Yes , Zeitgeist is great movie ... eye opening ... its shame that some people believe only in what TV says , and we all know that the 99% of the big media`s are working under government contol ... I CANT SAY that 100% of the Zeitgeist is true .. but in 9/11 there are too many coincidences ... its worth to ask your self some questions and to get as much independant information as u can ...
You obviously missed the point of my post. I hate the Bush admin as much as any red blooded American should, so I'm willing to believe it if you connect them to the Nazi regime and imply that he is a direct relative of Hitler himself. My point was that the document you attached was making a statement of fact (Change happens slowly without a catostrophic event), not a statement of advice or intent (We should blow up one of our own buildings to bring change around more rapidly). This is a perfect example of the type of leap of faith "truthers" make in order to ignore the voluminous evidence to the contrary. Whatever floats your boat man.
One clever guy, that is what I wanted to say that Zeitgeist is great movie. I don`t want anyone to be angry, just wanted you to see it and comment about it. Thanks! - SeoHawk
You obviously missed the point of my post. I hate the Bush admin as much as any red blooded American should, so I'm willing to believe it if you connect them to the Nazi regime and imply that he is a direct relative of Hitler himself. My point was that the document you attached was making a statement of fact (Change happens slowly without a catostrophic event), not a statement of advice or intent (We should blow up one of our own buildings to bring change around more rapidly). This is a perfect example of the type of leap of faith "truthers" make in order to ignore the voluminous evidence to the contrary. Whatever floats your boat man.
9/11 may not have happened before, but other buildings have collapsed. And many controlled demolitions have been recorded. All you have to do is spend a little time on youtube. Check this out: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
Briant, may I remind you, that you do not understand "heat" and it's effects on metal??? And, if you don't understand something that SIMPLE, how can we expect you to understand the complexities of the vector calculus involved in controlled demolitions? Because, Briant, may I remind you, that you do not understand "heat" and it's effects on metal???
Corwin, there are plenty of people with PH.D.'s in Physics that disagree with you. But, I'm sure you know more than them huh?
Really??? Sounds like more spin from hostlonestar. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Steel melts at 2750°F. Steel loses 50% of it's strength at 1100°F. Name these Ph.Ds that disagree with me on the effects of heat on steel. Name them, please. Name these Ph.Ds in Physics that think steel doesn't lose 50% it's strength at 1100°F. Name them. Name these Ph.Ds, please. If there are "plenty" of Ph.Ds that disagree that steel loses half it's strength at 1100°F, then name them. You claim there are plenty of Ph.Ds that diagree that steel loses half it's strength at 1100°F. Fine. NAME THEM! And, oh - don't forget to include their statement. I assume that you are smart enough to not just name "Charles E. Neidermier, Ph.D" without a traceable and authoritative cite, right? NAME THEM!
This issuses have been discussed at length. The bottom line is that people should just LOOK AT THE COLLAPSES. Then look at controlled demolitions, then look at other collapses caused by fire. Here is a building that collapsed from fire effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4aKQXJtBdE Here are some controlled demolitions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1qgx95SFds&feature=related Oops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&feature=fvw I linked to WTC 7 falling in an earlier post. Compare and contrast and you can read much commentary about this subject elsewhere. I'm not able to post about it much here because I stuggle to log on to this site for some reason--this has been going on for months (I tried to post this reply a couple of days ago). Again the information and the debates have been going on for years. The bottom line is tha the goverment story is full of holes and NIST can't even pretent to explain WTC 7. Look around the internet and use your own discernment.
I found this thread a bit interesting, but I feel I have to step in and say something. First of all, Corwin, you should feel lucky that this part of the forum is not moderated by any moderators, for your personal attacks are not only unnecessary, but quite childish as well. I am seriously beginning to question your age due to your lack of maturity and civility that the rest of us are showing each other when we don't agree with one another. Second, you claim that you have engineering degree's and that it took you only 30 seconds to know what happened to the buildings. I would like to say that I don't care if you "sat through three semesters" of "Statics and Dynamics" and "Stress and Strength of Materials", or if your grandma is a really smart person and doesn't think there was any foul play -- that doesn't prove ANYTHING. I sat through 6 years of American History and guess what? I didn't learn a f*cking thing. And the statement of "having to sit through" anything, by itself implies that, in whole or in part, it's something you had no real interest in from the beginning. Any Joe Shmoe on the internet can claim they have an Engineering degree. In fact, I can claim that I'm the creator of Sponge Bob Square Pants --> doesn't mean its true. Notwithstanding the fact that you STILL have YET to provide ANY CREDIBLE, let alone ACTUAL, credentials that you are demanding from the rest of us. All you have said is "I sat through 3 semesters of stuff, so I'm the expert..Therefore you need to listen to me" <-- of course, I'm paraphrasing. Third, the only source you seem to cite is "Popular Mechanics" and immediately try to make the relation that 9-11 skeptics are also known to try to disprove gravity. Oh, and that 9-11 skeptics are brainwashed conspiracy buffs who don't believe in logic. I'm sorry, but those kind of comparisons might work on your friends, and the majority of the population, but not me. And citing "Popular Mechanics" for disproving 9-11 myths is like citing Microsoft's reasons why you shouldn't use Linux. Fourth, you are going on and on about "Do you know what heat does to metal?" and "It's SIMPLE" and "You don't understand" etc. Well, Mr. Expert, why don't you school us on the physics and mechanics of what you so broadly describe as "SIMPLE". I am definitely willing to learn, listen, and assimilate your knowledge on the subject. Oh, and DO cite your sources. "Cuz I said so" doesn't work with the majority of us. And try not to make Popular Mechanics your biggest argument. If you can do that I, personally, will take you more seriously. /end of rant
Don't give us a homework assignment, about things you can't discuss intelligently. I've "compared and contrasted", and you are WRONG. And, if you refuse to read and comment on the authoritative Popular Mechanics article, which cites sources and HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE, then how can you expect us to look at your unscientific, illogical, and completely non-authoritative lying links? What you are promoting is NOT science - what you are promoting is propaganda. Your constant reference to links filled with lies is simple and obvious proof that you don't understand it enough to even discuss the subject. No. It hasn't. Your posts are as inaccurate and as filled with propaganda as the lying links you promote.
What was the reason for the government to supposedly going with 9/11? The create new buildings? No, monuments would take the place of the buildings. To go to war? No, they could blow a hole in a battleship if they wanted to. To destroy documents? No, shredders and furnaces would take care of that. We all saw the angular cuts at the base of the buildings where the beams held up the buildings. Was that a fluke?
Corwin when you grow up and stop acting like a kid, and provide a source for your "expertise" I will provide you sources, until then, go do your own research, apparently "college" didn't do anything for you. When you stop attacking everyone that disagrees with you, you may get me to link to some things here for you.
Translation: hostlonestar has absolutely no PhDs to cite. His claim that there are "plenty" of Ph.Ds out there that support his conspiracy story is as baseless as his facts.
(sarcasm=on)Well, gee, it's comforting to know that you won't be engaging in personal attacks...(sarcasm=off) Calling a liar a liar is not a personal attack. It's a statement of truth. No, it doesn't prove anything. That's why I discussed the characteristics of steel when heat is applied - THAT proved EVERYTHING. Or, did you just decide to ignore that, hmmm??? Maybe you should get your money back. And I am seriously beginning to question your age due to your lack of maturity in your use of profanity. Did I demand credentials from anyone? I've looked over my past posts and I don't see any where I am demanding credentials from anyone. However, I DO expect that people back up their statements. If someone claims that there are plenty of PhDs that supports their position, am I out of line in asking for that person to name those PhDs? And, if that person runs crying into a corner when they are caught in their lie (because their are no Ph.Ds for them to cite), am I wrong for calling them out on their lie? No, you are not paraphrasing, you are lying, No, you are lying. I made the sarcastic remark that next, conspiracy nuts would try to disprove gravity. The response to that was the formula for gravity. I thought it was a good-natured response and got a hearty chuckle out of it. The Popular Mechanics article has been widely considered to the the final answer to the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. It is detailed, it is authoritative, it lists extensive references, and is widely referenced. It's accuracy and authority is unquestioned in the scientific community. Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11. It lists over SIXTY experts in Engineering, Avionics, policemen, and more. it pulls together a myriad of reports and professional analysis into one, easy to understand document. And yes, it lists many Ph.Ds, including: Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, President, Airsafe Foundation Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics, University of California, San Diego Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director, Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California, San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology This is a list of Ph.Ds (and one Doctor of Science) that have meticulously examined the evidence and contributed to the Popular Mechanics article on debunking 9/11 conspiracies. Their credentials can be easily verified by a simple web search. These experts have concluded that the collapse of the WTC was caused solely by two planes slamming into the towers.
I wouldn't bother to give you a homework assignment. When I post here, I am well aware that the people who already "know it all" don't care what I say and sure don't need homework assignments. The point is other people are reading and more and more of them know that the official 9/11 story is bogus. As for your Popular Mechanics article, which I and many others (who read it years ago) know is bogus and which has been skewered time and again, was written by a guy named Chertoff. And yes he is related to Michael Chertoff. But neither of them knew it. How about that! Here's a tidbit for the truth seekers: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X Just read the reviews and comments on the reviews; you'll get an idea of how these debates usually go.
Nope. Merely a statement of fact. You are attacking anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with you. Makes a lot of people doubt whether or not you have actually even graduated high school, let alone sat through any college course. As I said, when you can stop attacking people, I'll post ya some links. But, apparently they didn't teach reading in your college you went to. Either that or you are grasping for something that isn't there. If I need my posts "translated" I'll ask, but, its a forum, I don't have any reason to not put what I mean to say. Not like I'm afraid of some kid sitting at his mom's computer hunting me down .
Translation: hostlonestar has absolutely no PhDs to cite. He's reduced to sad rhetoric, pleading for help. Poor guy, he's completely cornered.
Wow. I provide a long list of Ph.Ds, along with their titles and credentials, that have examined the 9/11 evidence and concluded that the collapse was caused by two planes flying into the buildings. And, the opposing authorities Briant as cited is (drum roll, please) "a guy named Chertoff" Wow. Doesn't sound like an expert to me. Doesn't sound like he has a first name, either. "a guy named Chertoff". Thanks for the extensive references and fact-checking.