Zeitgeist, the movie

[jeepmor]

This is about the responses I expected.  I'm not giving the author a lot of credibility myself for this video, in regards to the 9/11 part, it is not as good as one that I've seen on the government access channel.  That version, same topic, different producers, had eyewitness after eyewitness providing factual statements regarding what happened in the buildings that day and building up to it.  Many of them were WTC tower workers or people that were working on the aftermath to explained what happened for the buildings to collapse.  This part is still quite dubious to me.  Possessing a mechanical engineering degree and having taken a few structural analysis classes, it does not add up.  And this one point is what makes me beleive that there are some type of goblins involved in the 9/11 event.  Particularly when the designers of said towers designed them with taking a hit from a jet liner in mind.

Unfortunately, I did not pay that much attention to the title or authors of the government access version.  If I ever find it, I'll share, I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.

[LadySmith]

I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.

Jeepmor, there is no lack of those around here who believe our government, and governments in general, are capable of great evil. Some of us have even survived such. However, we tend to believe in credible evil, not unproven conspiracy theories. We're pretty much a fact-based bunch, and conspiracy theorists get the hairy eyeball because all they tend to promote are theories presented as fact.
I saw a documentary about the fall of the twin towers (and I think that's what it was called as well) featuring guys who actually designed & built them. They did so to withstand a hit from a jet liner of their time. They were impressed at how long the towers stood after initial impact and greatly saddened by their collapse, but not really surprised.
So, despite the fact that there were WTC tower workers and eyewitnesses who explained how the buildings collapsed, and despite the fact that you possess a mechanical engineering degree and have taken a few structural analysis classes, you'd rather believe that "there are some type of goblins involved in the 9/11 event"?
Perhaps you're earning the abuse you like.

Edited to play nice since jeepmor loves dogs. 

[K Frame]

"had eyewitness after eyewitness providing factual statements regarding what happened in the buildings that day and building up to it.  Many of them were WTC tower workers or people that were working on the aftermath to explained what happened for the buildings to collapse.  This part is still quite dubious to me.  Possessing a mechanical engineering degree and having taken a few structural analysis classes, it does not add up."

Eyewitness accounts are always 100% accurate during times of extreme stress.

Oh wait, no they're not.

The range of eyewitness testimony about what happened on that day is startlingly wide.

As for what happened to the buildings themselves, I don't have a mechanical engineering degree or structural analysis classes. That's why I find the University of Sydney's analysis of what happened to be so compelling. http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

They absolutely refute the notion that there were controlled explosives involved in the collapse.

One would have to be truly Zeitgeisted to believe that UoS personnel have been co-opted in to a huge American government conspiracy stretching back all the way to Roosevelt or further.

But how can we ever believe those mechanical and structural engineers at UoS? They're just hapless academics, right?

Most people don't find crap like this to be believable because of the US government's amazingly bad track record at keeping secret programs secret.

Then there's Ockham's Razor.

Finally, most people, while they believe that the government isn't telling us the whole story about 9/11 (I fall into that camp), we also don't believe that there's a huge, decades long and laughably complex conspiracy that has all been designed simply to rob the American people of their freedom.

The big question is, WHY would it take decades and decades for Americans to lose their freedom? Don't you think that the people who supposedly conceived the plan for enslaving the American people wanted the power for themselves, and wanted it in their lifetimes? What conceivable purpose would they have for laying a plan that GUARANTEES that they would never enjoy the fruit of their labors -- that some schmuck 40, 50, 60 years or more would become the Grand Poobah and all the originators get for their trouble is a dirt nap.

It's little things like that that these conspiracy theory jackasses don't consider.

Yes, they have FACTUAL information. A LOT of factual information.

What they don't have is factual bridging information that connects all of these facts.

For example...

Last night the Philadelphia Phillies beat the Washington Nationals. But, earlier this month, the Philadelphia Phillies became the losingest team in the history of professional sports.

We're missing some important facts/information that bridge those two verifably true facts and give them context and allow them to be properly related.

Anyway.

Believe what you want, but I have to agree with whoever pointed out that JFK was killed to protect this conspiracy, but the schmucks who put this video together have been allowed to plaster it all over the internet without being hunted down and disappeared?

Right.

[Perd Hapley]

I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.

Let this be known as The MasterpieceArms Maneuver.
Step 1:  Create account at APS.
Step 2:  Start thread critical of the Bush Administration. 
Step 3:  When said criticism is found to be without merit, complain that "you people at APS" are Bush lap-dogs. 

[jeepmor]

This stuff is like discussing religion or politics.  You get a certain answer and can't really expect to sway anyone.  I was not hoping to sway anyone, just share.  I don't trust my government, and Bush is probably the worst president in my lifetime which started with Ford in Office. 

Regardless, please explain this one point then. 

The towers were entirely cut off from power for a weekend roughly one or two weeks before the towers were hit.  After that weekend, there were no bomb sniffing dogs allowed back in the building.

PS - I never called you lapdogs, you did.

[K Frame]

I don't think anyone here really trusts the US government.

That is not, however, the same as embracing conspiracy theories.

OK, the claim is made that after the WTC complex lost power, bomb sniffing dogs weren't allowed back in.

Is it that they weren't allowed back in, or is it that there was no perceived need to bring them in, or was it simply an oversight?

What's lacking in all of this is any credible reason WHY WTC 7 would be the only building demolished via controlled explosion. The two main towers had already collapsed, quite dramatically, and on national, and world wide television. What possible advantage would be gained by imploding another building, hours AFTER the events, when most everyone's attention was focused on WTC 1 and 2, or what was left of them?

It was, in a lot of ways, complete anti-climax.

A lot of the conspiracy theorists have latched onto the initial FEMA report on WTC 7, which said that the building sustained only minor damage. They completely ignore (probably because it's inconvenient to their cause) the National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation, which shows that FEMA's initial report was just that, initial, and that it also ignored major issues that very well could have contributed to WTC 7's structural failure.

[jeepmor]

What possible advantage would be gained by imploding another building

It contained CIA offices, Mayorial offices and some others I can't recall at the moment.  From the government access video I allude to (but can't find), it appeared to be a place that all the logistics of a conspiracy took place from.  This video was much more credible than the Zeitgeist production.

BTW - how does a burning structure of steel collapse in that fashion.  As in all the steel buildings, they don't.  Jet fuel and diesel fuel in an open air environment are not sufficient to melt steel.  Yet we had basements full of molten metal for weeks on end after this event.  The facts don't add up is all. 

[El Tejon]

You mean like all that steel that burned and collapsed in California recently?

[K Frame]

"BTW - how does a burning structure of steel collapse in that fashion.  As in all the steel buildings, they don't.  Jet fuel and diesel fuel in an open air environment are not sufficient to melt steel.  Yet we had basements full of molten metal for weeks on end after this event.  The facts don't add up is all. "

This again.

Did you GO to the University of Sydney's website and read what's there?

The ONLY people who are claiming that the steel in the WTC "melted" are the conspiracy theorists. The steel did NOT melt. It heated, and when structural steel heats, it looses progressively more strength. It also expands, which can rip loose or significantly weaken critical structural attachment points.

There's also the fact that the WTC buildings weren't "steel buildings" in the conventional sense. Yes, they were steel buildings, but their design, and how they supported the loads inherent in a building, were RADICALLY different from traditional steel framed buidlings.

People who claim that a steel-framed building has never collapsed in a fire: 1) Ignore the important structural differences that were inherent in the WTC design, 2) assume that ALL steel buildings react the same no matter what happens, and 3) display an incredibly limited knowledge of how steel performs when it gets hot.

Again, the University of Sydney's website looks at all of this.

You know, down below you claim to have a degree in mechanical engineering and coursework in structural analysis.

I really find it hard to believe that someone who actually has those credentials doesn't grasp the concept of heat loading in steel and the fact that the WTC complex used a new type of design that is radically different from traditional steel structure construction.

I don't have a degree in mechanical engineering -- my Grandfather did.

I don't have coursework or work experience in structural analysis - my Father, a civil engineer, did.

But, even I can grasp the fact that steel's properties change as it gets hot, and that the WTC buildings were quite different in their design and construction.

[Paddy]

Yet we had basements full of molten metal for weeks on end after this event.

Uh, where does this information come from?

You mean like all that steel that burned and collapsed in California recently?

Huh?

[K Frame]

You mean like all that steel that burned and collapsed in California recently?

That's just more proof of a vast, continuing conspiracy, Tejon.

That bridge didn't collapse from the effects of an accident and fire weakening the structural steel. It was brought down by bombs planted in an attempt to destroy a CIA convoy.

[mtnbkr]

It contained CIA offices, Mayorial offices and some others I can't recall at the moment.  From the government access video I allude to (but can't find), it appeared to be a place that all the logistics of a conspiracy took place from.  This video was much more credible than the Zeitgeist production.

If so, why would they plan to destroy the towers from a building right underneath said towers and why wouldn't they arrange to destroy the building at the same time rather than after a long enough delay for folks to "connect the dots"?

BTW - how does a burning structure of steel collapse in that fashion.  As in all the steel buildings, they don't.  Jet fuel and diesel fuel in an open air environment are not sufficient to melt steel.  Yet we had basements full of molten metal for weeks on end after this event.  The facts don't add up is all. 

I don't remember it being basements of molten metal, but merely hot metal and fires.  There was more than fuel burning in that pile.

Chris

[Paddy]

jeepmor, read through this (I sat through your entire movie, so you can read a few pages) debunking the 9/11 myths (it will answer your questions):

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

[K Frame]

Oh, those basements of molten metal...

There WAS quite a bit of evidence of molten metal throughout the WTC complex, and I have no doubt that there was a lot of molten metal in the basements of the WTC buildings.

BUT...

The conspiracy theorists immediatley jump to and equate molten metal to steel.

In their universe, other metals simply don't exist.

Metals such as... oh, aluminum. There are HUGE amounts of aluminum in any structure today.

Aluminum melts at roughly 1,220 deg. F., or roughly half the melting point of steel.

Even more important, though, is that 1,220 deg. F is easily obtainable in a draft driven fire. With two huge holes in the sides of the buildings and with stiff winds moving at the altitude of those holes, the WTC fires were very draft driven. They can be equated to a bellows forge.


There were also significant amounts of other metals in the WTC structures. Metals such as

lead, which melts at roughly 620 deg. F,

brass (lots of brass trim in many of those offices), which melts at roughly 1,600 deg. F.

Silver, roughly 1,750 F

Tin, around 500 deg F,

and Zinc, roughly 800 deg. F

All of those metals would be present in a modern construction, and in massive quantities.

[El Tejon]

Riley, there are have a couple of high profile industrial accidents out in California recently wherein steel melted.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html

[Paddy]

Riley, there are have a couple of high profile industrial accidents out in California recently wherein steel melted.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html

Oh, yeah.  That didn't affect me at all since I don't live in the gay bay area. 

Jet fuel does burn at what, 15000f?  That's plenty to melt lots of different metals, as Mike pointed out.  And there were tons of metal in those buildings.

[Perd Hapley]

PS - I never called you lapdogs, you did.

No, I called no one a lap dog.  If you want to pick nits, these are your exact words:

Please watch the whole thing before you start a flame session and try to convince me our government is not capable of such atrocites.

I sympathize with folks that don't want to entertain the theories thinking our government is not capable of such acts.

I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.

You kept implying that, if we scoff at this movie, we must all have blind faith in our most benevolent rulers.  Don't you understand that? 

This stuff is like discussing religion or politics. 

That's because we are discussing religion and politics, there, jeepie.      Come on, you gotta laugh at yourself for that one.    

The towers were entirely cut off from power for a weekend roughly one or two weeks before the towers were hit.  After that weekend, there were no bomb sniffing dogs allowed back in the building.

  How often did they "bomb-sniff" the WTC? 

[K Frame]

Riley, there are have a couple of high profile industrial accidents out in California recently wherein steel melted.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html

Tejon,

Sorry, but no. The fire degraded the concrete and it caused the structural steel in the roadway to soften, but it did not melt the steel. It's impossible for a fire like that to get hot enough to melt steel (nearly 3,000 deg. F). It is, however, possible to get more than enough heat from such a fire to cause structural steel to lose something like 50% of its structural capacity.

Result?

Collapsed highway.

[K Frame]

In an uncontrolled, undirected burn gasoline will burn with a flame of around 550-600 deg. F.

When properly atomized and mixed with air, it burns a LOT hotter than that, over 1,500 deg. F., but nowhere near not enough to melt steel.

Aviation fuel, interestingly enough, burns right in the same temperature band. Aviation fuel, according to something I just found on Wikipedia, has a maximum burning temperature of just shy of 1,800 deg. F.

[K Frame]

Regarding the differences in steel building construction techniques, and why the WTC buildings were not like their earlier skyscraper cousins, is an example I posted on another website today dealing with the exact same question...

Oh, and just as an aside...

If you've never traveled East across the Tappan Zee bridge on a clear night while a full moon is rising, you should do so. INCREDIBLY beautiful. I quickly discovered what inspired the painters of the Hudson River School when I did that for the first time in 1988.

"To illustrate my point.

Two steel bridges...

The Tappan Zee across the Hudson above N.Y. City




And the George Washington Bridge, connecting New York and New Jersey




Given that they're both "steel bridges," they'd both fail in exactly the same manner, and for exactly the same reasons if both were subjected to the same catastrophic incident, right?

Wrong.

The Tappan Zee is a cantaliever span bridge, and the George Washington is a cable suspension bridge -- two design types that differ dramatically, yet both are constructed primarily of steel.

An incident that might cause one to fall into the water could well be shrugged off by the other.

Say, for instance, a plane severs the four support cables for the GWB's main span. It could well cause deck failure.

But, say, a plan severed the support trusses for the Tappan Zee's main span. Would it cause deck failure? Very possibly not, because the Tappan Zee is a cantaliever design. Much of the deck's support is found in the deck itself.

That differs greatly from the GWB, where the deck's weight largely "hangs" from the suspension cables. Those cables are crucial to the deck's staying right where it is.

[Sergeant Bob]

In an uncontrolled, undirected burn gasoline will burn with a flame of around 550-600 deg. F.

When properly atomized and mixed with air, it burns a LOT hotter than that, over 1,500 deg. F., but nowhere near not enough to melt steel.

Aviation fuel, interestingly enough, burns right in the same temperature band. Aviation fuel, according to something I just found on Wikipedia, has a maximum burning temperature of just shy of 1,800 deg. F.

The fire does not have top be hot enough to melt the steel. It only has to be hot enough to cause the oxidation rate to increase rapidly, above 800 C (1476 F).

The steel will break down rapidly and lose structural integrity well before it's melting point of 2600 to 2800 F.

Thats why the molten aluminum (usually at 1500 to 1700 F) I used to transport on a truck could eat through a half inch of steel and leak if the refractory was cracked.

[K Frame]

"The fire does not have top be hot enough to melt the steel."

Uhm... Bob?

Have you read my messages from earlier today on this very subject?

[Paddy]

Whar's jeepmor?  Did he read my debunking link from http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
did he read Mike's rebuttals, or does he think we're just a bunch of mind numbed Timothy McVeighs?

[Gewehr98]

Ok, so I applied my USAF engineering degree to the webflick, or more precisely, to the few minutes I could stomach.

The "Twin Towers were an inside job" drek resurfaces from time to time, roughly in cadence with the "There never was a lunar landing, they faked it in the desert" diatribes.

I have no doubts that the blast furnace effect of several thousand gallons of draft-fed Jet-A fuel weakened a structure already compromised by an impact to it's load bearing cage. The steel didn't have to reach melting temperature to go plastic. Add the weight of the floors above the impact zone, and voila'!   

Nor do I have any doubts about Jeepmor's metal of choice.

[Sergeant Bob]

"The fire does not have top be hot enough to melt the steel."

Uhm... Bob?

Have you read my messages from earlier today on this very subject?

Uhm...yeah.
Just adding to what you said.