Was 11 sep fake? Is Jesus the sun? Does Banks control the world?

[RED BARON]

This movie contains a number of facts we know is true, we see movie clips from CNN and so. And they actualy convience you.

You should realy see this movie

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

It is actualy more then a wake up.

Feel free to be critic, discus or similar here in this tread
But see the movie
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

You get some answears which actualy explains many things you maybe wondered about.
But also dont take everything for true, judge it.

But see it!

Is is proved the fact with jesus, but does you believe it?

 

[GST_Nemisis]

yeh there is alot of consipiracy around all of it, tbh im not sure what to believe about anythings anymore. so long as i got steak and counter strike im happy.

 

[DarkDenizen]

No, no, not steak and counter strike, it's pizza, caffeine and counter strike. Regarding 9-11, I'm a bit skeptical as to it being a hoax. Not sure even the people in our government would see the logic in blowing up such an important pair of buildings.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

The video takes an eternity and a half to load, so i'll load it up on g3 torrent and say right now that i am particularly skeptical of 9-11 theories, though i always take conspiracy theories with a skeptic's point of view. It's stupid how some genius could think that he can pull a fast one on the government, a huge juggernaut of power, about aliens/fake moon landing/9-11 and not get killed by such a "corrupt" power before the "truth" reaches our noses. Apparently Watergate happens every week.

 

[milcon]

Just a few days ago my Social studies mentioned it( i love this dude by the way). Since it was 9/11 we were talking about it for awhile. After talking about it and learning a bit more he said that a lot of people think the we 'did it to ourselves'. He said that though the videos may be VERY convincing, every single point made in these videos have backfired from cold hard facts. He gave a few examples(though i no longer remember them sadly) but i remember this; imagine the money it would take to pay off people to be silent? And for so many years? Besides, why would they hit the center of our economy?!

Aside from that there was a social studies teacher at this same high school that for 2 weeks TOUGHT HIS STUDENTS about the conspiracy. Long story short he was kicked out of the school before you can say idiot, but before htat happenedd one of the other teachers took all of this information he had and countered it with a huge list.

Thing is i do know in some ways the government is corrupt, and i do know that some of the government would have done this, but the truth(or at least what i believe) is that we did not do it to ourselves.

 

[Hakeem]

Maybe you should research the steal used in the towers and the combustion temperature of jet fuel. Or maybe you should study demolition. And watch some videos, one tower started to tip over.
I find it hard to believe that the terrorists were so evil that they defied physics.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

The government isn't made of angels, but i'm almost certain it stops at bribery and wire tapping. Conspiracies of epic (hellz yeah) proportions don't happen every day, but bored college students with laptops sure do.

 

[Hakeem]

And defying physics is common as well?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

And defying physics is common as well?

I love how this is their most common argument. Let me give you a little filling in.

"Though steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C"

 

[Hakeem]

Where did you get that? Cuz this says otherwise:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Since you don't trust the government and all, I doubt my sources can override some government conspiracy site, but here's something from a 9/11 faq from NIST.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

And here's something Popular Mechanics

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

[Hakeem]

Neither of those I consider trustable either. I'm too lazy right now to care to look for anything. Lets instead look at less debatable physics. It doesn't matter that the planes couldn't bring down the towers, what matters is how they came down.

One tower started to tip over. Just try stopping that. Only one way it could have fallen the way it did after that.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

"Tipping over" isn't very specific, nor is it very damaging for whatever it covers. Try sourcing or, better yet, making a nice picture.

Furthermore, I don't find a website made specifically for revealing 9/11 scandals to be very trustworthy either. I'd rather trust a site that is primarily for science, or better yet, the government, kthx. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Hakeem]

Yes, it is rather hard to find an unbiased site about this subject.

And this is what I mean by "tipping".

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Wow, you managed to misinterpret the information. The argument wasn't about the WTC "tipping over", it was about how the WTC was hypothetically supposed to tip over, rather than crumble as it did. And the argument against it was that the WTC had multiple floor fires spawned from the jet fuel, as well as had its foundations destroyed, resulting in its collapse.

 

[Hakeem]

You seem to have misinterpreted, the top of the south tower was tipping over and falling. The only way it could have continued the way it did is if it was broken up. In other words: explosives destroyed the top of the south tower.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

You seem to have misinterpreted, the top of the south tower was tipping over and falling. The only way it could have continued the way it did is if it was broken up. In other words: explosives destroyed the top of the south tower.

You basically just reiterated what I said. Now reply again to the argument against it that I posted.

 

[Hakeem]

Do you have any idea what it would take to cause the top of the tower to break apart enough to make it fall as it did? Jet-fuel-fire is nowhere near sufficient.

Take these 3 pictures:

Guess which one is WTC.

This has "controlled demolition" written all over it. There is no way in hell that thing collapsed the way it did from a plane.
If you want an explanation see here: http://www.truememes.com/911_physics.html

 

[milcon]

Hakeem, are you saying that the tower was SOPPOSED to tip over but didnt?The top right pic was a rather low building, cant tell about the other, and the bottom one is just a pile of rubble lol

 

[The Last Istari]

If nothing else, this should lighten the mood a little.

Please, do continue.

 

[RED BARON]

No, no, not steak and counter strike, it's pizza, caffeine and counter strike. Regarding 9-11, I'm a bit skeptical as to it being a hoax. Not sure even the people in our government would see the logic in blowing up such an important pair of buildings.

Well you got a two wars startet, with help from eu. and control over every american removing their rights. This is the same Hitler did.

 

[Hakeem]

Hakeem, are you saying that the tower was SOPPOSED to tip over but didnt?The top right pic was a rather low building, cant tell about the other, and the bottom one is just a pile of rubble lol

No, I'm saying look at the pictures. Those other 2 buildings fell over and look how well they stayed together. WCT was destroyed far beyond those planes. For the context of those pictures go to the link I posted.

 

[RED BARON]

And thats just the point the movie also shows, briliant! Simply making so clear a fake terroraction and then nobody (only some) notice it. Of course it could also have been the terrorists that planted the bombs, but why the airplanes at all then?

 

[Hakeem]

Really? How many people do you think bought it? Why don't you add a poll?

 

[RED BARON]

Really? How many people do you think bought it? Why don't you add a poll?

Brilliant Idea. why didnt I thought of that :Sad:

Have to make a new tread to do so, and dunno if thats allowed.

 

[Hakeem]

Scroll to the top of the page and click 'Thread Tools' and select add poll.

 

[RED BARON]

Scroll to the top of the page and click 'Thread Tools' and select add poll.

Dov .. all thise time on the site, and didnt knew that. Crist stupid of me. Thanks for telling

 

[SuPa-]

if steel bends on itself, it's gonna bend on itself. The steel bent, and gave way, making the upper floors topple down on it. The building could not handle the pressure from those floors, so the next floor toppled down, it then fell on the floor below it, then that collapsed, ect. A sideways domino effect
It's how I think it happened, anyway. It seems like a logical explanation to how it crumbled into tiny bits of rubble

 

[Hakeem]

No, it doesn't even seem like it. Not unless you only know what you've been told.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

If nothing else, this should lighten the mood a little.

Please, do continue.

You sick bastard. How do you sleep at night? Everyone knows tetris is nothing without the catchy music.

 

[SuPa-]

Hakeem, I came up with that little thing myself. Also, the twin towers wouldn't have tipped over. The plane crash was near the TOP. Do you think a tree will fall over if you hack off the top of it? And those images are from totally different things like the effects of earthquakes most likely

 

[Hakeem]

If you look at pictures and videos you can see that the top of the south towers was tipping. But that's not the point.
These 2 buildings fell over in an earthquake:

And this is the WTC:

If it had collapsed the way they say it did (which is impossible), then it would be a hell of a lot more intact (like the other 2 buildings shown above). The WTC's were obliterated. You can't explain that level of destruction without explosives and the jet fuel was nowhere near sufficient to cause that kind of explosive destruction.

 

[RED BARON]

Hakeem, I came up with that little thing myself. Also, the twin towers wouldn't have tipped over. The plane crash was near the TOP. Do you think a tree will fall over if you hack off the top of it? And those images are from totally different things like the effects of earthquakes most likely

Well what the twin towers did, is more likely to happen in a earthquake then because of two airplanes. And all that smoke and falling collapsing on itself is unlikely to happen with just two airplanes in it. Keep in mind that the twin towers, like all high buildings are build to withstand airplanes chrashing into them. So how could two airplanes take down two towers which was builded to survive more then just one airplane chrashing into it? No wonder why questions are asked, and this time.... questions just spawn more question, the more knowledge about the event the more questions. This aint a kennedy theroy, this is proveable. (Or so I believe)

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

So how could two airplanes take down two towers which was builded to survive more then just one airplane chrashing into it? No wonder why questions are asked, and this time.... questions just spawn more question, the more knowledge about the event the more questions. This aint a kennedy theroy, this is proveable. (Or so I believe)

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

 

[Hakeem]

Look at this debris:

What does it look like? It looks like it splintered. Like wood.
But steel doesn't splinter like wood. It is very different from wood.
The only way the WTC could become that pile of debris, is by explosives.
Once again, don't blindly trust them - or anyone else talking about 9/11 - listen to cold hard facts.

To approach any new conspiracy with skepticism isn't bad, but to be so blinded by bias that you accept falsity as truth, well...

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Let's look at this in a different light. If you say the government is capable of killing 3000 people for whatever reason just like that, it would create a lack of democracy of epic proportions. What could we possibly do about it that wouldn't result in catastrophic failure on America's behalf?

 

[Hakeem]

I didn't say the government did it. But to answer your question: we always have the right to petition. Let's exercise it.

 

[RED BARON]

Thats right, it maybe wasnt the goverment, but then why lie about what happent, but yes no proves (as far as I know) exsist which can show the goverment did it, it is just why should any other want to make a controlled collapse? And on that time a day, where few people was working there.

Never trust a state who believes in taken cevil rights from you, you are all controlled already, chip in the passport so you can be followed everywhere, later maybe chip in the body, "for your own safety". And a massive overwach of you, from cams, satelits so on. And police can just bring you to jail, search your house and everything without evidents, they just need to say your a terror suspekt.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

well one of the things that i have not really doubted is how it fell, whether bombs set it off or heat or whatever. floors come in square layers like a pack of square pancakes with a wire mesh around them, and a gap between each one. when the towers fell the top layers fell on each other which were heavy enough to cause the layers they fell on to collapse too, like a cascade effect. this is how they fell perfectly verticle, the layers fell on each other.

there are several incosistencies with the official report but really it is difficult to say what happened. one thing that i havent seen mention yet, but that i know of, was the fact that the building was made with a load of layers on top of each other, a pole through the middle and a wire mesh around the outise. now when you have a structure like that in small scale and you smash something into the wire mesh, nothing happens because of the way the mesh supports itself. i mean, if you have some rigid mesh and you rip some if it, it doesnt then crumble away. now i know this doesnt work in large scale, but this is basically how the mesh around the building works, and by rights it should have been able to support the top part of the building even with the weaker steel.

 

[Sansui]

Look at this debris:

What does it look like? It looks like it splintered. Like wood.
But steel doesn't splinter like wood. It is very different from wood.
The only way the WTC could become that pile of debris, is by explosives.
Once again, don't blindly trust them - or anyone else talking about 9/11 - listen to cold hard facts.

To approach any new conspiracy with skepticism isn't bad, but to be so blinded by bias that you accept falsity as truth, well...

Do you know the size of these pieces? those fence looking pats are huge windows I believe.

Also a building as large as the wtc, would have falling the way it did.
take into account a tall very tall card tower. when you smash into the side of it at a high point the top cards fall on the next floor causing them to fall on the next floor the combined weight shatters the next layer and keeps piling up.

the only people being misguided, are the ones who believe this 911 mystery trash... you know there is a bridge id like to sell you... and im sure there was a shooter on the grassy knoll as well.

Most shots of the debris is from a DISTANCE,
have you ever been there? its a huge area.


oh another thing, a lot of the concrete was pulverized by the immense heat and weight caused by all the steal and metal bending and falling on each other.

 

[Hakeem]

well one of the things that i have not really doubted is how it fell, whether bombs set it off or heat or whatever. floors come in square layers like a pack of square pancakes with a wire mesh around them, and a gap between each one. when the towers fell the top layers fell on each other which were heavy enough to cause the layers they fell on to collapse too, like a cascade effect. this is how they fell perfectly verticle, the layers fell on each other.

Must... Resist... Urge... To... Say... BULL****!
You think idiots designs these things? It had a central core. They don't just throw these things together so that they'll collapse in a chain reaction.

I was in a rush so this is the best one I could find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:6-wtc-photo.jpg
Steel is though stuff, there should be much bigger pieces of the building intact.

It's easy to imagine it falling the way it did. If it were another material.

 

[RED BARON]

and if it realy was that "pancake" effect, the central core would have been standing still....

 

[Sansui]

hakeem... Sept. 23, 2001 is the date the photo was taken, you dont think they left all the rubble there for that long do you?


I suggest you guys watch the video of the towers falling, and the cleanup rescue efforts.

a building that large i'm surprised as much of it was intact as was in the end.

This was not a solid cement 7 story building.
it was a huge lightweight tower of aluminum and steel beams.

the central core is the reason it fell inward, and crumpled up under the weight as well.
the rubble was around 7stories high.

here, so I don't have to type it all out.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

"In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high."

another one.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

now put to rest these ridiculous views of conspiracy.
it was simple physics.

 

[Hakeem]

Ah. Here is a good one.
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm
Read the whole thing.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

and if it realy was that "pancake" effect, the central core would have been standing still....

no because the central core would have been torn appart by the layers, to which it was connected, as it fell.

 

[RED BARON]

Ah. Here is a good one.
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm
Read the whole thing.

Great! Hakeem, Sansui the thing is proved by simple physics, because simple physics shows that this cant happen because of two airplanes only....
And GST_Nemisis, in the movie you see why thats correct... but yes they was connectet, but there was a huge difference in the steel used in those two, the core was much harder steel then the other, which means it cant have been torn apart..

 

[Sansui]

Umm simple physics and knowledge of the structure PROVES why it was possible for them to fall from that force and why they pancaked.
this proves you two, have no understanding of physics and or reality.

You are right it wasn't just two planes though...
it was also a massive fire much larger than the simple office fires.
the STEEL warped, the floors feel this weight falling upon another story caused the entire thing to implode. VERY SIMPLE nothing fucking special about now stop being so damn stupid.
And yes the force of the stories falling would have ripped anything in the center apart.

A controlled demolition would have been impossible i find it ludicrous that people can actually think of such a thing.
It proves HOW STUPID people are.
you do realize the building would have collapsed long before the planes hit if it was a controlled demolition it takes a long time to perfect it not to mention how many of the beams need to be cut and removed to get a fall like that.


This is as bad as people thinking Santa Claus is real.




I'm live in New York, I know people who died that day, don't try telling me it wasn't fucking real.

 

[Hakeem]

You think it's really that simple? It's not. 'Simple' physics cannot be used to describe these thing. This is complex stuff.

FACT: The towers were designed knowing that someone might fly a plane into them. But don't take my word for it, research it yourself.

It was a 'hidden' controlled demolition. The planes were used to distract people from the real reason it fell.
How do you know whether or not anything was cut?
You think it's infeasible that someone could pull off something like this? Do you know what it would take to plan and execute this? Half a dozen people. That's all.

People spend real time working these things out. They don't just throw these buildings together. They plan and anticipate. And they anticipated a plane crashing into them.


This is incredibly complex stuff.

 

[Sansui]

Hakeem, it was designed to survive a smaller aircraft with less fuel.
if you would read the links i posted they give you everything you need to know.
And the towers did withstand the initial planes, remarkably well.

it was the combination of the aircrafts and the extremely large fire that brought them down, not to mention the shock waves of the initial fuel igniting.
And yes it is that simple.

the planes hit, taking out much of the fire prevention systems and a lot of the inner structures, this didn't take the towers down.
the towers were still standing.
the MASSIVE FIRES that were burning uncontrollably mixed with the internal damage that caused the support structures to bow outwards, this caused the entire thing to fall on itself.


you obviously know nothing of controlled demolition.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE to pull this off without anyone knowing.
it would take weeks if not months to set up.
so many structures would need to be cut into that it would be far too obvious.
You cant plant explosives and hope it comes down correctly.

YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING about controlled demolitions.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING about controlled demolitions.

ive been inside several...