Zeitgeist - fantastic documentary

[Truth-Bringer]

Zeitgeist - in 3 parts

Part 1 - religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9br09jGoc&feature=related

Part 2 - 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtZgwAGGByA

Part 3 - The Men Behind the Curtain - Federal Reserve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__YFnUfYXZk&feature=related

What do religion, 9/11 and the Federal Reserve have in common? Watch this documentary and find out.

Great production value, great film quality, and it's all free at no cost. Who can say no to that?

[9sublime]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I must admit this is a fantastic documentary... as long as you skip the 9/11 bit.

Everyone like me, I guarantee you, when you watch it you will think less of the documentary, as its just the same old stuff being thrown at you.

However, the religion bit especially will challenge everything you thought you knew to be true about organized religion.

[9sublime]

Oh, and Truth-bringer, without personal commentary, thats effectivley spam. Please add some. ;)

[Truth-Bringer]

Oh, and Truth-bringer, without personal commentary, thats effectivley spam. Please add some. ;)

Commentary added per your request.

[Truth-Bringer]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I must admit this is a fantastic documentary... as long as you skip the 9/11 bit.


I had the same feeling at first, but as I've actually gone through and started researching some of the claims there, I haven't been able to refute anything so far. I still have quite a bit of research to do, and my mind is not made up at all, but it appears that at least some of it is accurate...which raises more questions.


However, the religion bit especially will challenge everything you thought you knew to be true about organized religion.

It was definitely educational.

[Truth-Bringer]

And Part 3 will challenge everything you thought you knew about central banks, the "free market," and depressions...

[Plato232]

PLease everyone watch the zeitgeist movie. if you watched loose change and it raised questions in your mind then I urge everyone to watch this.

From that paragraph people may instantly label me as a conspiracy theorist etc

I am definitely not. I seek the truth. there is much of zeitgiest that I don't agree with, but my point is please watch it. we are here to debate.

This film is put together very well. whether you believe any or all of its sections is immaterial. what it does is to offer us (the people who debate) a platform to debate.

It debunks christianity
it debunks 9/11 (much to arhue there)
it raises the question of economics and what that actually means (we have to understand economics rule the world) much more than religion or politics.

this film raises the questions we are all asking. and it does so really well
and so i urge all to watch it and debate it. Currently it is being argued at http://www.zeitgeistdebate.com. I urge anyone with a mind that is inquisitive to enter that site and argue your opinion.

[Truth-Bringer]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I must admit this is a fantastic documentary... as long as you skip the 9/11 bit.


9sublime, if you want to see another fantastic documentary, you need to rent 9/11: Press for Truth. (http://www.911pressfortruth.com) This is not a conspiracy style documentary - it is about the honest search for truth by the surviving family members of those killed on 9/11. It makes no speculation the 9/11 attacks, but the facts revealed will blow you away.

[9sublime]

I'm sceptical but I'll pick it up if I see it.

[Truth-Bringer]

I'm sceptical but I'll pick it up if I see it.

Did you have a chance to rent it yet? I still haven't had any challenges to it on any political forum.

[GenSeneca]

Zeitgeist in Full Screen and in its Entirety:

Zeitgeist the movie (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm)

Zeit·geist /ˈtsaɪtˌgaɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tsahyt-gahyst] –noun German. the spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time.

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

The entire movie is predicated on the theory that Terrorists, Terrorism, Radical Islam and Jesus do not exist and have never existed. They were all manufactured in order to control population.

Part I , [no subtitle, just the name of the movie] Zeitgeist , 00:01- 36:55

[my subtitle]--Christians are stewpid and think the end of the world is near

5 min intro showing scenes of 9/11 and war footage set to music. The clips are not set particular chronological order and are nicely overlaid with the bible and the flag to suggest Christianity's link to 9/11. Pretty much a summary of the film without all the talking. Things out of context, incorrect and so forth.

At 32:26 - 32:30 ---- there is a list of names...Mine is sixth from the bottom in the right hand column. [;)]

36:20 - 36:56 ---- Wow...They tied in a totally unrelated clip, classic move. It was prefaced to set the tone and context for the appropriate effect, and blamed Christians for 9/11...or at least helping to cover it up.

Part II , All The Worlds a Stage, 36:58 - 1:08

[my subtitle] 9/11 was an inside job!

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

39:56 -

"The 9/11Myth:

19 hijackers, directed by Osama B. Laden, took over 4 commercial jets with boxcutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD), hit 75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Centers 1, 2, and 7 collapsed due to a structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 commision found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense."

First off, NORAD is designed for foreign threats, not domestic ones.

Secondly, the "pancake" explanation on the film (49:10 - 49:20), uses a fraudulent diagram to represent the skeleton of the WTC towers. The support columns were around the outside of the building, hundreds of them, but the narrator only mentions the 47 in each tower, at the core of the buildings. Pay close attention to the picture of the fallen trade center (49:21) immediately following the diagram, you can see the outlines of the WTC building...thats whats left of the actual support columns and they stretch hundreds of feet into the air, as the narrator suggests the 47 center ones would be if they were the main support columns.

50:19 - 50:20 Freefall speed is mentioned...Mwahahahaha! [rofl]

51:40 - "For well over 6 weeks after the collapse, Hot spots of over 2000°F were documented in the debris....That is 500°F hotter than jet fuel even burns."

Fact-Coupling, you take two facts and string them together as though they are related. The jet fuel was done burning in the first 30 mins... long enough to set fire to the entire contents of the building, which is what "burned hotter than jet fuel" and for weeks longer. Where is the mystery or proof of conspiracy in that?

54:15 - William Rodriguez, 9/11 survivor, makes an appearance... I spoke about him a 9/11 thread on another forum.

Somewhere they mention the "vaporized" planes and lament the lack of debris recovered. The debris was recovered, well documented and studied, and there are pictures of it available as well as testimony from hundreds of eyewitnesses but none of that appears in the film.

Part III , Dont mind the men behind the Curtain, 1:11 - 1:56

[my subtitle] The End Is Near!!!!

Best part of the film! Evil international bankers control everything! Oh Nose! Those crafty bastards use the simple minded Christians as gullible sheep for the slaughter as they manipulate world events... all with the goal of a one world government.

I see now why the RFID tag seems like a big deal to some people.

1:30:56 - Bush is a Nazl.... Heres a picture of Bush with a Swastika, superimposed over his face, to prove it. [:P]

1:34:51 - Comparing Hitler's "Enabling Act" to the PATRIOT ACT claiming they both strip the civil liberties from the citizenry. This is just a flat out lie. The "enabling act" stated: "the government was authorized to legislate without the consent of the Reichstag" and has nothing to do with civil liberties. The PATRIOT ACT did not, and does not, restrict Congress (Reichstag equivalent) in any way and Bush is certainly not authorized to govern without them. I wont bother going into details about PA's effects on civil liberties here, I have done that in the PA thread and concerns are overblown. Sunset clauses in the legislation are the only similarities I can find, which would be the same conclusion drawn by anyone who actually read the documents. The people who made this movie are betting you haven't and won't.

The United States has enacted 5 "enabling acts", each one dealt with bringing a new state into the union and did so without abolishing Congress or stripping civil liberties.

It was actually the Reichstag Fire Decree that stripped the German people of their civil rights and not the "Enabling Act". The Fire decree had no sunset clause.

1:38:57 - Dept. of Education. There really is a great deal of proof Americans are becoming dumber ,However, the causality is reversed... as done in other sections and too deep to get into. Suffice to say I do agree that gov needs to get out of education but some of the claims made in this section are obvious frauds.

The final section deals with the "North American Union" becoming one of 4 unions that will become merged into a one world government.

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

Overview of the Movie:

Emotionally, its very stirring, especially the footage of 9/11. Graphically its very well done. Chronologically, it had to be messed with in a few areas to really sell the theory as plausible reality. Factually, the 30% of lies needed to support the theory are saturated in 70% truth (Being generous in truth) but its hard to distinguish if your not well versed on the particular subject matter, or too lazy to look stuff up for yourself.

The filmmakers are betting most viewers don't have backgrounds that would include knowing: The legislation discussed, Banking practices, The Gold standard, Architecture of the WTC, US and World History etc. Furthermore, they are betting you won't look any of it up for yourself!

There are some things I found rather ironic about the film... stay with me....

At the beginning of the film there is a mention that "100 million [Americans] that believe the end of the world is coming" and they elude to this group as being the Christians. 100 million is one third of the population but Christians make up closer to 50% of the population....is it a coincidence that 33% of the population believe 9/11 was an inside job and the government is conspiring against us?[:P]

During the film, your told the government is using fear against you, so that you believe whatever they tell you and accept it without question. Yet the scenario that is laid out, is your own government conspiring against you... What could be scarier!? And, If you take the time to question this theory, you will end up a puppet and eventually a slave.

By the end of the film, the tone is almost sheer panic. Everyone is now out to get you, you are now enlightened and they want to kill you to keep the secret. The Christians are being led by the nose, to do the bidding of international bankers through the powers of our fascist government, so you can't trust them. All elected officials and government employees are in on the conspiracy. The end of the wold is coming, you will all be slaves to the one world government.

So, the film starts by explaining how dangerous people that believe "the end of the world is near" really are... only to conclude the movie by telling you the end of the world is near... and you should now go out and proselytize that message to the masses.

Honorable Mention: There is a reference to an obscure quote, and attributed to Thomas Paine, denouncing Christianity. This quote is from an unpublished work, which was edited (erased or drawn over) then "restored". The Authenticity is questionable, its just not questioned in this film.

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

While this post has become extensive, I was forced to omit many items of contention for the purpose brevity. Just because I did not mention it here, doesn't mean its part of the 70% thats truthful.

I would like to end by pointing out the very apt use of footage from the movie Network and the following excerpt used in the film:

"Your beginning to believe the illusions we are spinning here... This is mass madness! You maniacs!... You people are the real thing, WE are the illusion!"

Its poignant because Zeitgeist is the one that has spun the illusion here, and people seem to believe it.

[Truth-Bringer]

The entire movie is predicated on the theory that Terrorists, Terrorism, Radical Islam and Jesus do not exist and have never existed. They were all manufactured in order to control population.


Wow...an Appeal to Ridicule. Imagine that...

Just out of curiousity, let's see your source on that "review."

[GenSeneca]

Wow...an Appeal to Ridicule. Imagine that...

Just out of curiousity, let's see your source on that "review."

I don't follow you... I wrote all of it.

As for the appeal to ridicule, the movie DOES go to great lengths to say all those things are completely fabricated.

Their argument is rediculous to begin with, I didn't have to taint it.

[Truth-Bringer]

I don't follow you... I wrote all of it.

LOL. My condolences.


As for the appeal to ridicule, the movie DOES go to great lengths to say all those things are completely fabricated.

No, the film does not say terrorism does not exist. That's a straw man.

Why don't you give us your "wonderful analysis" of this one while you're at it:

http://www.911pressfortruth.com

[GenSeneca]

So its your contention that this "Documentary" is 100% accurate with NO lies or omissions of any kind?

And if you continue be so uncivilized about things we may disagree on, don't bother posting.

[Truth-Bringer]

So its your contention that this "Documentary" is 100% accurate with NO lies or omissions of any kind?


First of all, did you even watch it?

I'm saying numerous facts and pieces of evidence are presented in "9/11: Press for Truth" - if you claim they're lying, then prove it. Show me SPECIFICALLY where they're wrong.

[GenSeneca]

So let me get this straight... You have NO interest in discussing Zeitgiest now? You're trying to redirect me elsewhere?

Its clear your only looking to WASTE MY TIME and not actually talk about any of this UNLESS I AGREE.

Bad show.

[Truth-Bringer]

So let me get this straight... You have NO interest in discussing Zeitgiest now? You're trying to redirect me elsewhere?



Did you even watch all of Zeitgeist? Easy question - if you watched it, tell us who was interviewed about his former friendship with a prominent person in Part 3?

You're the one saying the 9/11 claims in Zeitgeist are wrong. Much of the same documentation is used in 9/11: Press for Truth - except it's more detailed. So do extra details bother you?

[GenSeneca]

Did you read my post? The numbers that precede each of my comments are directing you to the exact part of the movie to which I'm referring:
--------------------------

1:34:51 - Comparing Hitler's "Enabling Act" to the PATRIOT ACT claiming they both strip the civil liberties from the citizenry. This is just a flat out lie. The "enabling act" stated: "the government was authorized to legislate without the consent of the Reichstag" and has nothing to do with civil liberties. The PATRIOT ACT did not, and does not, restrict Congress (Reichstag equivalent) in any way and Bush is certainly not authorized to govern without them. I wont bother going into details about PA's effects on civil liberties here, I have done that in the PA thread and concerns are overblown. Sunset clauses in the legislation are the only similarities I can find, which would be the same conclusion drawn by anyone who actually read the documents. The people who made this movie are betting you haven't and won't.

The United States has enacted 5 "enabling acts", each one dealt with bringing a new state into the union and did so without abolishing Congress or stripping civil liberties.

It was actually the Reichstag Fire Decree that stripped the German people of their civil rights and not the "Enabling Act". The Fire decree had no sunset clause.
--------------------

I shouldn't have to prove to you that 9/11 WASN'T an inside job before you can admit to the fasle claims put forth in the movie.

[Truth-Bringer]

Did you read my post?

Yes, the answer to the question I asked is not in your post. Will you please answer it if you watched the documentary. It's a very easy to answer, if you watched it.

[GenSeneca]

Yes, the answer to the question I asked is not in your post. Will you please answer it if you watched the documentary. It's a very easy to answer, if you watched it.

And I will not answer that question, or any others, until you address what I originally posted about. What would be the point? Whatever you're trying to point out may very well be part of the 70% of truth that I gave the movie, but I'm not interested in what they didn't lie about - only what they did lie about.

You're use of re-direction will not work with me. Call me names, declare victory for my refusal to answer, but that will not change the fact that you are attempting to cover up the lies promulgated in this film. Government and politicians lie, we all know this - that doesn't excuse the filmmaker for pushing his own lies.

[Truth-Bringer]

And I will not answer that question,

Because you can't. You didn't even watch the documentary. I think you just scrambled up some review you found on line. And you're accusing these guys of lying... Geez...

[GenSeneca]

42183 I think you just scrambled up some review you found on line.

"At 32:26 - 32:30 ---- there is a list of names...Mine is sixth from the bottom in the right hand column."

My name is Seneca, go ahead and check it on the film - then come back and apologize.

[Truth-Bringer]

"At 32:26 - 32:30 ---- there is a list of names...Mine is sixth from the bottom in the right hand column."

My name is Seneca, go ahead and check it on the film - then come back and apologize.

So you clicked on the click? Doesn't prove you watched you movie. Why can't you answer my simple question?

[GenSeneca]

Doesn't prove you watched you movie.

How do I know you watched it? You pretend like the things I claim DON'T appear in the film....

...the "pancake" explanation on the film (49:10 - 49:20), uses a fraudulent diagram to represent the skeleton of the WTC towers. The support columns were around the outside of the building, hundreds of them, but the narrator only mentions the 47 in each tower, at the core of the buildings. Pay close attention to the picture of the fallen trade center (49:21) immediately following the diagram, you can see the outlines of the WTC building...thats whats left of the actual support columns and they stretch hundreds of feet into the air, as the narrator suggests the 47 center ones would be if they were the main support columns.

Attempts at "blocking and bridging" are not going to work with me...

But I understand... its the only way you can prevent admitting to the movies flagrant inaccuracies... Your desperation is showing.

You only discredit yourself by trying to claim I haven't watched the movie, so please, keep at it. :)

[Truth-Bringer]

How do I know you watched it? You pretend like the things I claim DON'T appear in the film....

...the "pancake" explanation on the film (49:10 - 49:20), uses a fraudulent diagram to represent the skeleton of the WTC towers.

Because they're just claims. They're irrelevant. You say it's a fraudulent diagram but WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS? Claims and opinions are irrelevant. There's no need to respond to them because they don't prove anything.


Attempts at "blocking and bridging" are not going to work with me...

What isn't going to work is your refusal to answer a simple question. Since you refuse to do so, I think it's quite clear you didn't watch the entire film.

[GenSeneca]

Somewhere they mention the "vaporized" planes and lament the lack of debris recovered. The debris was recovered, well documented and studied, and there are pictures of it available as well as testimony from hundreds of eyewitnesses but none of that appears in the film.

http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/Pentapix/debris1_wheel.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/Pentapix/debris2_engine.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/Pentapix/debris3_engine2.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/Pentapix/debris4_visible1.jpg

They also ignore the numerous eyewitness accounts of people who saw a 757 hit the pentagon.


"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack%2Dusat.htm)

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine (http://www.troa.org/Magazine/January2002/feature3.asp), January 2002

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html)." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html)." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth (http://www.uua.org/world/2002/01/feature3a.html)." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News (http://www.ahwatukee.com/afn/community/articles/020906a.html)

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News (http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/dec%202001/1201bauer.htm)

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com (http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_46/local_news/12049-1.html) November 16, 2001
-----------------------------------------------------
Its silly to pretend Zeitgeist ISN'T packed with lies....

[NO Obamanation]

There was a woman who used to frequent the news in a talking round table type forum. Her husband (I think) works for the pentagon. She died in the plane that crashed into the pentagon. She had a very nice career being a guest on various news programs, her husband was crushed when she died.

When people try to tell me that no plane crashed into the pentagon I ask them, what became of those people? Did they willingly go into hiding? Are their families just acting sad? Do they not care about their kids enough to let them think they died?

[GenSeneca]

...the "pancake" explanation on the film (49:10 - 49:20), uses a fraudulent diagram to represent the skeleton of the WTC towers. The support columns were around the outside of the building, hundreds of them, but the narrator only mentions the 47 in each tower, at the core of the buildings. Pay close attention to the picture of the fallen trade center (49:21) immediately following the diagram, you can see the outlines of the WTC building...thats whats left of the actual support columns and they stretch hundreds of feet into the air, as the narrator suggests the 47 center ones would be if they were the main support columns.



Here is a similar diagram to the one provided in the movie (I don't have screen cap, sorry) but this one is from 911review.org:
http://911review.org/WTC/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
Notice there is NO mention of the outer support columns and the center support structure is made to look like the 47 center support columns are tightly grouped, packed in concrete and responsible for supporting the the buildings vertical and horizontal loads.....
This is what the real structural design looked like:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif
Notice how the outer columns, responsible for supporting ALL the horizontal loads, appear in this diagram but are absent in the other. The center 47 columns are also not nearly as compact as suggested by the diagram Zeitgeist uses.
------------------------------
Zeitgeist LIES....

[GenSeneca]

50:19 - 50:20 Freefall speed is mentioned...Mwahahahaha!

Zeitgeist claim: The individual floor levels in the twin towers did not impact one another to slow the rate of collapse. The movie claims the main support column was severed with explosives and all the individual floor levels fell at once, like that of a controlled demolition.

Here's a picture thats supposed to prove the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition:
http://www.northernresistance.info/pic/wtc911_2.gif

Here's a picture you didn't see in Zeitgeist:
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa213/j4m3zz/Iron.jpg
You can clearly see the steel worker in the background on a marklift. Look closer and you see that he is holding an acetyline torch - used for cutting steel beams. This accounts for the angular cuts and the molten steel.

Now onto why "FreeFall" speed is so hilarious an accusation:

Look closely at the debris in this photo
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/fsn/wtc1exp2_s.jpg
FreeFall speed suggests the towers fell completely unimpeded - not impacting floor after floor as the building collapsed. But as you can see, the debris is falling much faster than the building. In fact, the debris has been blown OUT hundreds of feet away from the building and still manages to fall to earth faster than the building.
In this next photo, you can see a large chunk of the building falling just as the collapse began:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc1mush_s.jpg
Now had the towers truly fallen at free fall speeds as alleged, this chunk would be falling at the same rate as the building itself... You can see thats clearly not the case.

FreeFall speed claim OWNED!
-----------------------------------------------
Zeitgeist LIES

[Mare Tranquillity]

Genseneca,
I'm curious for your explanation of the third building that collapsed in its own footprint on the same day as the Twin Towers, if you wouldn't mind please.:)

[GenSeneca]

DISCLAIMER: I have worked with a buddy of mine on a private forum to debunk 9/11 myths. CT's like to hurl copy-n-paste arguments or videos like "Loose Change" at their opponents, so we teamed together to split up the work. As far as WTC7, he dealt with the collapse of WTC7 while I took on the conspiracy theory angle about Larry Silverstein (Insurance fraud, His famous "pull it" quote about WTC7, and the general facts surrounding his acquisition, maintenance and tenant records concerning the entire WTC site and the affected buildings)
But you asked about the collapse, so here's just some of what my friend Cman found concerning the collapse:

Lets talk about WTC 7 which seems to be biggest smoking gun in the CT arsenal.

Why did the professionals say it collapsed? Was it only due to fire?

The WTC 7 structure had 47 floors and was 570 feet tall. It suffered damage on multiple floors and especially on floors towards the bottom. It had massive fires raging within reported by several firefighters who were actually at the site and weren't making assumptions based only from pictures.

Witness accounts of WTC 7 fires. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

Witness accounts of WTC 7 damage. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)

Here is a photo of building 7 amid the collapse of WTC 1.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa213/j4m3zz/WTC7damage.jpg

Here is a report authored by Brent Blanchard (http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf), senior editor of implosionworld.com and Director of field operations at PROTEC Documentation Services Inc.

Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable, independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.

--- "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

"Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument." --Blanchard

As far as the fires are concerned, conspiracy theorists again love to pick out quotes that aren't from anyone who was actually there on scene and directly involved in the action.

Here is a photo of fires raging in WTC 7.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa213/j4m3zz/WTC7fire1.jpg

Now lets look at some of the quotes from the firefighters on scene ---

FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."

FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."

FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

Remember. WTC 7 was more than twice as tall as any of the other buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. It sustained severe damage mostly on the lower floors. They were attempting to fight fires in the building until an operational decision was made to pull back and not risk the lives of any more people that day. The building then burned for approximately another hour and a half before finally collapsing.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Lets take a look at what would have to happen in order to bring down WTC 7 with a controlled demolition ---- A demolition project would have required the tower walls to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of the buildings. Then the massive charges would have had to been initiated with precision to bring down the building they way it fell.

There is simply no evidence (seen or heard) of the amount of explosions it would take to bring that building down.

Take a look at a real building implosion ---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8mjwXshpU&mode=related&search=

A very informative page with hundreds of links to accurate information about the Collapse of building 7 was created by Mark Roberts - probably the most well known 9/11 researcher.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction)
In regards to the "pull it" quote, Silverstein was specifically referring to pulling out the firefighters trying to fight the fires in WTC7 and this is backed up by witness testimony from the people on the ground with him that day. WTC engineers on the scene told him it was a lost cause - Firefighters were reporting that the water pressure was almost nil after the first 2 towers collapsed, as the falling buildings crushed the underground pipes feeding water to ground zero. CT claims about the fire being "Under control" are taken out of context as those particular fire fighters were only on ONE floor and thats the fire they were referring to, the floor they were on - They were not saying the fire was under control for the entire building.

Together, Cman and I are quite the Debunking team! If you want to check out the Silverstein stuff I worked on, I'll be glad to share that as well!

[Federal Farmer]

Here's some for the CT's. kindly explain the following;

1) When were the alleged explosive charges set?

2) How is it possible for them to have been set in such a fashion as to bring down the buildings, and not disturb the day-to-day operations of the offices they were set in?

3) How is it possible for the buildings to have been structurally weakened (as is done in all implosions) by the removal of all interior non-bearing partitions, (including the stairwell walls) the removal of all of the desks, chairs, and other equipment, and the weakening of the structural bearing members of the towers (by cutting all of the steel columns which were enclosed inside the non-bearing partitions) without disturbing the day-to-day operations of the offices on the floors the weakening occurred?

4) How is it possible for explosive charges to be set, and remain, intact, in a burning structure, without the charges themselves burning?

5) How is it possible for the detonators, detonating cords, and/or wires to remain, intact, in a burning structure, without the cords and wires themselves burning?

6) How is it possible for the explosive charges, detonators, detonating cords and/or wires to remain, intact, inside a burning structure, that was just hit by an aircraft flying at over 550 miles per hours, boring a hole through several floors (the ones where the explosives were allegedly set) and ripping everything inside the impact area to shreds?

[Mare Tranquillity]

What started the fire in WT 7? Any info on that? Wasn't there a fire suppression system in WT 7? When did the fire start?

[Federal Farmer]

What started the fire in WT 7? Any info on that? Wasn't there a fire suppression system in WT 7? When did the fire start?

The fires started when the fuel lines from the fuel storage tanks to the Con Ed substation generators in WTC7 were damaged by debris falling from WTC1. The fuel itself was stored in the lower levels of the building, but the generators were on the 5th floor, in a heavily ventilated room, and the debris from WTC1 damaged the fuel lines to these generators, the fuel sparked, fire erupted and the building was quickly involved in fire as it moved up through the open and damaged sections of the building. The pumps to the fuel storage tanks were on their own generators, and designed to start immediately upon a power outage, and as a result, the highly pressurized fuel (75 GPM @ 50 PSI) was being pumped up the lines, and fed the fire which is believed to have begun in ernest in the cafeteria immediately below the level of the generators (4th Floor), which then weakened the trusses for the 5th floor through heat deformation.

Other fires throughout the building were started as a result of hot falling debris from WTC 1 (which if you'll recall, had been burning from thousands of gallons of aviation jet fuel for quite some time) striking the building, penetrating it's exterior walls, and igniting materials inside the offices.

For more information, please refer to THIS (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) document.

[GenSeneca]

collapsed in its own footprint

I meant to bring this up and forgot... WTC7 did NOT collapse into its own footprint. It did in fact list to one side as it fell, doing a massive amount of damage to an adjacent building. Look at the Aerial view after the collapse:
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/gz_aerial_wtc7.jpg
Bottom Right - Near the Red Crane Boom - You can clearly see where the building had tilted far enough to one side that it took out one corner of the adjacent building - across the street.

The Debris outline is pretty distinct, outline the debris with your cursor and you can see it didn't fall on its own footprint, there was nothing neat and pretty about it.

[GODSPEED]

not that I was ever a CT on 911, but Genseneca just slam dunked that one!

[Truth-Bringer]

Its silly to pretend Zeitgeist ISN'T packed with lies....

To find mistakes and then claim "that means the whole thing is a lie" is invalid. I haven't taken the time to literally go through the entire documentary and validate every little part of it.

But take the first topic in the 9/11 section - "No Warnings" - Bush, Condi Rice, and Cheney clearly stated there was no way anyone could have had warning or known they would fly planes into buildings. I checked each of those newspaper articles with warnings from various governments, and the fact is that our own government had run exercises involving planes flying into buildings at an earlier time. SO SOMEONE WAS LYING ON THAT POINT.

[Truth-Bringer]

not that I was ever a CT on 911, but Genseneca just slam dunked that one!

Let's see him slam dunk anything in "9/11: Press for Truth" (http://www.911pressfortruth.com)

[Truth-Bringer]

DISCLAIMER: I have worked with a buddy of mine on a private forum to debunk 9/11 myths.

LOL. So you definitely have an agenda. Might as well be a freakin' shill.

[Federal Farmer]

Let's see him slam dunk anything in "9/11: Press for Truth" (http://www.911pressfortruth.com)

Ya gotta love it! This nimnod is shilling for a movie that isn't even out yet, attempting to hold it up as some "Holy Grail" for "trufers" (no, I didn't misspell it), as if he even has a clue what they're going to be talking about! He even has the temerity to accuse GS of being a shill, after he's shilling for a not-yet-released movie! ROTFLMFAO!!!

I guess TB hasn't heard of the concept of HYPOCRISY.

[Truth-Bringer]

Ya gotta love it! This nimnod is shilling for a movie that isn't even out yet,

Ummmm...it's been out for quite some time, idiot. You can rent it on Netflix or Blockbuster if you don't believe me. I'm not "shilling" for a movie anymore than anyone is shilling for any source they present. "9/11: Press for Truth" makes no conclusions itself as to who made the attacks. It simply deals with the evidence.

It is not a conspiracy documentary. It is the story of the search for truth about 9/11 by the surviving family members of those who were killed in the attacks. Although it's quite interesting to note that the government still won't answer over 70% of their simple questions.



I guess TB hasn't heard of the concept of HYPOCRISY.

Of course I've heard of it. I have to witness you doing it on this forum every time I stop by.

[NO Obamanation]

Does 9/11 press for truth have new evidence not talked about in this other movie? because it seems the posters have shot to hell the ideas from this other movie.

[Truth-Bringer]

Does 9/11 press for truth have new evidence not talked about in this other movie?

Yes. Quite a bit. I've been asking people on multiple forums to point out any flaws in the movie for over 6 months now. So far, there have been no takers.

[NO Obamanation]

Yes. Quite a bit. I've been asking people on multiple forums to point out any flaws in the movie for over 6 months now. So far, there have been no takers.

Ah ok then I will pay close attention when you guys start talking about that film. I have been reading these posts. I think I agree with the other posters about this film. But if the other one has new information then it will be worth paying attention to.

This film you had posted, the first part irritated me. The religious section. Not because they showed pagan influence, I already knew about that and agreed with allot of it. It just left a bad taste in my mouth from beginning to end with telling half truths or alluding to things. I especially didn’t like the assumption we came from pond scum. So, I went into it not trusting the film maker and probably having bias against it.

[Truth-Bringer]

Ah ok then I will pay close attention when you guys start talking about that film.

LOL. Look, you need to watch the film for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't let anyone here influence you. Again, watch it yourself and make up your own mind.


This film you had posted, the first part irritated me. The religious section. Not because they showed pagan influence, I already knew about that and agreed with allot of it. It just left a bad taste in my mouth from beginning to end with telling half truths or alluding to things.

Well, the point is CHRISTIANITY IS A CONSTRUCT. That is quite easy to discern.

For example, the Bible contains many inaccuracies and stories of impossibilities such as a talking donkey:

Numbers 22:28-30, NAS
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

If anyone tells you they've seen a talking donkey, then they're crazy. They don't exist, and never have.

Organized religion is a tool used to control people. All the religions are an attempt to explain God, but they ultimately place power in the hands of religious leaders instead of teaching true spirituality.


I especially didn’t like the assumption we came from pond scum.

They acknowledge spirituality quite a few times in the film. I didn't see any "assumption" that we come from pond scum.

But even if there were such an assumption, if you were offended that they questioned Christianity, doesn't the Bible claim people came from dirt or dust? How could "pond scum" be so much more offensive than dirt or dust?

So, I went into it not trusting the film maker and probably having bias against it.

At least you can admit that. That is more than a lot of people on these forums.

[NO Obamanation]

LOL. Look, you need to watch the film for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't let anyone here influence you. Again, watch it yourself and make up your own mind.

Oh I did, but I did not have the answers I was looking for. A few of the posters explained the other side and I think they were more convincing than the film.



Well, the point is CHRISTIANITY IS A CONSTRUCT. That is quite easy to discern.

For example, the Bible contains many inaccuracies and stories of impossibilities such as a talking donkey:

Numbers 22:28-30, NAS
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

If anyone tells you they've seen a talking donkey, then they're crazy. They don't exist, and never have.

Organized religion is a tool used to control people. All the religions are an attempt to explain God, but they ultimately place power in the hands of religious leaders instead of teaching true spirituality.

Not everything in the scriptures are literal, example Jesus said I am the door. But he is not made of wood or has hinges. And there is a vs where the Creator says he will wrap you in his wings, but I don’t think it was meant literally. I think organized religion is a tool to control populations too. But they took some truth, added crap to it and twisted it up to make what they wanted you to believe. It’s not all wrong. You just have to be careful where things came from.






They acknowledge spirituality quite a few times in the film. I didn't see any "assumption" that we come from pond scum.

But even if there were such an assumption, if you were offended that they questioned Christianity, doesn't the Bible claim people came from dirt or dust? How could "pond scum" be so much more offensive than dirt or dust?

You didn’t see it? The opening part of the film, the big bang then the cute little single cell organisms, then they became like pond scum, then they turned into fish, then they got legs and lungs and became a rat climbing a tree then a monkey, ape then there is man adding 1 plus 1…..

The offending part is this. The big bang single cell organism is associated with atheism, the other is not. Neither is provable, yet one is constantly considered truth and the other moronic. I am sensitive from being beat down to many times by people who hypocritically think they should bash what I believe because I can not prove it, and try to make me feel like a fool for not embracing what they believe, even though they can not prove it.


At least you can admit that. That is more than a lot of people on these forums.


I don’t mind admitting if I am bias, I am bias on some things and it would be wrong and hypocritical of me to not notice my own bias when I am complaining about someone else’s.

I’ll point out a hypocrite even if I am the hypocrite. :D

[GenSeneca]

To find mistakes and then claim "that means the whole thing is a lie" is invalid.

Here's what I said about the movie in my original post:

Factually, the 30% of lies needed to support the theory are saturated in 70% truth

Are you still trying to discredit me? Thats adorable...

I haven't taken the time to literally go through the entire documentary and validate every little part of it.

You should... before you promote it as a "fantastic documentary"...

But take the first topic in the 9/11 section - "No Warnings" - Bush, Condi Rice, and Cheney clearly stated there was no way anyone could have had warning or known they would fly planes into buildings.

There were warnings, which with the help of hindsight, we can clearly arrange and separate from the millions of warnings coming in at the same time and all pointing to threats in different areas. If you look at the timeline leading up to 9/11 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings&startpos=300), its easy to find yourself wondering why it wasn't obvious to everyone. The answer is, Hindsight Bias and the Historians fallacy - both of which run rampant in the 9/11 portion of Zeitgeist.

There were warnings (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL), that doesn't eliminate the fact there was NO actionable intelligence that would have prevented 9/11.

our own government had run exercises involving planes flying into buildings at an earlier time

I can't find any records where we ever ran exercises such as "Operation- Practice for 9/11", perhaps you could provide a link that verifies we have ever run Hijacking-Suicide-747missile drills. Until then, I will consider this one another lie.

Some point to The 9/11 Commission Report which mentioned - in a footnote - aircraft taking part in Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Guardian) as well as Operation Norther Vigilance. All of which were to defend the country against Russian long range bombers. Although there was a possible scenario that dealt with a traditional hijacking, none of the scenarios thought up by NORAD, and being practiced that day, dealt with flying planes into buildings.
------------------------
About (9/11: Press for Truth)
Although it's quite interesting to note that the government still won't answer over 70% of their simple questions.
I'm not going to go out and BUY/RENT a video to debunk it... So not worth my time or money. Since you have seen it and presumably own it, share with us the "70% of their simple questions" so that we can provide some answers.
They sure won't get any answers or truth from the Truth Movement....
I can almost guarantee the answers are out there (I haven't seen the video, so I don't know if they ask about the Alien Moose, otherwise I would guarantee).

2JsHK9rPDY8
-----------------------
For example, the Bible contains many inaccuracies and stories of impossibilities such as a talking donkey:
You reference whats clearly an Allegorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory) story - but hold it to the standard one would apply to a syllogism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism) - Do you honestly consider this a legitimate example of why the Bible is wrong?
Besides, it was you that said:
To find mistakes and then claim "that means the whole thing is a lie" is invalid.
You just invalidated yourself... Did it tickle?
---------
I can admit my bias...
That is more than a lot of people on these forums.
People like yourself?
I have yet to hear you admit your bias in wanting all the claims in Zeitgeist to be true... Which you clearly do by refusing to admit ANY lies on the part of the movie.
I don't mind admitting my bias, I don't think its OK to lie and I'm biased against liars - especially liars who take my side and spout lies, I shut them down first. This is why you cannot discredit me, no matter how hard you try.

[Federal Farmer]

Ummmm...it's been out for quite some time, idiot. You can rent it on Netflix or Blockbuster if you don't believe me.

Never made it here, and the DVD's don't ship til October (per the link you provided) so like GenSen, I'm not going to go out and rent some movie just to debunk it.

I'm not "shilling" for a movie anymore than anyone is shilling for any source they present. "9/11: Press for Truth" makes no conclusions itself as to who made the attacks. It simply deals with the evidence.

You are shilling, because you won't bring up the points the film allegedly makes, but what can we expect since you NEVER make a point on your own without first having it handed to you by someone else, and then you run around regurgitating it as if it were handed down from God Almighty without bothering to do any research on it yourself to see if your Masters got it right or not. And you have the temerity to call anyone else an idiot?

As for the rest, yeah...right. All of you CT'ers claim that "it's not a conspiracy theory", but apparantly you haven't bothered to look up the definition of a CT either, so that tracks with your patterns.

(that'll teach me to look at someones posts after I've put 'em on ignore)

[Truth-Bringer]

Oh I did,

So you watched "9/11: Press for Truth"? Note that is a separate documentary and not part of Zeitgeist.

but I did not have the answers I was looking for.

What "answers" are you looking for?


Not everything in the scriptures are literal,

True, but the premise is still irrational. The premise is "What is in this book is true because it's in this book." And that is invalid.


You didn’t see it? The opening part of the film, the big bang then the cute little single cell organisms, then they became like pond scum, then they turned into fish, then they got legs and lungs and became a rat climbing a tree then a monkey, ape then there is man adding 1 plus 1…..

Ok, yes, so the evolutionary part is what you're referring to.


The offending part is this. The big bang single cell organism is associated with atheism, the other is not. Neither is provable,

I agree with you 100%. Neither is provable. There are many anomalies with the theory of evolution. When someone asks "how did we get here" - at this point in time the only logical answer is "I don't know."

[Truth-Bringer]

so like GenSen, I'm not going to go out and rent some movie just to debunk it.

No, you're not going to go rent it because you fear it.


You are shilling,

No, I'm not. You are a deceptive, lying fraud. You've been beaten in every single thread you've challenged me in, and you will continue to get your lying butt pwned if you continue to spew your irrational nonsense in my direction.

[BigRob]

No, you're not going to go rent it because you fear it.



No, I'm not. You are a deceptive, lying fraud. You've been beaten in every single thread you've challenged me in, and you will continue to get your lying butt pwned if you continue to spew your irrational nonsense in my direction.

You can find the entire video on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcA6oXoTvU&NR=1 is the link to one part, the other parts are on the side there.

[Truth-Bringer]

Here's what I said about the movie in my original post:

Factually, the 30% of lies needed to support the theory are saturated in 70% truth

Are you still trying to discredit me? Thats adorable...

You are discredited. You just haven't accepted it yet...which isn't adorable.

Wow, you made a generalized statement!!! That proves so much... ROTFL.


You should... before you promote it as a "fantastic documentary"...

That's an opinion. I never said it proved anything. In fact, if you'll notice I've advised that people watch things for themselves and make up their own minds. I do think it's a fantastic documentary based on production value alone. It received many positive reviews. And I have openly admitted that I've not taken the time to research and verify every single portion of the film.


There were warnings, which with the help of hindsight, we can clearly arrange and separate from the millions of warnings coming in at the same time and all pointing to threats in different areas. If you look at the timeline leading up to 9/11 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings&startpos=300), its easy to find yourself wondering why it wasn't obvious to everyone. The answer is, Hindsight Bias and the Historians fallacy - both of which run rampant in the 9/11 portion of Zeitgeist.

You just don't like the details, do you?

After September 11th, FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley wrote a scathing letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller over what she characterized as FBI Headquarters' pre-9/11 blocking of her Minneapolis Field Office's attempts to investigate "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui, whom they had arrested the month before the attacks.

Rowley was called to testify before the Senate and later the 9/11 Commission and was named 'Time Magazine's 2002 "Person of the Year" for her efforts to bring the truth to light in this matter.

Link (http://911pressfortruth.blogspot.com)

But of course, that's just another "coincidence."

Kind of like this "coincidence":

Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11: FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647)

(Note that's from a conservative Republican website also)

And that time line is the same time line used in "9/11: Press for Truth":

The Complete 9/11 Timeline (http://www.911pressfortruth.com)
Paul Thompson

In mid-2002, Paul Thompson, a Northern California native and Stanford University alumnus with no previous interest in the subject of terrorism, became intrigued by several stories regarding 9/11 which suddenly appeared in the press—among them, CBS News’ revelation that President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6th, 2001, warning of an impending attack by Osama bin Laden in the United States involving aircraft. Thompson found himself poring over news of the attacks on the internet and growing increasingly frustrated with how incomplete the story of September 11th was. He began gathering and condensing every credible fact on 9/11, setting a rule for himself that he would only include what he could find in mainstream news sources, and posted those facts online in chronological order."


There were warnings (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL), that doesn't eliminate the fact there was NO actionable intelligence that would have prevented 9/11.

B.S. There was actionable intelligence and it was ignored. Here's another example:

TOP-LEVEL Sources Confirm AFP Exclusives:
Feds Knew of 9-11 and Did Nothing

There is compelling evidence that U.S. authorities had specific
advance warning about 9-11 and other forthcoming
terrorist attacks on American soil—but failed to act.

By Joseph R. Corson

Federal officials are trying to intimidate an individual who — six months prior to the 9-11 tragedy — had provided, through multiple venues, early warning, based on inside information, that terrorists reputedly connected to al Qaeda were planning massive attacks on American soil.

On Jan. 8, 2003, high-ranking FBI official Ted Gunderson (ret.) visited American Free Press headquarters on Capitol Hill in Washington and provided detailed documentary material that unveils a remarkable series of events.

Gunderson has compiled evidence demonstrating beyond any question that the FBI is now engaged in a clear-cut effort to cover up its foreknowledge of specific allegations about then-impending terrorist attacks of the type that happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

Gunderson’s charges are particularly powerful precisely because of who he (Gunderson) happens to be: a 27-year FBI veteran who capped his career in the bureau as senior special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office of the FBI. In Los Angeles, Gunderson had over 700 people under his command and operated a $22 million budget. Previously he served as special agent-in-charge of FBI offices in such major cities as Memphis and Dallas.

Rest of Article Here (http://tedgunderson.com/Articles/Feds%20Knew%20of%209-11%20and%20did%20nothing.htm)

Of course there have been all kinds of smear campaigns against Gunderson. And some people have tried to discredit him as jumping onto conspiracy bandwagons because he believes Sonny Bono was murdered due to his attempts to expose federal corruption. Who knows? Maybe Bono was murdered. I don't know the evidence in the case and I damn sure don't trust any government conclusion without having access to the facts myself.

But from what I've seen Gunderson has had a stellar career in law enforcement and seems to be devoted to doing the right thing.


I can't find any records where we ever ran exercises such as "Operation- Practice for 9/11", perhaps you could provide a link that verifies we have ever run Hijacking-Suicide-747missile drills. Until then, I will consider this one another lie.

I'll have to come back to this one.

Ok, found a link that seems to do the job well:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6906


------------------------
About (9/11: Press for Truth)

I'm not going to go out and BUY/RENT a video to debunk it...

Then go to youtube and search for it.

So not worth my time or money. Since you have seen it and presumably own it, share with us the "70% of their simple questions" so that we can provide some answers.


The problem isn't with you providing answers, Genboy. The problem is that the government has refused to provide the answers. Here are some of them:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

I like these:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

• Who found the passports and what time where they found?
• Please describe the condition of each passport.
• Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

• Which flights were they on, to whom did they belong?
• When and where were they found?
• Please describe their condition.

3. Did Mohammed Atta have a passport from the “Conch Republic,” a Key West, Florida group which has issued about 10,000 passports since 1993? If so, did Atta use it at any time to enter the United States? If so, when?

4. Did the records from the Conch Republic indicate that any other hijackers purchased passports from there? http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/2001/miamiherald100301b.html

5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.



You reference whats clearly an Allegorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory) story - but hold it to the standard one would apply to a syllogism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism) - Do you honestly consider this a legitimate example of why the Bible is wrong?
Besides, it was you that said:

You just invalidated yourself... Did it tickle?

You're right - that example does not prove my case. So allow me clarify and let's get to the root issue. The Bible is inaccurate not because of that one example, but because the underlying premise is "what's in this book is true because it's in this book" - and that is indeed irrational.



I have yet to hear you admit your bias in wanting all the claims in Zeitgeist to be true...

What I've admitted is that people should watch it for themselves and make their own conclusions. They shouldn't let other people tell them what to think about the film.


I don't mind admitting my bias, I don't think its OK to lie

ROTFL. You're not interested in the truth at all.

[GenSeneca]

But the congressional report states that "from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons." --Globalsearch
There was no actionable intelligence. Nothing that said specific people would be boarding specific planes, hijacking them, and ramming specific buildings.
The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington's "war on terrorism". --Globalsearch ABOUT (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section&sectionName=about)
Who are you going to trust when Conspiracy Theorists run the government?

[Truth-Bringer]

There was no actionable intelligence. Nothing that said specific people would be boarding specific planes, hijacking them, and ramming specific buildings.

Again, B.S. You seem to be a government apologist on this issue. You're covering their rear ends here, when many of them are guilty of criminal negligence (at the very least). Why did you run away from my specifics on the last post? You said you wanted to answer some questions, so answer them big boy:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.

• Who found the passports and what time where they found?
• Please describe the condition of each passport.
• Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

• Which flights were they on, to whom did they belong?
• When and where were they found?
• Please describe their condition.

3. Did Mohammed Atta have a passport from the “Conch Republic,” a Key West, Florida group which has issued about 10,000 passports since 1993? If so, did Atta use it at any time to enter the United States? If so, when?

4. Did the records from the Conch Republic indicate that any other hijackers purchased passports from there?

5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.

I'll go ahead and answer a couple for you. Atta and al-Sugam's passports were found in pristine condition. Kind of amazing considering they allegedly survived a jet explosion and fires hot enough to melt steel... Also, no record of Atta ever using this passport to enter the United States has ever been found.

To my knowledge, no other passports or ID from any other flights were found.

Now go search for some official probability standards and tell me what the odds are that the only two passports/ID found from all 4 destroyed jets were of two of the alleged hijackers and tell me what the odds are that they would be in pristine condition. Then tell me what the odds are that it was pure chance. Get ready to write down some very big numbers.


Who are you going to trust when Conspiracy Theorists run the government?

I don't get your point here. Care to explain?

[GenSeneca]

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.

The passports were inside the luggage they had with them on the plane.

2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

There are just 5 that I have seen the CT's talk about: Two from Flight 11, one from 77 and two from 93 - 4 terrorist and 1 civilian. Of course, terrorist passport being found makes the news - Finding John Q. Public's passport wouldn't even make the local paper so its not surprising we don't have news or other media records about them. There were huge quantities of "personal effects" that were recovered from the WTC site, the Pentagon and Flight 93, all of which were returned to the families.

3. Did Mohammed Atta have a passport from the “Conch Republic,”

Its one thing to have a passport issued from the Conch Republic and its called fraud when you make your own... These guys were well funded, well connected and had many fake documents either with them or available at all times. I've seen many fake ID's in my time, to pretend like terrorists wouldn't do such a thing is silly.



5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.



Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed, he took only his carry-on, his other bags did not make it onto Flight 11.

I'll go ahead and answer a couple for you. Atta and al-Sugam's passports were found in pristine condition. Kind of amazing considering they allegedly survived a jet explosion and fires hot enough to melt steel.

1. Pristine condition made plausible:
http://www.allbonjovi.com/9-11/4yahoo.jpg
Look very closely, there is debris out in front of the fireball in each one of these segments. With the objects in motion wishing to stay in motion, much of it blew threw the other side. Heres a shot of the tower from the side so you can see exactly what it looked like:
http://algoxy.com/conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
Notice how see through the buildings are.... very little to stop debris from the plane and its impact from punching through one side and out the other... well in front of the fireball.

2. Molten Steel. Only the CT's claim that any steel was ever melted. The structural integrity needed to fail, it didn't have to melt. This is a picture of one such failed, concrete reinforced steel support beam:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/076.jpg/076-full.jpg
This is from WTC5 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf) which had much less fire damage and was able to be brought under control. Notice the concrete housing has crumbled and the steel was flexible enough with the heat and pressure to buckle.
---------------------------
I don't get your point here.
I don't mind helping set the record straight but I'm under no obligation to do so.
Here's a site you might enjoy: Debunking 9/11 (http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm)
http://www.debunking911.com/PNAC.jpg
The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.
I have more respect for these guys than the Truthers... these guys aren't selling DVD's that promote their conspiracy.

[GenSeneca]

You can find the entire video on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcA6oXoTvU&NR=1 is the link to one part, the other parts are on the side there.

This is a link to part of Zeitgeist. I want to point out how quickly the lies start flying:
0:01 About the Pentagon: "The official explanation is the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane."
Flat out LIE. The "Official Explanation" is always the strawman of the Conspiracy argument. As I have pointed out, the Pentagon was definitely hit by a plane that did not disintegrate. There was debris and I have given photos of some of it.
0:12 "It is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jetfuel."
This is TRUE but thanks to the strawman, it has tricked your mind into accepting this faulty logic as a reason to reject anything labeled "Official Explanation" as illogical.

Lets bring in an expert. Preferably someone with a PHD in Philosophy, who's selling books to make money off the tragedy of 9/11:

0:19 Dr. David Ray Griffin: "We're also told the bodies were able to be identified, either by their fingerprints or their DNA... So what kind of fire can vaporize aluminum and tempered steel, and yet leave, leave human bodies in tact?"
He uses the straw man of the "Official Explanation" to support his conclusions and confuse viewers into having doubt as to whether or not bodies were able to be identified.
Bodies were identified - piece by piece. There are witness testimonies from the people who had to collect the remains and sort them.

Its non-stop lies, fallacies, twisted logic, half-truths... serious work to unravel all this drivel.

Gonna jump ahead to the purpose for my post...

0:57 The speaker/narrator says the following:
The videos from security cameras, which would show what really hit the pentagon, were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI. And the department of Justice has to this day refused to release them. If these videos really prove the Pentagon was hit by a 757, most of us would assume the government would release them."
The videos in question total 85. The deceptive logic here is in the wording: Would Show - suggests all the videos show something other than nothing.
The DOJ does refuse to release them - because they don't show anything.
http://www.flight77.info/00new/appeal2.jpg
The important sentence: "However, It is highly unlikely that all 85 videotapes that do not show the crash of flight 77 into the pentagon will be shown..."
Thanks to your mind being opened to faulty logic, you read this as proof that there is something on the tapes thats being suppressed.
If you speed through town and the cops confiscate 85 videotapes along your route... Would they show the videos where your car doesn't even appear in the frame at your trial? Of course not, those videos don't prove you were speeding since they didn't see you.
So look again at whats said:
If these videos really prove the Pentagon was hit by a 757, most of us would assume the government would release them.
We would, what would we assume about videos that had nothing to show?
It is highly unlikely that all 85 videotapes that do not show the crash of flight 77 into the pentagon will be shown.
----------------------------------
Zeitgeist Lies

[Truth-Bringer]

The passports were inside the luggage they had with them on the plane.

Carry on luggage must be kept in the compartments above the seats. An alleged terrorist would have definitely complied with this to keep a low profile before making his move. And the passports would have been inside a zipper or locked area of the luggage. Exactly how does their luggage jettison out of the overhead compartment, (out of windows smaller than the luggage itself) and then jettison out of the luggage, plane and building in time to avoid the explosion and immediate fire? LOL. You've got to be pretty gullible to believe that.


There are just 5 that I have seen the CT's talk about: Two from Flight 11, one from 77 and two from 93 - 4 terrorist and 1 civilian. Of course, terrorist passport being found makes the news - Finding John Q. Public's passport wouldn't even make the local paper so its not surprising we don't have news or other media records about them.

Regardless, claiming they "didn't make the news" doesn't prove anything.

There were huge quantities of "personal effects" that were recovered from the WTC site, the Pentagon and Flight 93, all of which were returned to the families.

Let's see the source for the personal effects. Why didn't the passports survive if several other things did? Again, this goes back to probability. What percentage of personal effects were found in pristine condition? 90%, 50%, 10%, 5%?



Its one thing to have a passport issued from the Conch Republic and its called fraud when you make your own... These guys were well funded, well connected and had many fake documents either with them or available at all times.

Source. And let's see proof that Atta had more than one passport.


Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed, he took only his carry-on, his other bags did not make it onto Flight 11.

What about the other passengers who were delayed?


1. Pristine condition made plausible:
Look very closely, there is debris out in front of the fireball in each one of these segments. With the objects in motion wishing to stay in motion, much of it blew threw the other side. Heres a shot of the tower from the side so you can see exactly what it looked like:

Made plausible? LOL. YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY OF THAT CAME FROM INSIDE THE PLANES. It's pure speculation. Probability says it came from inside the WTC offices. And it also has to survive the collapse and thus being pelted with all sorts of rapidly falling debris, unless it again gets "miraculously" pushed out of harm's way by the wind... And if it's found at the WTC, how did it get out of harm's way???? We have yet to have this miracle explained...

The video that I've seen shows no debris coming out of either plane. They both pass complete into the building before exploding.


Notice how see through the buildings are.... very little to stop debris from the plane and its impact from punching through one side and out the other... well in front of the fireball.

That pretty picture proves nothing.


2. Molten Steel. Only the CT's claim that any steel was ever melted.

The point is that burning jet fuel is rather hot. Plenty hot enough to destroy paper/light plastic almost immediately.

[GenSeneca]

Exactly how does their luggage jettison out of the overhead compartment, (out of windows smaller than the luggage itself) and then jettison out of the luggage, plane and building in time to avoid the explosion and immediate fire?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/FEMAAircraftparts.jpg/FEMAAircraftparts-custom;size:426,582.jpg
Aircraft debris, which included baggage and contents, was spread across that area.
Probability says it came from inside the WTC offices.
Whats the probability of having American Airlines life vests laying around inside the WTC?
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCAircraftDebrisAALifeVest.tiff/WTCAircraftDebrisAALifeVest-full.jpg
The video that I've seen shows no debris coming out of either plane.
Since we know its impossible to doctor 1 video, we should all assume there was a massive government conspiracy and cover up... We should also pretend like all the videos that contradict this theory are said to be doctored fakes.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I must admit to having found this thread quite interesting, I've read all of it and followed up most of the links. I've also been reading a lot of other sites and doing follow up and I remain unconvinced of the official story. There just seem to be too many questions left unanswered. It was such a convenient act of terrorism for Mr. Bush and quite a few other people who stood to make a lot of money from the disaster.

I think that it will be very telling if we have another "convenient" act of terror just before the election this fall.

I'd like to express my appreciation to all of the people who have made substantial contributions to this thread and provided informative explanations and sources for our perusal.

One thing that puzzles me is that the two towers were damaged so differently but yet collapsed so identically--that seems very unlikely. One hit square on and one hit a glancing blow and still fall so closely to the same pattern. I find the interviews with the firemen to be persuasive as well. As long as the administration stonewalls, people will continue to question--as well they should.

Considering how much money was spent investigating Bill Clinton, I think the amount spent on investigating the 9/11 event was paltrey by comparison. Please excuse me for being suspicious, but I've been lied to before.

[Truth-Bringer]

Aircraft debris, which included baggage and contents, was spread across that area.

Pretty diagram, but again, I've seen no video footage of parts of the plane coming out of the buildings.


Whats the probability of having American Airlines life vests laying around inside the WTC?

False comparison. As we can see, the life vest clearly is not in pristine condition. There are clear black singe marks, torn areas, and it looks mangled.

What is the probability of having an American Airlines life vest laying around the WTC in pristine condition? Obviously not very good.


We should also pretend like all the videos that contradict this theory are said to be doctored fakes.

I'm simply stating a fact. I haven't seen a video that shows parts of either plane coming out of the buildings. If you have them, then let's see them.

[Truth-Bringer]

Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11: FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647)


Also, if Bush is a responsible leader, tell me why he didn't have federal law enforcement officials alert the airlines after having the report "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." on his desk that detailed their intent to hijack planes?

From the above article:

"The FAA failed to return numerous follow-up phone calls requesting to know why the rule was rescinded, who was responsible for the decision, whether a particular incident spurred the decision and whether the aviation agency believes the airlines share some culpability for never taking advantage of it in the first place."

Why can't they answer these questions?

[GenSeneca]

50:19 - 50:20 Freefall speed is mentioned...Mwahahahaha!

Zeitgeist claim: The individual floor levels in the twin towers did not impact one another to slow the rate of collapse. The movie claims the main support column was severed with explosives and all the individual floor levels fell at once, like that of a controlled demolition.

Here's a picture thats supposed to prove the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition:
http://www.northernresistance.info/pic/wtc911_2.gif

Here's a picture you didn't see in Zeitgeist:
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa213/j4m3zz/Iron.jpg
You can clearly see the steel worker in the background on a marklift. Look closer and you see that he is holding an acetyline torch - used for cutting steel beams. This accounts for the angular cuts and the molten steel.

Now onto why "FreeFall" speed is so hilarious an accusation:

Look closely at the debris in this photo
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/fsn/wtc1exp2_s.jpg
FreeFall speed suggests the towers fell completely unimpeded - not impacting floor after floor as the building collapsed. But as you can see, the debris is falling much faster than the building. In fact, the debris has been blown OUT hundreds of feet away from the building and still manages to fall to earth faster than the building.
In this next photo, you can see a large chunk of the building falling just as the collapse began:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc1mush_s.jpg
Now had the towers truly fallen at free fall speeds as alleged, this chunk would be falling at the same rate as the building itself... You can see thats clearly not the case.



Learn some facts and stop repeating the lies.