ZEITGEIST, The Movie

warlexz53 said:
If it is not an inside job then maybe the neo-cons are right and what we're doing in Iraq and soon to be Iran is justified. However, after reviewing the theories, seeing the evidence and knowing a little bit about human nature, I am leaning towards a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I think that I speak for at least a few other members of this forum that you can believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, and that our governments policy in Iraq was not not justified. One can disagree with one's government, and still not believe it is capable of murdering 3000 of it's own citizens.
 
Thank you for showing some interest in my inquiries. I looked through the links you provided. I wasnt aware that so much damage was done to building 7. However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down. First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced.

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.
 
warlexz53 said:
Thank you for showing some interest in my inquiries. I looked through the links you provided. I wasnt aware that so much damage was done to building 7. However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down. First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced.

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.
Click to expand...

Sigh
 
warlexz53 said:
Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.
Click to expand...

Hello new person, welcome. Ok, what's your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?
 
Slayhamlet said:
That you're citing the diagonally cut beams as proof of an inside job shows just how little research you've really done. And mind you, that's only the most egregious example of conspiracist disinformation you've uncritically accepted as fact . Most of your other claims are similarly wrong, dreadfully wrong.

PS: Sorry that your dad got caught. Maybe he should pay his taxes next time?
Click to expand...


The tax thing is a whole other argument that should probably be talked about in another thread. If you want to make a thread about it I will participate.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Hello new person, welcome. Ok, what's your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?
Click to expand...

Im really not informed enough to tell you exactly what happened like some people on these sites claim to. Just by looking at it, and it seems many of the news commentators on 9/11 agree, it was brought down by demolition.
 
warlexz53 said:
However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down.
Click to expand...
Why? Can you articulate specific reasons why you don't think it was enough?

warlexz53 said:
First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal.
Click to expand...
First, what do blacksmiths do? Second, you don't have to melt steel into a liquid state for it to lose its structural strength, you need only heat it up. Steel will lose a significant portion of its structural strength long before it melts.

warlexz53 said:
Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced.
Click to expand...
There is a world of difference in the relative strengths and capabilties between these materials.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Why? Can you articulate specific reasons why you don't think it was enough?

First, what do blacksmiths do? Second, you don't have to melt steel into a liquid state for it to lose its structural strength, you need only heat it up. Steel will lose a significant portion of its structural strength long before it melts.

There is a world of difference in the relative strengths and capabilties between these materials.
Click to expand...

I know what blacksmiths do ;). If I'm correct jet fuel burns at about 1200 degrees and steel starts losing its integrety at about 1700 degrees. What could have brought the temperature of the fire to 1700 or above?

Let me clarify what I meant about erector sets and buidling 7. If I could build a structure with a bunch of columns and support beams and remove a small section of it and have it still stand up, why would building 7 fall? These buildings are built according to very strict engineering laws. I dont see how a small piece missing could make it fall.
 
Maybe you should let engineers decide how buildings are built and how they can fall down?
 
Pardalis said:
Maybe you should let engineers decide how buildings are built and how they can fall down?
Click to expand...

The engineers of the architect and engineer truth movement seem to have the same questions I do. Their opinions and evidence can be found here:

w/w/w.ae911truth.c/o/m

apparently I cant post links yet
 
warlexz53 said:
If I'm correct jet fuel burns at about 1200 degrees and steel starts losing its integrety at about 1700 degrees.
Click to expand...
You are wildly incorrect with your latter figure; steel loses much of its strength long before that temperature. I am sure the resident engineers who post here will be by shortly to post the correct figures.

If you can't wait, try a search of the threads here because I know the information has been posted here before, and not that long ago either.

warlexz53 said:
If I could build a structure with a bunch of columns and support beams and remove a small section of it and have it still stand up, why would building 7 fall? These buildings are built according to very strict engineering laws. I dont see how a small piece missing could make it fall.
Click to expand...
The materials in a toy construction set have a hugely different level of stength-to-weight ratios. In short, scaling issues. That's been posted about quite a bit here too not that long ago.

As a general thought, things which are seemingly counter-intuitive happen all the time. A quick example: during WWII, submarine hunting aircraft were made harder to spot by U-boat crews by hanging banks of lights on the plane. Sounds completely backwards, doesn't it? How could putting lights on an aircraft make it harder to see? The answer is actually fairly simple, and it worked well.

warlexz53 said:
The engineers of the architect and engineer truth movement seem to have the same questions I do. Their opinions and evidence can be found here:

w/w/w.ae911truth.c/o/m
Click to expand...
That site has been extensively debunked here. You should be easily able to find forum threads with the relevant material with some searches.

Incidentally, you can post links once you've reached 15 posts.
 
warlexz53 said:
The engineers of the architect and engineer truth movement seem to have the same questions I do. Their opinions and evidence can be found here:

w/w/w.ae911truth.c/o/m

apparently I cant post links yet
Click to expand...

OK, have they presented their research to the scientific community?
 
Corsair 115 said:
You are wildly incorrect with your latter figure; steel loses much of its strength long before that temperature. I am sure the resident engineers who post here will be by shortly to post the correct figures.

If you can't wait, try a search of the threads here because I know the information has been posted here before, and not that long ago either.

The materials in a toy construction set have a hugely different level of stength-to-weight ratios. In short, scaling issues. That's been posted about quite a bit here too not that long ago.

As a general thought, things which are seemingly counter-intuitive happen all the time. A quick example: during WWII, submarine hunting aircraft were made harder to spot by U-boat crews by hanging banks of lights on the plane. Sounds completely backwards, doesn't it? How could putting lights on an aircraft make it harder to see? The answer is actually fairly simple, and it worked well.

That site has been extensively debunked here. You should be easily able to find forum threads with the relevant material with some searches.

Incidentally, you can post links once you've reached 15 posts.
Click to expand...

Alright, so I just checked out the NIST site and it says steel melts at 2800 degrees. It also says jet fuel burns at about 2000 degrees and that is enough to weaken the steal 90%. If some engineers on this site could confirm that it would be great.

Ok...so maybe the steel did weaken a lot. That would lead to the pancake theory. So if all the floors collapesed on one onther why were'nt they stacked on top of one another in the debri? It seems the were literally pulverized.

I sure have heard a lot of differing opinions. It seems at least the government should do another investigation. Why wont they?
 
Also, this is just one part of the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory. What about no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon and in Penn.? What about NORAD flying 2 practice missions that involved the World Trade Center on the day of 9/11? There is so much conflicting stuff that happened that day. And then you look at the fall out of it all...illegal war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, the news channels putting fear into us, talks of going into Iran, RIFC chips, the North American Union. It just doest all add up.
 
warlexz53 said:
Also, this is just one part of the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory. What about no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon and in Penn.? What about NORAD flying 2 practice missions that involved the World Trade Center on the day of 9/11? There is so much conflicting stuff that happened that day. And then you look at the fall out of it all...illegal war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, the news channels putting fear into us, talks of going into Iran, RIFC chips, the North American Union. It just doest all add up.
Click to expand...

You're pretty new at this aren't ya? :-)
 
warlexz53 said:
Alright, so I just checked out the NIST site and it says steel melts at 2800 degrees. It also says jet fuel burns at about 2000 degrees and that is enough to weaken the steal 90%. If some engineers on this site could confirm that it would be great.

Ok...so maybe the steel did weaken a lot. That would lead to the pancake theory. So if all the floors collapesed on one onther why were'nt they stacked on top of one another in the debri? It seems the were literally pulverized.
Click to expand...

It seems that way? And how do you figure that? Have you studied a good number of pictures of the WTC 7 rubble pile to determine this, or are you just saying that because you haven't come across any while perusing disreputable CT sites?

I sure have heard a lot of differing opinions. It seems at least the government should do another investigation. Why wont they?
Click to expand...

Because there already is one, and it is a very good one. In fact, they should be coming out with the final report for WTC7 very soon. All of these "differing opinions" that challenge NIST's conclusions come from non-experts. I do not need my tax dollars wasted on a second investigation which attempts to satisfy a bunch of conspiracy kooks who will never be satisfied with a mundane explanation for the collapse anyway. If you are a tax protester and a CT, why don't you fund your own "new" investigation?

PS: "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" is a sham. They have no structural engineers or anybody else with the requisite experience to challenge NIST's conclusions. They don't even check the credentials of those who sign up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom