kind of suspicious that the only plane shot down was one where the passengers took control.

      I can understand a cover-up of the shoot-down since, this plane was NOT in jeopardy of hitting a building.
      • jstancom, on 07/24/2008, -9/+14Yeah...you're full of *****.

        The plane clearly wasn't shot down. Just look at the physics of the crash. One poster above has made an explanation essentially proving that the plane was crashed forcibly, not by an explosion by any missile.

        On 9/11 in DC Capitol Police thought that the plane was coming either for the Capitol Building or the White House. My professor was a government employee at the time in a senior level position. Capitol Police basically cordoned off the Capitol and the White House and told everyone that a plane was coming into DC and may crash. My professor then ran for her life to her house to pick up her kids, since she lives two blocks behind the Capitol. With the smoke being visible in DC of the Pentagon, people were scared to death, and people were being told to evacuate because a plane was coming in.

        Don't disgrace the sacrifice these people on Flight 93 made when they chose to bravely take on the hijackers. They are heroes, and they very may have well saved American democracy. Can you imagine what draconian laws Bush and the Republicans in power at the time would have passed if the White House or Capitol was destroyed in a terrorist attack?

      • dangeroussnakes, on 07/24/2008, -5/+5Yeah, thank god good old fashioned American democracy is safe and sound now! </SARCASM>
      • Winston84, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7IF the plane was "crashed forcibly" then why was the debris spread over
        a 8 mile radius ? A jet-engine was found 1mile away from the crash-site .
        Some Air-force pilots DID do their job that day and if EVERYBODY had been allowed
        to do their jobs in the months up to 9-11 it wouldn't have happened .
        Since I have a very hard time believing so many people of power can be so incompetent at the same time it has to be "deliberate incompetence" ie treason .
        Some traitors ordered everybody to take sleeping-pills and stone-walled all the warnings and
        3000 people died as a result ..
    • DiggyWiggy, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7 Q Mr. President, would you confirm what the Vice President said this morning, that at one point during this crisis you gave an order to shoot down any civilian airliner that approached the Capitol? Was that a difficult decision to make?

      THE PRESIDENT: I gave our military the orders necessary to protect Americans, do whatever it would take to protect Americans. And of course that's difficult. Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never. And so, obviously, when I was told what was taking place, when I was informed that an unidentified aircraft was headed to the heart of the capital, I was concerned. I wasn't concerned about my decision; I was more concerned about the lives of innocent Americans. I had realized there on the ground in Florida we were under attack. But never did I dream we would have been under attack this way.
    • bacchante, on 07/24/2008, -10/+7Yeah they were too busy running simulations on planes hitting buildings. This kind of happened to my family. Dad was an alcoholic, on the day he died from alcohol poisoning I was playing 9-11 Substance Abuse Intervention Tycoon.
    • iamthearm, on 07/24/2008, -10/+2WOW. I can't believe you guys believe what a terrorist and a prosecutor say.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -4/+9you believe what bin laden says when he said he did 9/11.

        In fact, that's your only evidence he was involved.
      • iamthearm, on 07/26/2008, -2/+0You go ahead and keep believing lawyers and terrorists.
    • doctordbx, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2It wasn't, never has been, AND STILL ISN'T, protocol to shoot down a hijacked plane.
      • opmike, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Are you in a position within our government that allows to make anything resembling an informed statement on the matter? Given the appropriate circumstances, the are situations where downing the plane would be the best solution. It's just a decision that no moral human being would ever want to make and have to live with.
    • Naieve, on 07/24/2008, -4/+13The Cold War ended, the budget was cut.

      And no, you can't blame Bush for that.
      • aznpwnzor, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1you mean, transformer threat averted, budget cut
    • tas08, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Someone didn't rtfa.
  • theNazz, on 07/24/2008, -68/+64Flight 93 debris was scattered over several miles instead of smashing into its own footprint like any other plane crash does. Why?
    • whataboutdave, on 07/24/2008, -26/+48You troofers make me laugh. You talk as if each of you were experts on the fields you spout off about.

    • Sornos, on 07/24/2008, -6/+42Planes do not "smash into their own footprints". During a crash landing (keyword being landing, where the pilot is trying to survive), sure the fuselage will remain intact, but during a high velocity crash, the plane does not stay in one piece. A 800,000 lb aircraft traveling at 560 miles per hour falling from 50,000 feet filled with explosive fuel, does not leave a small crater.
      • bumblefoot, on 07/24/2008, -5/+12@ thatguyfred

        so what, does it crash into the floor and leave an exact outline of the plane loony toons style?
      • Akufen, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1He's asking that because that's what "officially" happened.

        Don't you remember the pictures? Strangely enough there's also satellite data from before 9/11 that shows the same mark on the ground.. hmm.
    • Gryffydd, on 07/24/2008, -4/+53Yes, because a crashed plane leaves a hole in the ground shaped just like its outline, kind of like when cartoons hit the ground.
    • Trots, on 07/24/2008, -3/+6You should watch a couple episodes of Mayday.
    • elipabst, on 07/24/2008, -3/+11That statement of debris being "miles" away came from someone used yahoo maps to figure out how far away the debris field extended from the crash site Of course the asstard didn't notice that the resulting distance it gave him was the DRIVING MILES, not how far away as the crow flies and the driving route goes almost all the way around the circumference of Indian lake near the crash site.
    • Gemfinder, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7Planes with dead pilots tend to tumble wildly in their trajectory.
  • louise12345, on 07/24/2008, -42/+155Question is, if it was indeed shot down. Why not just say that's what had to be done? The truth has a way of turning up when you least expect it.
    • Hortnon, on 07/24/2008, -12/+49Would you want to be the guy to make the decision to shoot down 100 innocent Americans over US soil?

      Would you want to then admit this decision publicly and have it second-guessed for years to come?

      My guess is, if it happened that way, it'll come out AFTER Bush is out of office.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -25/+9wow, Horty, I am shocked. You actually admitted that there is a possibility we MAY be right about something.

        That's the first step, I think. You're on your way.
        Well done for keeping an open mind.

        This article "proves" nothing. But it adds more question marks to the picture of 9/11.
      • 47f0, on 07/24/2008, -3/+23I'm not sure why. A horrible decision to make, but given what they already knew, and the range of potential targets, downing the plane would have been the only sane choice.

        I've always thought it a little strange that when a golfer's private jet (Payne Stewart) wanders offtrack, we manage to scramble fighters rapidly when it misses a checkpoint - but somehow fumbled the ball on all four of the 9/11 jets.
      • dougmc, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7About Payne Stewart's plane, the first fighter reached his plane about 27 minutes after air traffic controllers lost contact with the plane.

        Payne's plane flew for a long time with no pilot ...
      • TreatsTheBear, on 07/24/2008, -6/+7This article shouldn't add anything to anything. It's a lawyer repeating quoting a suspected terrorist quoting a known terrorist. If that's the kind of information you want to base an argument on, you're in cranksville.

        This is just more BS that people will pass off as evidence of some conspiracy.
      • dougmc, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8Sorry, I was wrong about Payne's plane -- the first fighter reached it _87_ minutes after contact was lost. (I forgot to take into account the time zone change.)

        More details here --

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Lea ...

        I imagine that in the case of suspected hijackings, and especially if they suspected that planes were being flown into buildings (which they probably suspected when it happened the first time) they could move faster than this.

        I believe that on 9/11, the plane crashed in PA about 75 minutes after the first plane crashed into the WTC, so I'm guessing that while they certainly didn't have enough time to shoot down the first plane (assuming they even knew that they wanted to, which would be very iffy), they probably could have shot down the one that crashed in PA if they wanted to and were on the ball.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_ ...

        (I'm not saying they did, just that they probably did have time to do it.)
      • ptsuk, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Hey Tard, read up or at least watch some TV. CHENEY DID make the decision (along with condi rice) to shoot down flight 93 after the 2nd plane hit WTC and the pentagon. When it crashed they thought it HAD been, but later reports reports in the day had shown it hadn't been shot down and was the result of the brave soles of flight 93 taking back the plane.

        Also this title is SOOOO tilted i'd swear fox news was in on it.

        A) from the article, the navy official is the lawyer of one of the detainees (driver for OBL) and it was his comments in his remarks for the defense of his client

        B) which the client was the one who made the statement that he "over heard" the top two in alqeda mention that if the plane hadn't been shot down that it would have hit the dome.

      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4wait...so you're admitting that cheney did give the order for shootdown?
        Why does he, and all your denier friends, deny that point?
      • seldon452, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Uh, it was actually just 44.
    • mediaspree, on 07/24/2008, -12/+27Because they saw an opportunity to fabricate the "Hero" story of the oh so patriotic passengers. "Lets Roll."
      • hurdboy, on 07/24/2008, -6/+3Which was refuted by the 9/11 Commission Report, not that it's ever been on the Digg recommended reading list.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/24/2008, -4/+9When we brought up before that this plane was shot down, we were conspiracy theorists. Why did we think the plane was shot down? Because passengers took control over it.

      Now, there might not have been enough time to decide on that -- unless a military plane was tracking flight 93 the whole time. After they got wind that passengers were in control, they gave the shoot-down order to prevent anyone from finding any inconvenient information from the hijackers. They might have been confused dupes that had FBI handlers like the Miami 7.
    • DiggyWiggy, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8 Q Mr. President, would you confirm what the Vice President said this morning, that at one point during this crisis you gave an order to shoot down any civilian airliner that approached the Capitol? Was that a difficult decision to make?

      THE PRESIDENT: I gave our military the orders necessary to protect Americans, do whatever it would take to protect Americans. And of course that's difficult. Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never. And so, obviously, when I was told what was taking place, when I was informed that an unidentified aircraft was headed to the heart of the capital, I was concerned. I wasn't concerned about my decision; I was more concerned about the lives of innocent Americans. I had realized there on the ground in Florida we were under attack. But never did I dream we would have been under attack this way.
    • randomerratum, on 07/24/2008, -0/+10I'd call it an epic failure if the military didn't shoot the plane down. C'mon, 3 targets hit, a rouge plane still in the air and off course? Not 10 minutes should have passed before a couple fighter jets should have at least been able to try to escort the plane to the nearest airport. The story of heroism on flight 93 is a story about citizens standing up to fight when our own defenses failed.

      I don't want to hear any more about how confusing it was that day for everyone, an effective attack on American soil WOULD be confusing and hectic. What'd we expect? - So what if they were using passenger airlines - it's not like a bunch of stealth bombers swooped in. Sure it was hard to imagine this kind of attack, but by it's nature it was A) slower then a military attack would have been and B) happened within the confines of our own infrastructure where were able to track nearly everything, what else is our defense systems set up to do?
    • ElectRONPAUL08, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7"U.S. officials have never stated it was shot down"
      FALSE
      and here's the quote

      "He compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington." - Paul Cellucci 2005 US Ambassador to Canada.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5OMGZORS!! HE WAS QUOTING BIN LADEN!!!
        lol
        You know you have won when you get no responses.

        The deniers are so dishonest they will totally ignore you if they can't respond.
        I, on the other hand, will never ignore points I can't refute...and I have been proved wrong here are there in the last 2 years, I admit.
        But, the deniers will never admit they were wrong. It's all part of playing for the winning team. You say everything is a conspiracy theory until it is a common belief, then you say it was a necessary thing and the ends justify the means.

        They're a funny group, albeit a bit sick and twisted.
      • card51short, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2unbelievable...you should all look at yourself in the mirror.
        You can't post ONE piece of evidence that bin Laden is involved and you're running around yelling at and making fun of other people like you know what you're talking about.
        You're all jokes. AND...YOU...KNOW...IT!
    • ChokingVictims, on 07/25/2008, -3/+3For those who don't know rtfa means READ THE ***** ARTICLE* and I suggest you all do so before commenting or digging other comments.
      Here's a hint from the article:
      "If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, REPEATING BIN LADEN"S DEPUTY"S CLAIM.

      *caps lock necessary
    • mstachiw, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1to honor the families, cover your own ass, keep high-level military activities confidential, etc
  • Berkana, on 07/24/2008, -74/+43President Bush said in a speech (shown on Youtube) that one of the pieces of intelligence extracted from Al Qaeda members through the interrogation of captured suspects was that explosives were used in the towers on 9/11 and that they were positioned high enough to prevent people "above" from getting out of the towers (above them? above the impacts?). In his own words, Bush says intelligence recovered via interrogations indicated that bombs were used on the towers during 9/11:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I

    Think about this: how would Al Qaeda operatives get the quantity and kind of explosives necessary to prevent people from escaping? To do that kind of structural damage, you'd need demolition explosives, and you'd need to position them at key structural points to collapse stair wells and passage ways. If they did this, they certainly couldn't have done it on 9/11 itself; that kind of planning and placement of explosives requires full access and months of planning (maybe weeks for a smaller building), and live coordination to set off the explosives. The entire WTC tower was secured by cameras and security staff. George Bush's own brother, Marvin Bush, was the superintendent of security at the WTC. There's no way such explosives could have been installed and hidden without cooperation and active help from the security staff at the WTC.

    1) Either they knew about the plan, and let it happen because it was politically expedient, or
    2) they carried it out themselves.

    Folks, you heard it from Bush's own mouth. Explosives were used in the towers and positioned to keep people from escaping. That is not possible without complicity from the security of the WTC because of what is involved in doing that. Whether by knowingly letting it happen or by carrying it out themselves, this amounts to mass murder.
    • rynTAU, on 07/24/2008, -6/+18Thanks Mulder, I know you want to believe but did you actually listen to the video you just posted. Where does he even mention the twin towers? He's talking about an post-9/11 interrogation and information about attacks yet to take place.
    • phoenixshard, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11OK....

      First, you don't think a 747 filled with fuel is going to do just as much damage as explosive charges? If you don't then you might wish to look at that one. And you are also aware that the WTC was bombed in the 90's and if you use any common sense, you'll realize that when he's talking about bombs being planted there, that is the attack he is talking about? Doesn't the fact that he mentions the name of the person responsible for that attack give that away? You are also aware that people that plan to do things like this plan the attack and do this by scouting the area out and noticing where people go in and out of?
      • Berkana, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5A 747 is made of aluminum; there is no way it could have cut through the steel core of the building, and most of the fuel was burned up in the initial fire ball. Even the 9/11 commission reported this. Steel doesn't soften until at least well over a thousand degrees, but all there was was an hour and a half of a smokey cool fire. Many of the people in the building gathered at the impact zone to call for help; this would have been impossible if the fire were hot enough to weaken the steel.

        I urge you to consider the evidence: the buildings could not have come down without explosives, as they were designed to withstand multiple impacts.

        http://freedocumentaries.com/film.php?id=147
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/25/2008, -2/+0Ummm Berkana....the outside may be an aluminum.....but the frame of the jet (the heavy part) is made from steel, iron, titanium at some parts....just like how your car's frame isn't made from the same stuff on the outside. (the frame again is the heavy part [aside from the engine which is heavy too]) "
        "smokey cool fire" cool fire....you're either a pyro or dumb enough to believe that fire is cold. What about the fire inside the building, a building full of different types of combustable materials (fuel for fire) brick even catches on fire. And no video of any person(s) gathering and calling for help at the point of impact has ever surfaced....a couple stories higher and lower yes. Augh I wish you people would acutally research *****.
    • Gemfinder, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3There were explosives, alright. It's called "Enough jet fuel to get us to San Francisco."
      And those confessions were likely gotten after seven years of torture? From someone who thinks we all suck dairy farm canal water for a start?
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4so jet fuel = explosives.


        I now see the light!
      • brycelb, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2Card, unless you have windows in your basement I doubt you have seen any light in a long while.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3no man i understand...jet fuel = explosives.

        I wonder why those companies that demolish buildings in Vegas don't just splash some jet fuel around and start a fire up near the top of the building and just let it come down.
        In under an hour, your building will go down.
  • ImperialRome, on 07/24/2008, -74/+1257B.S.
    Hamdan believes the plane was shot down. That is not the same as the US Navy "admitting" that the plane was shot down. The title of the post is deceptive and wrong.
    Planes do not "smash into their own footprint". Plane debris scatters, and considering the tumble effect, they throw debris for miles. Jets travel at about 500-600 mph except for landings and takeoffs. At that speed, the velocity of debris is 900 feet per second, so its not unusual for a "engine" to continue traveling after impact for several seconds.
    The Black box taken from flight 93 shows the controls being pushed over, into a screaming dive, and the voice recorder carries the sounds of a struggle and the passengers crashing through the cockpit door.
    Missiles when they hit planes usually fragment, not contact detonate, and the fragments destroy the fuel lines, hydraulic lines, and very precisely balanced turbines. Planes that are shot down also tend to lose velocity and stall out, not pitch over and nose in. There would be telltale signs of a shootdown, like internal fragmentation.
    The engines on flight 93 show that they were turning full speed and were smashed by the impact, which flattens the turbine blades, where a missile hit would cause the turbine to tear itself apart from the inside through unbalanced centrifugal forces.
    As for the comments from President Bush, the information he was referring to was about other terror attacks that had been planned but not carried out. There were other AQ operatives in the US, and they had other missions. Remember Jose Padilla?
    This has all been debunked before.



    • SimmaDownNow, on 07/24/2008, -92/+13Internet know-it-all 1
      Naval Officer 0
      • sockpuppets, on 07/24/2008, -4/+32Douchebag 0
      • phoenixshard, on 07/24/2008, -1/+34Naval officer that quoted what he overheard.

        "The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol."

        You might have missed that part I'm thinking.
    • JohnReb, on 07/24/2008, -12/+244Person who rad the actual article 1
      Person who simply believed the title of the Digg submission 0
    • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -61/+5sorry ImperialRome, try again...you saying "NO IT DIDNT' HAPPEN THAT WAY" didn't convince me.


      It is ImperialRome though...so now I don't know what to think!!!
      • 4bit, on 07/24/2008, -3/+30How about the stack of logic and evidence he gave after that?
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -29/+4now 4bit is saying there is stacks of evidence...hmm i don't know what to think.

        Care to share your evidence that bin laden did it?
        Cmon, you can do it!
      • Monk22, on 07/24/2008, -3/+10hey wow your not typing in all caps. congratulation on joining society, sort of.
      • Matt2k, on 07/24/2008, -4/+13> now 4bit is saying there is stacks of evidence...

        Do you want to look at other instances of jet debris? This isn't the first time one has crashed?
        Do you want me to crash a jet at full speed for you and demonstrate how far debris will travel?
        Or should I have been a passenger on the jet and be giving first hand experience?

        What exactly is your bar for qualifying something as evidence? And furthermore, why is it someone else's responsibility to do the research for you.

        The ***** that blew downwind was light pieces of scrap. Numerous eye witnesses of the explosion and crash, etc etc etc.

        *****
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -15/+4no sir...i just want evidence that bin laden did it.
        Can you provide me with your stacks of evidence?

        How about just three pieces of evidence?
        One? No?

        Okay...have a great day, man!
        Sorry for being such a moonbat worrying about crazy things like "evidence".
      • betweenthebars, on 07/24/2008, -5/+4none of this proof is based on the assumption that bin laden was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. it's physics, not politics.

        ***** troll.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -6/+3i know...i'm going off topic...i just don't want to be such a wacky nutty conspiracy moonbat.
        So if you could just provide some of your evidence.
        OK forget some...just provide ONE piece of evidence that links bin laden and al qaeda to the attacks.

        Thanks!
      • MuskokasFinest, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5@ card51short
        I thought this conversation was about the government shooting down the plane, not who the people who crashed the plane were affiliated with. Whether terrorists hijacked the plane or whether it was some very unhappy passenger, doesn't change the facts of this conversation.
      • 4bit, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4The comment was about it being shot down. There simply is no proof of that, and that's what was said. There's actually evidence it was not shot down.

        He said the argument for the title was flawed, and explained why. He explained why it didn't happen that way. It wasn't shot down.

        Take whatever you want that to mean, but don't put words in our mouth just because you can't fit them in yours while you're foot is still paying rent.
      • card51short, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3sir i don't mean about this article...You see, throughout this entire thread everyone has yelled as us truthers and called us stupid moonbats.

        So, with all these people in here and everyone having this conversation...it's a wonderful time to soak up some of that knowledge you realists have. See, I'm usually in the drudges of society with my fellow Twoofers. We don't get much attention these days.
        Now that the spotlight is on us and we're getting all these Diggs I figured I could finally get that evidence that all you guys have and call us moonbats for not believing.

        Trust me, I want to believe.
        Please show me some evidence! I'll enlist in the military myself if you can convince me! Trust me, I'm a rational guy, I'll look at all your evidence carefully.

        NOW PLEASE POST ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE!!!

        If you can't...you should really question your thinking, wouldn't you say?
      • card51short, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2*cries*

        All I can do is hope people with open minds and critical thinking will see this popular post with hundreds of people calling us conspiracy moonbats and yet, NOT ONE OF THEM, can post any evidence when prompted indicting bin Laden.

        I can't believe this....please just look into it...stop being a baby about it...
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1And not one of you has posted any evidence showing that it was done by the American government. NOT ONE (I can type in capse too....neat) And 15 second youtube clips aren't evidence ass clown.
    • CrazyEddie041, on 07/24/2008, -6/+128Comment dugg, article buried.
      • gabellh, on 07/24/2008, -11/+4Your comment buried, the article buried. I win. gg
    • gn0stik, on 07/24/2008, -8/+25Rawstory. Key word = STORY. Go figure.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 07/24/2008, -21/+7Right because a plane that crashes at 500 mph in a "steep dive" leaves no debris or bodies either. Remember the coroner that was on-site that said he never saw even a drop of blood much less a body?

      That's great if you want to believe in the movie and suspend your belief in reality, but don't expect everyone else to.
      • JohnReb, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash ...

        "The FBI has mandated DNA testing to confirm the identities of remains, a process just beginning that Miller said could take four to six months. But using mostly dental records, Miller and staff have identified remains of 12 passengers -- a number that the coroner said might grow with last weekend's recovery of additional remains."

        The coroner who couldn't see "even a drop of blood" found enough remains to identify 12 of the passengers in less than a month. Looks like he saw a lot more remains than just a drop.

        Your source about the coroner is either lying to you or hasn't done the appropriate research.
      • MrTito, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8"That's great if you want to believe in the movie and suspend your belief in reality, but don't expect everyone else to."

        You mean like "Loose Change"?
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2""This is the most eerie thing," he says. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop." "
        - Pittsburgh Gazette

      • JohnReb, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4Link, card?
      • card51short, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2the only link i had was to the paper and the site was down...
      • MrTito, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Convenient.
      • card51short, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1MrTito...I'll get you a scanned copy of the Pittsburgh Gazette with that quote if you can name ONE piece of evidence that indicts bin Laden for the attacks.
        That's all I'm asking...please just post one piece?

        Cmon, show us moonbats who is boss!
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Yes card because a scanned copy can't be doctored at all...I mean what more empirical evidence would one need than a scanned copy of a newspaper, given by one with such a biased opinion. You and your scanner have the power to change the world, starting right here on digg. You got me, I'm on board, one down millions to go.....better buy some more paper.
      • card51short, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1peoplerstoopid...you're right...i'd just doctor the scan.
        *rolls eyes*
        conspiracy nut.
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0Well since you refuse to show any hard evidence and for some reason all the websites that have facts and not just biased opinions where you get all your info are shut down, yeah I definitely believe you'll doctor it, just like the majority of all the evidence you troofers use is doctored and inaccurate. You're calling me the conspiracy nut? You're the one that believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
    • grey580, on 07/24/2008, -11/+17When that one valuejet flight down here in miami crashed into the everglades. it left nothing more than a big hole. it was like the plane disappeared in the swamp.
      I don't know what the ground was like. but i can see a plane disappearing in a steep nose dive.
      A plane doesn't have to leave debris.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -8/+2show pics and we'll compare....i guarantee there was debris...yes a plane crashes it DOES leave debris. Moonbat.
      • betweenthebars, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7what does it leave then?
        *confused*
      • metaliq, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2UMMMM haven't you seen lost?!?!

        that show has debris. therefore, all crashes have to.
        duh.
      • DeskFlyer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6betweenthebars: I think he means a plane doesn't have to leave 'a visible debris field'.

        Most of the debris from Valujet 592's accident was buried in the thick muck of the swamp (most of which was eventually and painstakingly recovered). I knew a guy who took part in scouring the crash site and he said if it wasn't for the brush and other plant life that were destroyed by the impact, you'd never be able to tell an entire DC-9 lied under their feet.
    • comat0se, on 07/24/2008, -14/+6Rumsfeld himself said that the plane was shot down:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0
    • DiggyWiggy, on 07/24/2008, -13/+3 Q Mr. President, would you confirm what the Vice President said this morning, that at one point during this crisis you gave an order to shoot down any civilian airliner that approached the Capitol? Was that a difficult decision to make?

      THE PRESIDENT: I gave our military the orders necessary to protect Americans, do whatever it would take to protect Americans. And of course that's difficult. Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never. And so, obviously, when I was told what was taking place, when I was informed that an unidentified aircraft was headed to the heart of the capital, I was concerned. I wasn't concerned about my decision; I was more concerned about the lives of innocent Americans. I had realized there on the ground in Florida we were under attack. But never did I dream we would have been under attack this way.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/24/2008, -17/+5A shoot down would look EXACTLY like what we saw. The engines might be miles away, and about half the plane might crash as an entire section -- creating a small footprint crash site.

      A plane like this losing control would NOT fall apart in the air. This is more nonsense from the people who talk about "soft earth" swallowing up all the plane debris.

      Jose Padilla was probably tortured and would have told you Santa was a Russian spy.
      • ImperialRome, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8Jose Padilla was caught with the plans for a dirty bomb to be detonated in downtown Chicago. He was not tortured, he was not captured on a foreign battlefield like KSM (who was waterboarded).
        Al Qaeda has used large amounts of explosives in the past, and their first attempt to bring down the towers was a failure in 93 because they used explosives in an underground parking garage instead of up high in the buildings.

        Planes when they are shot down LOSE POWER.
        They don't power dive into the ground., they fall and flutter.
      • driftmonstar, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1I haven't personally seen the black box for 93 but 600mph at less then 10,000 feet is pretty much maxed out for a 757-200. Cruse speed is around 440knots/506 mph AT 35,000 feet...max cruising speed is 493 knots = 567.334268 mph at altitude..not at less than 10,000

        What qualifies you people to know what planes do when they are shot down? Do you work for the NTSB? Have you ever shot a 757 down? Have you ever been shot down in a 757? Did you design the weapon systems for said missiles? What exactly are the procedures for shooting down a commercial 757? What missile was allegedly used? How do you know it was a missile and not a YAL-1 or some other classified ABL? How would a laser take down a 757?...What would its debris look like? Would the NTSB at that time be able to recognize a laser hit? What does the annular blast-fragmentation warhead of the aim9 do to a 757? What about the high explosive blast fragmentation aim-120 warhead? Or aim-7? Or one of the dozens of other missiles USA uses? What if the missile missed/hit by enough that it's blast was enough to knock out a control surface? Would an inexperienced pilot know how to handle a damaged 757? Would they have had any motivation to do anything other than maintain power and nose over? What if the missile malfunctioned and actually slammed through the 757 without detonating?

        Was Jose Padilla in your custody? The only person that completely knows what happened to Jose Padilla is Jose Padilla and he may be a little "unclear" what actually happened to him. You know what you know because you have read or have been told it by others.

        We, the general populace of non-Internet-everything-experts, have no way to determine 100% what/how the events transpired. I don't trust either side of the story any further than I can design a missile. But I don't rant on digg being an expert in areas I have little knowledge in.

    • towjam, on 07/24/2008, -14/+4there no such thing as centrifugal forces.............how can they be unbalanced
    • diggingaround, on 07/24/2008, -15/+4Hello Mr. US Government troll! Welcome to DIGG!
    • ramacosta, on 07/24/2008, -9/+2Reports were all over the place that day. Some early reports that day said a plane was being escorted by military aircraft. Soon after, the towers fell and all news turned to that. A cover up from the FAA is plausible, replacing black box data. After all it's not easy to say "We shot down a plane in Pennsylvania but we didn't know exactly where it was going".
      • colincornaby, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3"A cover up from the FAA is plausible, replacing black box data. After all it's not easy to say "We shot down a plane in Pennsylvania but we didn't know exactly where it was going"."

        It still doesn't fit with the debris fragmentation, which is not something the government could simply put together in half an hour.
    • KungFooJesus, on 07/24/2008, -5/+40I'd rather have 500 articles about LOLcats on the front page than this drivel. Completely agree with your argument.

      Poster is unintelligent at best or poorly manipulative at worst.
    • szskateman22, on 07/24/2008, -6/+1Just a question but what kind of background do you have to support everything that you just stated? Are you a physics expert? Even a military person? Or just some random person claiming to know what they are talking about? You say that when a missile hits a plane it fragments? How do you know that? Have you been in a plane when a missile has hit it? Or are just claiming that it does? How about when it hits the ground? Maybe it would depend on the angle it hits the ground too, right? There are a lot of factors that go into these conclusions that a brought up
      • mrhedges, on 07/25/2008, -1/+4And who are you to disagree with his claims? Do you have a background in any of the aforementioned subjects? Can you write a sentence without turning it into a ***** question? Instead of questioning the guy who put a clear, intelligent argument against the subject at hand, why don't you question the OP's and columnist's interpretation of what the Navy official meant?

        Oh, and I'm a mechanical engineer, and I completely agree with ImperialRome's comments. I also worked for the damn company that made the plane (Boeing).
    • mshtml, on 07/24/2008, -13/+8No plane crashed or was shot down over PA. Here's the footage from the crash site taken on 9/11. There's no jetliner wreckage for one simple reason, it never happened.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
      • igtats, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2They never found a Black Box - or any bodies, or seats or wings. There's no jetliner wreckage for one simple reason, it never happened.
    • LavaWarrior, on 07/24/2008, -5/+14Thank you for actually contributing and doing your research. I wish there were more people like you on digg.
    • AdmiralHalsey, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7The article is BS, but what are your credentials? You have a good bit of specifics in there.. for a hobbyist?
      • ImperialRome, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2US Navy, retired, worked on A-6s at Whidbey Island NAS, and Oceana NAS in Virginia Beach. VA-42 east, VA 128 west coast, between 1985 and 1991. Several crash investigations (not leading them, just participating) so I got to see all the insides of a plane after it crashes.
        Spent a lot of "hobbyist" time with other FAA investigations, work with A&P guys, friends at Boeing in Everett plant (the 747/Dreamliner plant) so I have some experience.
      • diggingaround, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2Your statement regarding you "experience" doesn't say anything about your educational level... for all we now, you could be a "janitor" (cleaning debris after disaster) or a "grease monkey" that used to work for military. It's interesting that you have pointed an article in "Popular Mechanics" as if that entertainment magazine is the ultimate authority in physics.
      • peoplerstoopid, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0for all we know you could be giving your father a blow-job as you type, doesn't mean you are....but for all we know.
    • keithwired, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2While I agree with the majority of your post, there is one point I would like to clarify.

      Commercial airline traffic traveling in controlled airspace under 10,000 ft msl must travel 250 knots or slower to prevent the windshields of aircraft from shattering in the event of a collision with birds. Although if terrorists had taken control of the aircraft and put the engines on full throttle things would be different...just saying though, they only travel 500-600 mph above 10,000 ft msl
      • dakbonsa, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2it was flying at 30,000 feet when it was hijacked.

        so yeah.. i am pretty sure that terrorists would worry about the windshield....
    • smegthelight, on 07/24/2008, -9/+4"The engines on flight 93 show that they were turning full speed and were smashed by the impact"
      .. And you know that because you saw it with your own eyes ? And if so, maybe you're lying to us ?

      Only a few people know what really happened and they are not going to be talking. There is no choice but to accept the provided "Truth" or bring out the straw men.


      • Kershalt, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2or you can research on your own which he obviously has.
    • walkerdarin2003, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2lol I love how we have experts here on digg.... O wait we don't. Don't try to sum up how ***** went down. We don't have a clue on what happened. The fact is we will probably never know what happened.
      • Kershalt, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2have you ever seen a forensics show? how is it they solve crimes that happen 30years before with just trace amounts of evidence? because we can recreate whats supposed to happen useing science and physics to determine what or how something happend.
    • richmomz, on 07/24/2008, -5/+4There WERE debris spread out over a large area, indicating that it was shot down. The missile might not have damaged the engines which would explain why they were still running at impact; damage to the tail control surfaces would have been enough to bring it down easily.

      That said, the title of the story IS misleading as the Navy officer was repeating a statement made by an al-Quaeda suspect, and NOT a statement of fact by the Navy itself.
    • jack104, on 07/25/2008, -3/+2Good explanation, I was actually mislead for a minute into believing that it was shot down.
    • aeoo, on 07/25/2008, -2/+7The issues is that information coming out of 9-11 has been of spotty and uneven quality. People tend to be biased. Even if there were some insider actions, not everything has to be explained as an insider action. For example, flight 93 crashing might not be an insider action, or at least, not a trivial one like being shot. Etc.

      I have yet to be convinced that a building can come down uniformly, at free-fall speed, without any kind of special setup.

      But, even if let's say everything, physically was as we were told by the media it was, even then, you cannot rule out insider action. Simply then insider action could have been more subtle, like knowing about attacks and purposefully not preventing them, or like financing them indirectly or deliberately closing eyes on certain intelligence information and so on.

      The fact that people think their own government would want to kill them is telling in itself. It shows how broken the trust in public institutions has become. I think the truthers should not be dismissed out of hand as "just kooks". They are symptoms and messengers of what's happening to our society.
    • Mpwns, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4do us a favor and leave digg before it makes you dumb. you are way to smart to be here.
    • rykukatei, on 07/25/2008, -3/+5hehehe....Centrifugal Force...

      http://xkcd.com/123/

      you know when someone is trying hard and uses "centrifugal" instead of the correct "centripetal" force...but still nice comment on such a sucky article...
    • dsmx, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5Explain to me then how an engine from the plane was found 3 miles away from the crash site?
      • ImperialRome, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2It wasnt. The front blade of the turbine was found 300 yards from the crash in a catchbasin, but not three miles away.
        Three miles away would put the engine beyond Indian lake, and the only stuff found that far out was light skin debris and such.
    • neil1492, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2This is the reason I buried the article. I believe the Navy official was misinformed or misquoted.
    • benoitcsirois, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3Quote in article = ""If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, repeating Bin Laden's deputy's claim."

      Title of digg = "Navy official: 9/11 Flight 93 was shot down"

      So there
    • xDynaBlade, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2It's actually centripetal acceleration. Centrifugal force is a LIE!!!
    • smitty1479, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5But who told you what was in the black box?

      The gov't? o.O
      • ImperialRome, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3The FAA investigators, the Boeing engineers.
    • cisdolce, on 07/25/2008, -2/+0excuse me, if you don't mind me asking,
      what the hell do you do for living?
      • ImperialRome, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2I am a retired cabinet maker.
        Before that I was in the Navy just out of high school, then I went into business as a home improvement contractor, then I ran a restaurant, then I relocated to Seattle, where I went into the dot com business, and when that didnt pan out, I went in to making cabinets for a factory in Monroe Wa, and later in Woodinville, Wa.
        I have about 4 computers that I built from parts myself, and I tinker with cars on the side.

    • jaundiced, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1from what i've read it's been claimed to be EMP. power was out in the immediate area during, and immediately following the impact.

      so yeah, you're whole assumption of it being 'shot' down has somehow garnered you 1000+ diggs.

      it's no wonder this isn't front page news... we act like sheep without being inquisitive.
    • bojang1es, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0mayne, you crazy.
  • ImperialRome, on 07/24/2008, -107/+209Go read Popular Mechanics series on the myths of 9-11 and then tell me about how this was an inside job.
    • GlobalistShill, on 07/24/2008, -53/+36You mean when Hearst Publications tried to push a square peg through a round hole?
      • lazerus9, on 07/24/2008, -8/+5They are really getting nervous! This is fun as they know we will begin the trials very soon!
      • Marc39, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2You can trust the government. Go ask an Indian.
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/24/2008, -55/+35Yeah, Popular Mechanics is my "go to" on everything technical.
      WTF?
      So they are experts in the latest lawnmower designs AND the physics of demolition?
      WHO wrote that article you are quoting?
      • kakihara0513, on 07/24/2008, -8/+30So you can't trust the government.
        You can't trust people who've researched it.
        But you can trust truthers?

        That's the WTF
      • addrake, on 07/24/2008, -4/+122 minutes of looking to find the answer dumb-*****:

        http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar ...

        They had over 300 experts they consulted.

        FYI, Article authors consult OTHER people for their facts. Just because the guy wrote it doesn't mean he has to be an expert himself.
      • brbubba, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4It's called a foregone conclusion, you hunt down experts that support your hypothesis. I never saw any experts that had varying opinions from the official explanation in that article. They did not use a single expert's testimony that would have potentially supported one of their "myths." Also remember that this was way back in 2005. Anyone publicly going against the official explanation would be at serious risk of losing their job and destroying their career.

        If you look hard enough you can pretty much find "evidence" to support any conclusion. A good reporter goes into a story trying to find answers as opposed to an answer.
    • krnldmp, on 07/24/2008, -33/+22Popular Mechanics chews government *****.
    • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -50/+41"Go read Popular Mechanics series on the myths of 9-11 and then tell me about how this was an inside job."


      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
      You mean the guys who told us for years it was a pancake collapse?
      The same dudes that lied about being related to Michael Chertoff?
      The same guys who said they got the DNA evidence tested at the Pentagon of the hijackers? Hmm....so how did they have the DNA of the terrorists on file to match with? How did they find body parts to test for DNA but no major pieces of aircraft? So the wings are gone...but human remains are there to be tested and identified?

      I could go on for hours. Thanks for the laugh.
      • macdady843, on 07/24/2008, -6/+13If you could go on for hours and you're so sure of yourself that it was an "inside job" then go public and prove us all wrong. :-)))
      • theright, on 07/24/2008, -6/+9Oh wow, card, you've outdone yourself here.

        1. The collapse did not initiate through pancaking, but the progression was what you would describe as "pancaking". Popular Mechanics said the latter, not the former. Provide evidence Popular Mechanics claimed the former or stop making false allegations

        2. Benjamin Chertoff is not related to Michael Chertoff. Provide evidence or stop making false allegations

        3. You don't need to have the hijackers' DNA on file to identify them. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

        4. There was a substantial amount of both human remains and aircraft parts recovered from the Pentagon. Stop being an insensitive, incredulous liar
      • ImperialRome, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7DNA evidence came from the offspring of the hijackers, who as you will no doubt know, moved here with their families in the year before 9-11. I don't know about the claims of "relatives" but if you are trying to tell me that because one person at PM is related to Michael Chertoff would disqualify the entire staff who put this together is patently ludicrous.
        So either everyone at PM is in on the plot, or your allegations are meritless and baseless conspiricy theory.
      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -6/+4"1. The collapse did not initiate through pancaking, but the progression was what you would describe as "pancaking". Popular Mechanics said the latter, not the former. Provide evidence Popular Mechanics claimed the former or stop making false allegations"

        How would the collapse "initiate" through pancaking? You're saying Popular Mechanics was right the whole time? You're insane...even other deniers have conceeded the fact that they were wrong about their initial theory. Or you can explain what Popular Mechanics said and why it is right...use their quotes.

        "2. Benjamin Chertoff is not related to Michael Chertoff. Provide evidence or stop making false allegations"

        His mother said they were. That's my evidence.

        "3. You don't need to have the hijackers' DNA on file to identify them. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about"

        Then, by all means, explain and set me straight! So they were able to identify all the hijackers in the days after the attacks, right? Please explain how.

        "4. There was a substantial amount of both human remains and aircraft parts recovered from the Pentagon. Stop being an insensitive, incredulous liar"

        Not enough.


      • card51short, on 07/24/2008, -7/+3"DNA evidence came from the offspring of the hijackers, who as you will no doubt know, moved here with their families in the year before 9-11."

        Great! Now we're getting somewhere! What is your source on this?
        Also, did all 19 hijackers have kids who were living in America with them? Source?

        "So either everyone at PM is in on the plot, or your allegations are meritless and baseless conspiricy theory."

        Yes, obviously even the secretary HAD to be in on it!!! yep!!!

        I'm sure you'll provide that evidence in a timely manner.
        Thanks!
      • theright, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5@card51short

        1. Ryan Mackey describes the "pancake initiation" collapse me