Anyone seen Zeistgeist?
Offline I really enjoyed this DVD because they basically proved that christianity was derived symbolically from astrology. There's 3 seperate sections and religion is first. The second is on September 11 being an inside job, and the 3rd is about the Federal Reserve.
This 3rd part really got to me because they talked about how there's NO law in existance that says you 'have' to pay taxes, or something like that. How the Federal Reserve isn't part of our government, and is as federal as Federal Express.
They also brought up a good point about DEBT! The Federal Reserve tags on an amount of interest to every bill/money they lend out to the country/world - on top of the value that you have to put in for the money itself. So the question they have you ask yourself is where does the money come from to pay off this Interest/Debt?
Slimm,
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,
- Login to post comments
Offline Yes. This 'supposition' is clearly supported by all evidence. From every angle, the aircraft penetrate straight through either tower. This means that whatever structures would've been obstructring their paths, including the steel core columns that every 'Truther' hoists as their holy grail, was either destroyed or severely warped (if they were able to resist the impact and remain intact, the aircraft would not have penetrated through the building. See elementary ballistics for further information.
I wouldn't doubt that such an impact would warp (locally) the steel core. However, neither aircraft "penetrated through". They were torn to shreds as they passed through, spitting debris out the other side. This isn't hard to swallow, 'Truthist' or not.
On top of that, the aircraft exploded while inside the building, after the fuselage had penetrated the structure, rather than simply exploding against it - acting like a modern bunker buster of sorts. The core supports would've been naked against the lateral blast, suffering trauma from not only the force of the explosion itself but also from all kinds of high-velocity shrapnel.
Wait, I thought you just - - what? Anyway, so you've got a very local portion of the steel core yielding to the initial force of the explosion, and a few floors torn up. Whoop-dee-doo. And if that portion of the core was damaged so badly, why didn't the floors abive shift? At all? Just asking questions.
Correct. Where else was it going to go? It couldn't remain upright, since the columns failed. It couldn't fall to one side, because it's center of gravity wouldn't have allowed it to. The only place left was straight down, and that's where it went.
Well, sir, that's the heart of the dispute, isn't it? It's all about how the majority of the core was compromised so quickly that the building would collapse at near free-fall speed.
Incorrect. This is an example of one of the many naked assertions 'Truthers' tend to make, based on statements they're heard or read, directly contrary to the evidence actually at the scene. There was plenty of debris that hadn't been powderized, and so much photographic evidence for it that you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to have seen it.
Oh, please. I got excited while writing. Listen to what I'm implying. Why wouldn't I get excited about that? I know everything didn't evaporate to dust.
Again, incorrect. I've pointed-out countless times to people that make this claim that footage of the building collapses very clearly shows core columns still standing in the air for some time after the destruction has raced past them, finally kinking-over in submission to the savage forces surrounding them as the final stages of the collapse are finally reached.
Now you're just cherry-picking footage. I know what you're talking about. The spire footage. There was a <b>small</b>, thin portion of the core still standing for a little while. Wow! Conspiracy theory has been completely debunked!! I shouldn't have said "desintegrated" . . . I didn't know it would be taken so literally. Sorry!
The 'Twin' Towers, while not exactly identical, were very similar in design. The fact that they collapsed in a similar fashion, following similar incidents, should hardly blow your mind. Building 7 did not collapse due to fire. Building 7 was more or less directly in the way of the lateral force the WTC towers exterted as they fell, and it's foundation was literally shaken to bits as a result.
First, you didn't really make a point. Either they both collapsed as an end result from the plane impacts, or they both collapsed by demolition. Either way, they would follow a similar pattern. The difference is the one theory (that they collapsed purely by events instigated by the plane impacts) relies on many more variables for an identical collapse than the latter theory.
Building 7. Are you joking? Have you even <b>seen</b> the footage of it?
*Sigh*The conclusion doesn't make the remotest bit of sense.
It doesn't?
What would perpetuating such a scheme have done for President Bush? Made him some money? Earn him influence? Last I checked, he already had plenty of both. It also just basically assumes that Bush is some megalomaniacal monster, and - while I think Bush is an awful lot of pretty awful things - I don't think that's a fair accusation given the evidence we're looking at. Yes, 9/11 was used as a pretext to go to war with Iraq. You're stretching the logic that supports such an argument, however, by also tacking-on the idea that 9/11 was therefore planned / orchestrated by Bush.
Did I ever say that I thought it was "all orchestrated by Bush"? Do you really think that I'm one of those idiots that thinks "the president runs the whole show" and "calls all the shots"?
- Login to post comments
Offline for those proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, take a look at the following links. they are aimed at loose change however the subjects within should carry over into statements made in zeigeist and 9/11 conspiracies in general:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
there should be sufficient evidence in these for a great deal of consideration at the very least. enjoy
When god gives you lemons you FIND A NEW GOD 1 Thessalonians 5:21
<My art> <not my art><MS>
- Login to post comments
Offline I wouldn't doubt that such an impact would warp (locally) the steel core. However, neither aircraft "penetrated through". They were torn to shreds as they passed through, spitting debris out the other side. This isn't hard to swallow, 'Truthist' or not.
Note the direction that the aircraft is heading. Now note the direction of the explosion as it rips out the opposite side of WTC 2. The impact very clearly cuts straight on through the building (given the kinetic force we're dealing with, it should come as no surprise).
Wait, I thought you just - - what? Anyway, so you've got a very local portion of the steel core yielding to the initial force of the explosion, and a few floors torn up. Whoop-dee-doo. And if that portion of the core was damaged so badly, why didn't the floors abive shift? At all? Just asking questions.
You thought I just...?
Made you look stupid? Used my brain? Demonstrated at least elementary level knowledge of newtonian physics? Used empircal evidence to support my statement?
Guilty as charged.
Refer back to the photos above for a moment. Do you see all of the mass above the impact point? That entire load, given that we've established localized destruction to the core columns at the impact point, is now unstable. The beams holding it to the rest of the building below have been compromised, which means we now have a lot of weight up in the air that gravity would like to bring to the Earth - and no steady force to resist it.
WTC 1 is in slightly better shape, given that the plane hit much further up. I would imagine - though this is merely speculation on my part - that WTC 1's demise was far more a result of it's proximity to WTC 2 thundering fall than the jetliner collision.
Well, sir, that's the heart of the dispute, isn't it? It's all about how the majority of the core was compromised so quickly that the building would collapse at near free-fall speed.
The 'majority of the core' didn't need to be. The unstable top load (above the impact point) started falling, creating a chain reaction throughout the structure below. Because the localized collapse happened so high up, right on top of the building below, it violently impacted everything on it's way down. The 'freefall, uniform collapse' is also a laughable myth.
The top load visibly crumples to one side (the side the aircraft had done the most damage to) and falls 'into' the structure below that it has effectively pried a gigantic hole in the top of. Structure remains plainly visible even as the most violent damage races offscreen, failing on it's own and crumpling downward at chaotic intervals. How does this, again, fit any kind of controlled demolition model?
Oh, please. I got excited while writing. Listen to what I'm implying. Why wouldn't I get excited about that? I know everything didn't evaporate to dust.
Translation: I'm now going to start backpedaling on my argument.
Now you're just cherry-picking footage. I know what you're talking about. The spire footage. There was a <b>small</b>, thin portion of the core still standing for a little while. Wow! Conspiracy theory has been completely debunked!! I shouldn't have said "desintegrated" . . . I didn't know it would be taken so literally. Sorry!
Take a look at the footage of I just linked to above. It's hard to say I 'cherry-picked' that one, given that it's the ABC public news footage from the day. There are very large pieces of the building that remain upright in the cloud of debris even after the destruction has gone passed them. The notion of a global, symmetrical, freefall collapse is garbage - it was a series of rapid local collapses, over a brief period of time, that brought the entire structure down in a chain reaction.
If that's not good enough, fine - you pick the footage, and we'll look at that instead.
I'll also take a moment to point out that saying, "The entire structure disintegrated," is not a metaphorical statement. How am I supposed to read that, other than literally?
First, you didn't really make a point. Either they both collapsed as an end result from the plane impacts, or they both collapsed by demolition. Either way, they would follow a similar pattern. The difference is the one theory (that they collapsed purely by events instigated by the plane impacts) relies on many more variables for an identical collapse than the latter theory.
Building 7. Are you joking? Have you even <b>seen</b> the footage of it?
The buildings collapsed due to smilar mechanisms. This is reflected in the appearance of said collapses. There's not much else to be discussed here, since there is no compelling evidence that demolition explosives were used to bring the towers down.
Yes, I have seen the WTC 7 footage. Over, and over again. Have you bothered looking at the lateral debris flows that destroyed every structure within the WTC complex, overturned cars, maimed people on the ground and caused extensive damage to nearby buildings? Because they're a pretty likely candidate for doing the kind of structural damage needed to compromise the cantilever truss design of WTC 7, causing it to largely fall through the street.
It doesn't?
Nope. As you concede to below...
Did I ever say that I thought it was "all orchestrated by Bush"? Do you really think that I'm one of those idiots that thinks "the president runs the whole show" and "calls all the shots"?
Oh, these are always classic.
So, tell us - which evil cabal should we be directing our attention to ad cowering in the shadow of? The mass media? Satanic cults? The Oen World Government conspirators? Corporate America?
Perk your ears, guys. This oughta be a good one.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Please, can someone explain me, what does it mean for the steel core to be "compromized" and to "crumble"? I think that's incoherent with common sense. I think you all the time assume something, which can't be true. Please don't use ordinary fallacies and medical diagnoses like "idiot". They don't carry any informartive value, just that you're nervous. Just read what I have to say and maybe there is something I've missed. Something, that completely refutes the "controversial" view of the event and precisely supports the official version. Like that at the same moment and time there was a leak of different physical laws from an alternative dimension, that would really back it up.
Did anyone here ever got in touch with a metal more closely? Is it just me? I have a larger and well furnished workshop at home, and attended a technically oriented school, so I know a bit, how it is like with a metal. But even a coil of wire would be sufficient. As you would know, iron (steel even more) is pretty tough material. It's very flexible, you can bend it, pull it, and so on. A metal can carry much more of other metal. It's strong enough to hold itself and a lot of additional weight. It doesn't break, it's not brittle, it won't crumble. (only when it's deeply frozen)
When exposed to a force, a metal will bend, eventually tear, by a pulling force, it won't be a significant weakening of the structure, but accustoming the structure according to a force. A heat also doesn't make the metal become brittle, but softer, thus again bending, not crumbling. But here's not a fire, which would have a time to heat up the metal to change it's structure enough to cause the effect. The impact of a plane, as for it's effect on buildings, is irrelevant. The buildings were projected to withstand several such impacts. And they did - before they were kind of milled to dust.
Why the buildings crumbled into themselves? Let's make an experiment. Take a pencil, for example, hold it on both ends and then try to break it by pushing both ends towards each other. If you're an averagely strong keyboard writer, you won't make it, you won't make the pencil crumble into itself. Breaking it in the middle by holding it on both ends is not easy too. Even if you make it, you'd have to use immensely more force than for holding the pencil in front of you, so it wouldn't crumble by own weight. And that's just a damn wooden pencil, what a steel would be like?
Something, that holds it's own weight with a great reserve, can not crumble into itself by own weight + mere one airplane. The way both WTC towers collapsed is exactly like you'd try to crumble a whole bulk of a pencil by pressing on it's top. In reality, such an object would just bend on a side, or fall flat across the landscape (or table), it would never remain vertical in progress of being crumbled in most of it's volume.
As it was mentioned in the film, both buildings carried own weight for all the time of their existence, without a problem, and swayed flexibly in the wind. Such a structure is not rigid and extremely brittle, as the observed fall would require. From the distance the fall looked like the buildings crumbled like a dust, like half-empty shells, by a speed of a free fall. No building, which crumbled and fell like this, could withstand numerous storms and wind, or just standing by decades.
Not even a sand castle, which is full of sand, can fall like this, but the sand falls all around, into the sides, never into itself, there's just no space. There is a space within a steel grid structure, but it's like a space in a metal spring. It's there, until you presss it, then it deforms. The skyscrapers were not pressed, they crumbled on tiny pieces (compared to the skyscraper size) by their own weight. They were not pressed at all, there was no deformation. Just crumbling. It's impossible for a steel to have so many places of breaking, caused by a simple pressure (of approximately it's own weight). If there would be any pressure, the buildings couldn't wholly crumble into themselves. There was just a free fall of small pieces of buildings, no bending or deformation at all. Absolutely nothing opposed the fall, all the density and flexibility of full 3D steel cage, which held it for decades waving in storms, just ceased to exist. Metal doesn't behave like that.
Really, the leak of physical laws from alternative dimension is the only explanation I can imagine.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm willing to accepting the possiblity that I'm wrong but I kinda think that 9/11 could have been an inside job. I'm not the type of person who goes around believing in crazy things, but it seems like too many crazy things went on that day. Crazy things like those debre fields and that tiny missle size hole in the pentagon just made me question everything.
And I even heard that that most of the 9/11 hijackers were still alive, some just normal people wondering why they were on the list to begin with.
The only thing that stops me from really believing this is why would the people running the federal reserve and the government even do all this in the first place?
Slimm,
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,
- Login to post comments
Offline What if the national debt is a reason for this all?
On the Black Thursday, the total financial lose was 11,25 billions.
The US national debt is today over 9 trillions of dollars. Black Thursday was bad, but it's nothing, compared to the national debt. Such a threat of financial crisis may be a reason to become really desperate. To hell with world peace, when a lower American life style standard threatens America.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline Please, can someone explain me, what does it mean for the steel core to be "compromized" and to "crumble"?
Steel + burning jet fuel + time = weak steel
A heat also doesn't make the metal become brittle, but softer, thus again bending, not crumbling. But here's not a fire, which would have a time to heat up the metal to change it's structure enough to cause the effect. The impact of a plane, as for it's effect on buildings, is irrelevant. The buildings were projected to withstand several such impacts. And they did - before they were kind of milled to dust.
1) Don't forget the concrete. 2) Being designed to survive a slow moving plane that is low on fuel (You know, like a plane lost in fog arriving at an airport) is not the same thing as being designed to survive a plane moving at high speed filled with fuel. 3) I don't recall hearing the WTC being hit by a plane several times before...
Why the buildings crumbled into themselves? Let's make an experiment. Take a pencil, for example, hold it on both ends and then try to break it by pushing both ends towards each other.
Too bad there are considerable differences between a pencil the size of an office building and an office building -- you know, like the offices? Especially one designed to maximize available office space (i.e. reduce the number of support columns on the floor)....
If you're an averagely strong keyboard writer, you won't make it, you won't make the pencil crumble into itself. Breaking it in the middle by holding it on both ends is not easy too. Even if you make it, you'd have to use immensely more force than for holding the pencil in front of you, so it wouldn't crumble by own weight. And that's just a damn wooden pencil, what a steel would be like?
You mean steel that has been weakened to a fraction of its normal strength? You mean steel that is under extra load because of the damaged outer skin of the building (which also carried the buildings weight)?
As it was mentioned in the film, both buildings carried own weight for all the time of their existence, without a problem, and swayed flexibly in the wind. Such a structure is not rigid and extremely brittle, as the observed fall would require. From the distance the fall looked like the buildings crumbled like a dust, like half-empty shells, by a speed of a free fall. No building, which crumbled and fell like this, could withstand numerous storms and wind, or just standing by decades.
They are engineered to withstand storms and wind. Being hit by a plane like that is really outside of the domain they were designed for. The buildings standing for as long as they did goes to show how well designed they were.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
- Login to post comments
Offline Haven't seen it yet, heck I hadn't even heard of it until now. But I will try to find it now. Good luck to me,huh.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey guys. just thought I'd say that it was entertaining reading this thread. some good points made here.
But with regards to 9/11 you have it all wrong. Kevin R Brown you had some nice attempts at defending the offical story. Tell me if you have any answers to this - go on have a read through I dare you.
- Login to post comments
Offline Damn Reptoids... *smokes a bowl with ed23*
Seriously. Our president can't even get a blowjob in his office without getting busted. You think the government was able to pull this shit off with nary a thing coming to light?
srsly, you guys. *shakes head*
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
- Login to post comments
Offline Crazy things like those debre fields and that tiny missle size hole in the pentagon just made me question everything.
I strongly urge you to find the ENTIRE picture that you're referring to. I saw the same thing, and thought, "yeah, that's strange; why is there only that little hole?" Off to the left, in the UNCROPPED part of the picture, there's a giant freaking hole the shape of a warped, burning plane. Then, once you've seen that, and all the credibility of the people who cropped that picture melts away, you may feel as annoyed as I did with them.
The only thing that stops me from really believing this is why would the people running the federal reserve and the government even do all this in the first place?
That just means you're keeping your sanity.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey Zeitgeist is not the movie i think is perfect or something. Just with regards to 9/11. it was a hoax. do the research and face the reality it's not hard. it's not like I believe that Bush is behind everything. Government conspiracies do happen. Look at the Iran-Contra affair which is important because many of the people involved were given immunity and pardoned by Bush Snr and Clinton and are still in government today. The neoconservatives are definitley involved.
I wanted to post a link but I forgot to or it didn't work. i'l try again. anyway, if you really are the open and critically-minded rational atheistic beings that you all say you are then you will at least give this paper a chance by reading it:
www.rys2sense.com/hub/get/post/articles.php
it's based on real facts and evidence. many of the problems that people have is that they don't believe they can cover it up, they CAN. The linked document proves it. watching docs like 9/11 mysteries wouldn't seem so stupid if you actually understood the politics behind it and how the media works.
- Login to post comments
Most of the first section on religion and Christianity paints a pretty picture for Astrology being a symbolic foundation of Christianity. I think the majority of the info they cite on that is from Acharya S, which according to Rook, is not really attested by anyone else or real scholarship for that matter. I did find the Horus/Jesus parallels interesting, along with the book of the dead's "commandments."
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
The claims made in Zeitgeist are largely fictional and sensational. I would not trust them (in fact I do not trust them). An entertaining movie does not make it a historically credible or accurate movie. The God Who Wasn't There was much more accurate and credible, but if you want information about Jesus never existing, your best bet is to read books by scholars who know what they're talking about. Thomas L. Thompson, Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, to name a few.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Watched it several times.
The first part of the movie is not good scholarship, which largely means it only hurts the position of those looking to actually criticize the historical accuracy according to the Bible / the figure the of Jesus.
The second part I sympathize with, if only because I recognize that the U.S. government did a piss poor job of investigating the 9/11 attack and WTC collapses. 'Pancake theory' is rather bad science. However, NIST (who did a fantastic job of analyzing and modelling each collapse) has been able to demonstrate more or less unquestionably that buildings fell due to structural damage (WTC 1 & 2 having their central cores maimed by the aircraft impacts, each plane exploding against the core columns like an aluminum shotgun shell and pasting them with molten aluminum, WTC 7 being bulldozed by one of the massive debris flows that surged away from the towers as they fell). Yes, the investigating done by the government was sloppy, and yes, the attacks were used as an excuse to invade Iraq. But it's a mile long stretch to suggest explosives were actually planted in the building.
The third part is 'One World Government' bullshit, based on retarded claims spouted by eccentric windbags like the Rockefellers and by demonizing brilliant concepts like international cooperation. And every time I hear somebody talk about Pearl Harbor like it was a terrible atrocity, I feel like cleaning their clock. Yes, FDR probably knew it was coming. He was also smart enough to know that it would garner him the public support he'd need to head to Europe and open the western front, and to know what assets to keep in the Harbor as juicy but irrelevent targets (battleships) and what to put on other errands (aircraft carriers). If Pearl hadn't gone down, and the United States hadn't entered the war until either Germany or (more likely) the Soviet Union had conquered all of Europe, what then? It was just another of many 'less shitty' decisions that was mad during that rather gloomy episode of human history.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I'm glad to see that you guys approached this movie with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Yes, it's entertaining. No, it's not good scholarship.
What I don't want to see is us (as a group, as a community) fall into the same line as the theist, that of latching onto ANYTHING that vaguely supports our position, regardless of its credibility. This is how christions get to supporting the likes of Kent Hovind or Michael Behe. It's how they end up looking ridiculous.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
There are long exchanges on this site between skeptics and the main source used for Zeitgeist 1, "Archarya S"/Dorothy Murdock, and her minions, the results of which anyone can judge for themselves. One thing that is certain, and provable, is a concerted effort was made on their forums to register here en masse and try to proselytize Acharya's "work." My take is that it's feel-good pop-scholarship for new-agers who want to call themselves atheists, but also want to hold on to astrology and other assorted bullshit.
That pretty much sums it up, actually.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The "documentary" was pretty persuasive, and while watching it I was thinking "maybe 911 was an inside job", but just to be sure I did a basic googlee and youtube search of 911 conspiracy debunked, and found that all the claims made in the film can be refuted quite effectively. It pays to be skeptical, I reckons.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
Which parts of the movie are you all talking about? The religion part seemed accurate, and the Federal Reserve stuff too. But I don't know about the 9/11 piece...
Slimm,
I thought the first religion part was a helpful kick in shins to the xain god, and the whole movie did bring on needed debate ..... So thanks Z. My old buddy atheist Jesus brought a sword ! ~
Communicate !
Atheism Books.
The whole part on astrotheology is a joke. They are careless, uncritical, and speculative. They are just downright irresponsible positions to claim on the part of the movie makers and the original "scholarship" the movie is based on.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
9/11 'Truth' arguments are bunk because they all hinge on one rediculous statement made by 9/11 commission investigators at the outset of their findings:
'The building collapses were due to fire'.
The argument is laughable, and very representational of the kind of sloppy investigating and reporting that was initially done. To point at obviously sloppy investigation and then yell, "Conspiracy!" is rather irrational, to say the least. If those involved in the 'Truth' movement would go the small amount of troubel to read the publicly available NIST reports, they'd find much better investigating and perfectly sound reasoning for the building collapses.
Though, I sometimes seriously wonder: are we too stupid now to figure-out on our own why WTC 1 & 2 fell?
The jets were cruising merrily along at some hundreds of miles an hour, and acting like gigantic aluminum sabot rounds that would've scattered in an almost shotgun-blast like fashion inside the building and tore-up every structural member in sight. The only thing remarkable about the collapses at all was that the buildings were able to remain standing as long as they did - something the architects should be rather proud of.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Sharping the peoples "Sword" (debate) is good , and for that, the Z movie was a plus, like a news report of "ideas" floating around to examine. The use or borrowing and parallels in astrology and religion was interesting. The 911 and Federal Reserve Bank questions, ideas etc are an important necessary check and balance.
IMO, 911 conspiracy is mostly silly, and the FRB etc does piss me off, ..... and so thanks movie Z for reminding me and the neighbors .... All swords welcomed ..... get it on .....
Atheism Books.
A plane, crashing into the uppermost portion of a giant tower, supposedly compromises the integrity of the tower's inner steel core, which is built in a cascaded (and efficient) fashion. As a result, the building collapses into itself, desintegrating everything along the way, or at least exposing that most of the structure's crucial elements had practically desintegrated shortly beforehand.
This happens to two towers, in an identical fashion. Then another building (7) collapses into itself after a 2-or-so-story fire - perfectly - with a kink in the middle and an accelerated drop, a la a coordinated demolition.
Bullshit. 9/11 was an inside job. It's really a no-brainer. Why such an event would be orchestrated is a no-brainer as well: the system is human.
.... That would take alot of people to then keep it still secret ? On the other hand, Do I trust the gov and rich?, F no .... Was there forehand knowledge of the attack ? I don't know , but I wouldn't be surprised if there was ..... "Eat the Rich" .....
Atheism Books.
You are an idiot, and have never BEEN a firefighter... Buildings 'pancake' frequently...big ones, small ones...the effect is a wave propagation application.
Only a moron would assume that other morons (in the Bush Administration) could orchestrate and pull off in total secrecy, the murder of thousands of american citizens.
DAMN! I get tired of the loonies ...
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Yes. This 'supposition' is clearly supported by all evidence. From every angle, the aircraft penetrate straight through either tower. This means that whatever structures would've been obstructring their paths, including the steel core columns that every 'Truther' hoists as their holy grail, was either destroyed or severely warped (if they were able to resist the impact and remain intact, the aircraft would not have penetrated through the building. See elementary ballistics for further information.
On top of that, the aircraft exploded while inside the building, after the fuselage had penetrated the structure, rather than simply exploding against it - acting like a modern bunker buster of sorts. The core supports would've been naked against the lateral blast, suffering trauma from not only the force of the explosion itself but also from all kinds of high-velocity shrapnel.
Correct. Where else was it going to go? It couldn't remain upright, since the columns failed. It couldn't fall to one side, because it's center of gravity wouldn't have allowed it to. The only place left was straight down, and that's where it went.
Incorrect. This is an example of one of the many naked assertions 'Truthers' tend to make, based on statements they're heard or read, directly contrary to the evidence actually at the scene. There was plenty of debris that hadn't been powderized, and so much photographic evidence for it that you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to have seen it.
Again, incorrect. I've pointed-out countless times to people that make this claim that footage of the building collapses very clearly shows core columns still standing in the air for some time after the destruction has raced past them, finally kinking-over in submission to the savage forces surrounding them as the final stages of the collapse are finally reached.
The 'Twin' Towers, while not exactly identical, were very similar in design. The fact that they collapsed in a similar fashion, following similar incidents, should hardly blow your mind. Building 7 did not collapse due to fire. Building 7 was more or less directly in the way of the lateral force the WTC towers exterted as they fell, and it's foundation was literally shaken to bits as a result.
*Sigh*
The conclusion doesn't make the remotest bit of sense. What would perpetuating such a scheme have done for President Bush? Made him some money? Earn him influence? Last I checked, he already had plenty of both. It also just basically assumes that Bush is some megalomaniacal monster, and - while I think Bush is an awful lot of pretty awful things - I don't think that's a fair accusation given the evidence we're looking at. Yes, 9/11 was used as a pretext to go to war with Iraq. You're stretching the logic that supports such an argument, however, by also tacking-on the idea that 9/11 was therefore planned / orchestrated by Bush.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Just FYI, frighteningly enough, it takes surprisingly little time, effort and manpower to rig a building with explosives.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Yes, but the secret part ? BTW , I really literally despise the rich controllers ....
Atheism Books.
Well, that's not very nice.
Well, that is very true.
I wouldn't doubt it. How often do they get hit by planes?
Strawman. Brilliant. Just for your information - the victims of 9/11 weren't murdered "in secret".
Tell me about it!
LC >;-}>