It is no secret that Matt Drudge from Drudgereport uses crazy headlines to stoke the right wing lunatic base. This example here that was just released moments ago claims that lightning struck a Mosque in Mecca killing, 60 people. Of course the only truth so far is that 60 people have possibly died, but links to the actual story from RT News make absolutely no claims that any lightning struck anywhere, especially the Mosque. It does say, however, that a crane collapse occurred which was responsible for the injuries and death toll.

At least 65 people have died after a crane collapsed on the Grand Mosque of Mecca on Friday, Saudi authorities say.

According to Saudi Interior Ministry, at least 154 more people were injured in the incident.

The tragedy comes ahead of the annual Hajj pilgrimage which is due later this month. Millions of Muslims from around the world will converge on the holy city between September 21-26.

Local media reports suggested that the accident occurred due to heavy rains the Kingdom. The governor of the Makkah region, the capital of which is Mecca, Prince Khalid al-Faisal has ordered the launch of an investigation into the causes of the accident.

Of course this doesn’t stop Drudge from making up a story about a weather-related incident with rain and a crane collapse to say instead that lightning was responsible, and even making up a picture of a lightning strike over a Mosque.


Of course as one can plainly see from going to the article itself, nowhere is it reported that lightning struck anything whatsoever, and there are zero pictures that show any lightning strikes other than Drudge’s made up fantasy land picture. I guess Drudge wants to make a point that Allah is somehow mad at Muslims for whatever reason, and thus struck them with a biblical lightning strike to pay them back for all their so-called transgressions against Christianity.

Update: Drudge Just removed his Lightning Strike prose and replaced it with this headline:



Of course he leaves the qualifier “STRIKE” in the post as well as the lightning picture which is clearly fake, all as if to say the same thing he said before. Allah or, GOD, actually struck Muslims down for their supposed wickedness against Christians or Israel or Conservatives.

By Marcus Crassus

Marcus Licinius Crassus was a Roman general and politician who played a key role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.

42 thoughts on “Matt Drudge Lies Again: Claims Lightning Hit Mosque In Mecca”
  1. but the video taken by someone there showed lightning striking and then the crane collapsed. That video was taken by a pilgrim there. Hey, I’m not dancing in the streets handing out candy or cookies over this… but two videos showed the same thing. Heavy rain, lightning, crane collapse.

    1. Sorry, but according to the video from RTNews no one can actually see lightning striking. All you can see is people shuffling about and the camera is literally too fuzzy and out of focus to see anything.

      What is clear is that a severe storm rolled through and the crane was probably toppled by high winds from that storm, possibly a microburst. Of course I am speaking from the video produced by RT News, you may have a different link with an entirely different picture or video. However, Drudge changed the headline of the story minutes later from “Lightning Strike” to “Storm Strike.” No one is doubting that a storm hit, what was doubtful at the time of the Drudge publication was what actually happened.

      1. There are more reports available now than at the time Drudge put up the headline. I’m seeing several instances where lighting is mentioned, and it seems Daily Mail is using the same image (which doesn’t look doctored at all, though probably not taken at the time of the incident.) I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to assume there was lightning during a storm, though it might have been a stretch to cite it as the cause. Either way the narrative of the story is unchanged. If you were prone to believe that a deity might reach down and smite your enemies, it hardly matters whether he/she used lighting or strong winds. Drudge ran with the most dramatic headline, probably based on the stock image that went with at least one report of the incident. He made an adjustment to it probably after reviewing other reports that indicate it was likely strong winds and not lightning that actually brought the crane down. Either way it seems a little pedantic and juvenile to be focused on how Drudge worded his headline. The fact is over 80 people are now confirmed dead. Using this as a political cudgel in any context is tasteless. Drudge may or may not have been guilty of that depending on how you interpret his choice to use the initial headline. The writer of this blog however leaves no room for interpretation.

        1. I wouldn’t call calling out Drudge being pedantic on anything he posts. As far as being tasteless, Drudge is one of the most tasteless individuals out there. I could be here all night showing the constant click bait headlines he uses to accomplish more page views for his site and those of his friends which are in fact more than tasteless, most are downright fraudulent. Fact of the matter is, calling a spade a spade is pretty much what goes on here.

          1. I disagree, the piece we are commenting on is citing the fact that Drudge had wrongly attributed lightning rather than wind in his initial headline about what is now a story about over 100 people being killed. The implication was that Drudge was trying to make his “right wing lunatic fringe” followers think God smited the heathens. I can’t see how citing lightning rather than a storm makes any difference to the narrative the author of this piece claims Drudge was pushing. Of course the headline was click bait, all headlines are click bait. Drudge may have been wrong, but it’s a matter of interpreting his intentions. If his intention was to incite zealotry, the headline would have been just as effective with or without the mention of lightning. The author of this piece made his intentions clear. He is doing PRECISELY what he claims Drudge was trying to do. Using a tragedy as a political cudgel.

          2. Greg, I agree to disagree. Drudge has been guilty of this type of headline-baiting for years. Every so often people tend to catch him at it, and BU did that. Clickbait or not, the subtle ways of Drudge headlines or even at times the inflammatory ways he creates headlines make for gotcha moments like these.

            As for using it as a political cudgel, I doubt that was the intent here. It was catching Drudge doing his usual, and when this story broke he suddenly changed the headline. Not saying that this site had anything to do with it, but Drudge commonly exploits tragedy for headlines. It’s in the nature of how he works.

          3. I don’t accept “the other guy does it too” as an excuse for anything. This was quite simply one person trying to create a “gotcha” moment where one didn’t exist, and it came at the expense of seeming to disregard the magnitude of the tragedy. As for this blog guiding Drudge’s editorial choice, it’s funny that you would even suggest it as a remote possibility. Like it or not Matt Drudge is a major player in political discourse. This site is a footnote at best.

          4. Drudge is not a major player in political discourse. Drudge is part of the right wing loony bin crew. Just because he has some of the highest page counts around, doesn’t make him a political king maker or even part of the discourse. You give yourself away Greg with that quote. As for comparing this site to his, and or being a footnote, I would say this site doesn’t post hyperlinks to sites and call themselves journalists.

            To even think that you would think that Drudge is part of the political discourse is truly amazing. All he mostly does is post links to right wing looney bin websites. Granted, traffic like his is to die for with most site opertors being envious of it, however, its a given he buys most of it. Anyway Greg, good points for sure.

          5. Politico just ran an article listing him as one of the key figures in US political media, he and Zuckerberg are mentioned repeatedly in that article and most other discussions on how the internet shapes political discourse. His bias is irrelevant, we all have one. This is just another leftist Looney tune site, does that discredit it? Saying something is “right or left” does nothing to discredit it. When I called Drudge a major player in political discourse, it wasn’t a quote, and I’ve made no attempt to disguise my own political ideology, so I couldn’t have “given myself away”. When I referred to this site as a footnote I was being kind. Point of fact, the only way I even knew it existed is because I was looking into the story Drudge had linked to. I try to find as many perspectives as possible on any given story before I draw any conclusions. I gained absolutely nothing from this site except maybe a little more appreciation for Matt Drudge.

          6. One of the key figures in politics? So, how does a guy who doesn’t practice journalism, never writes his own material, never once produces a story on his own in the last decade, and posts nothing but hyperlinks to Infowars and bizarre right wing loony bin websites suddenly become a powerful force within the political system? Sorry, not buying it Greg.

          7. Probably the same way Zuckerberg did. He facilitates online political discourse. Clearly you haven’t actually looked at Drudge or you’d notice the bulk of the stories he links to are from CBS, CNN, Politico,Yahoo News, and other mainstream media. His aggregation service was the first and serves as a model for many others. He links to left of center sites as often as right, but he clearly does it with his own Libertarian right of center bias. Just like this site has it’s bias to the left. The fact that Drudge is driving political discourse is actually demonstrated by the fact that WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIM RIGHT NOW, and this site clearly has a boner for him.

  2. Cyber-rag. That’s what this site boldly declares itself to be. Want to know what the news of the day is? Here try this:
    “BREAKING: Breitbartunmasked lies yet again! Claims Drudge lied about lightning striking mosque and killing 65, injuring many more.”
    This news has been confirmed and is now global. The only questions now are, how long before this rag removes this article, and how many Kool-Aid soaked libero-socialist whack-jobs will soak it up as gospel before they do?

      1. That photo is on Al Jazeera right now and credited to one of their photogs. You bizarre truth hating leftist whackos sure are strange.

  3. Drudge did not lie — as your sensational headline declares. He posted a story; after research found out that what he was told was not confirmed and then he changed the story. You people will jump on anything and blow it way out of proportion trying to discredit your “enemies” won’t you? You have no right to talk about someone posting misleading headlines. Really. Is that all you got? LOL

    1. Drudge doesn’t lie? OK, sure.. That and an Islamic prayer rug at the Texas/Mexico border will get you a cup of coffee.

  4. Whatever it was , it so coincidentally strange , the 9-11 attackers were all Saudis and this call it Natural phenomena happens at the beginning of a Muslim Holiday ???

    1. There has always been some type of accident or numerous deaths during this event each year. However, that being said, it is interesting for sure.

  5. Drudge doesn’t write the articles on his site. Drudge only links to articles. Anyone not reading the drudge report is probably someone who is pretty far behind on current events or doesn’t care at all about politics.

    1. Exactly, Drudge is a link bait site whereby Drudge only writes the headline titles for the clickbait to other websites he favors. Usually right-wing bizarro nutjob whackjob websites.

      1. So, those photos of lightening striking the crane —> owned by the Bin Laden family, by the way —> right before it collapsed… I see my posts are “still pending”. Coward. You are a coward. Publish them and let your readers judge for themselves.

    1. That’s mighty interesting of you as a right winger to use Al Jazeera as a source hahaha. Made you look Bruce, hehehe. Score one for us liberals forcing a right winger to quote Al Jazeera..

      1. I use everything as a source… I mean gee whiz. I read *this* particular nonsense, didn’t I? Getting to the truth of most news (no matter who the first sources are) generally requires work. Most media is liberal nonsense (even the stuff you libs think is conservative like fox… they aren’t conservative, btw. Screaming at liberals and saying nasty things about them does not make one conservative… fox has a heavy liberal slant more often than not but for the screaming). If one is to be a free thinking, well informed individual, one must chase stories like this down until you find the truth. The truth of this one is that Al Jazeera is crediting one of their photographers with the lightening picture. It appears that the lightening happened… and interestingly enough, the crane is indeed owned by the Bin Laden family.

  6. Bruce, Disqus is a tad slow in moving comments through, no one is moderating your stuff, it’s just slow tonight getting updated.

  7. Hmmm.

    The crane is steel
    Has pointed metal bits near the top (mechanical parts)
    Is the tallest thing around
    there was a thunderstorm.

    If the thundercell passed over the crane, it would be surprising if it were not struck by lightning at some point.

  8. I’m no expert on lightning, but I’d expect the track to run
    sky—> tip of crane—> ground

    Of course, lightning doesn’t ask our permission for how it strikes, and it can take multiple paths.

  9. Arab news reported through an eye witness who was present at the mosque which he stated: “There was a huge sandstorm followed by thunder, lightning and then heavy downpour.
    “We went inside the new Haram, and suddenly lightning struck one of the cranes. It crashed with all the steel and hit one of the pillars of the new haram and fell into the mataf,” he said, recalling with horror how debris fell only a few meters from them. “We saw people dying before our eyes….. BU seems more like full of BS who I’ll bet is anti GOD… all media need a clicker headline just as a person who writes books needs a hook in the first paragraph or title of his book to get people to read it. I mean really how many people would read the article if it read “WINDS BLOW CRANE OVER AT THE MECCA” sounds better with the truth “LIGHTNING STRIKES CRANE & COLLAPSES ON MECCA” don’t you think?

  10. You were wrong. It’s all over the mainstream news today. More than 107 dead confirmed. The strike was to the crane which then fell on the mosque.

  11. The report I’m reading says Lightning struck the crane. That’s close enough for me. When you watch the video it’s not clear if it’s a lighting strike or the crane just snaps but you can hear a loud noise before the crane falls for sure. The loud noise may have been he crane snapping and was mistaken for thunder. I didn’t see the Drudge Report.

  12. Funny, CNN reported the same story, so did multiple other news organizations now, so this site is the one that’s wrong.

  13. So the bolt stuck the bottom of the tower, our God can defy all natural laws, and logic. He can turn us all into babbling idiots if he wants too. Wait he already did that with Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg was instrumental with his plan there….

  14. Lighting has struck the Vatican Rome Italy in the past. Lighting has struck the Willis tower (Former Sears tower) and the John Hancock Chicago Illinois, In the past, lighting strikes at the same time,at these same 2 locations. Explain this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *