Who thinks zeitgeist is on to something?

hackman · Post by **hackman** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:28 pm

just watched it again, and was just wondering how many people think it has a point or is just a load of codger
imo - 911 def staged and religion a blatant lie
but havin trouble believing banks control the world and they want everyone to be microchipped lol
?

nousd · Post by **nousd** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:36 pm

the effect of interest on capital is persuasive
maybe muslim sharia banking values worthy of consideration
ie no interest but shared ownership and profit.

the world seems to chaotic for me to entertain any massive conspiracy

noesis · Post by **noesis** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:39 pm

I'm a mechanical and composite engineer and can tell you that their explanation about how the towers were staged have flawed understanding of metallurgy and physics.

It's been a long time since I have seen it, but a few things I remember... they said the alloy used in building the towers had a higher melting point than the fuel could produce .... actually at the temperatures it reached it wouldn't melt but it would anneal, which is basically when the grains start to reform and become ductile. This would allow the buildings weight to push it, and the acceleration due to gravity would cause the building to collapse under itself like it did. Each floor coming down like a domino. When you multiply the floors mass by the acceleration due to gravity, you see its weight at that point is tramendous.

It's been a year since I've seen it, when I saw it I was rattling off all kinds of problems with their logic on that bit.

So, no.

hackman · Post by **hackman** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:43 pm

Noesis wrote:I'm a mechanical and composite engineer and can tell you that their explanation about how the towers were staged have flawed understanding of metallurgy and physics.

It's been a long time since I have seen it, but a few things I remember... they said the alloy used in building the towers had a higher melting point than the fuel could produce .... actually at the temperatures it reached it wouldn't melt but it would anneal, which is basically when the grains start to reform and become ductile. This would allow the buildings weight to push it, and the acceleration due to gravity would cause the building to collapse under itself like it did. Each floor coming down like a domino. When you multiply the floors mass by the acceleration due to gravity, you see its weight at that point is tramendous.

It's been a year since I've seen it, when I saw it I was rattling off all kinds of problems with their logic on that bit.

So, no.

ok, but why did it melt then?

surface_tension · Post by **surface_tension** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:37 am

Noesis wrote:I'm a mechanical and composite engineer and can tell you that their explanation about how the towers were staged have flawed understanding of metallurgy and physics.

It's been a long time since I have seen it, but a few things I remember... they said the alloy used in building the towers had a higher melting point than the fuel could produce .... actually at the temperatures it reached it wouldn't melt but it would anneal, which is basically when the grains start to reform and become ductile. This would allow the buildings weight to push it, and the acceleration due to gravity would cause the building to collapse under itself like it did. Each floor coming down like a domino. When you multiply the floors mass by the acceleration due to gravity, you see its weight at that point is tramendous.

It's been a year since I've seen it, when I saw it I was rattling off all kinds of problems with their logic on that bit.

So, no.

Great, now assume your hypothesis about annealed alloy metals is correct. Why did the buildings fall at free fall speeds?

Assuming your hypothesis is correct, there will still be debris below which would cause resistance. Watch the video of the buildings falling again and count how long it takes... now account for Gravity and the rate of descent... how did the building get PROPELLED downward. Not fell downward, but at faster than terminal velocity. We're talking about shit that happens that can't be explained by the laws of nature. That is a reason to investigate at least.

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:56 am

Surface_Tension wrote:
Noesis wrote:I'm a mechanical and composite engineer and can tell you that their explanation about how the towers were staged have flawed understanding of metallurgy and physics.

It's been a long time since I have seen it, but a few things I remember... they said the alloy used in building the towers had a higher melting point than the fuel could produce .... actually at the temperatures it reached it wouldn't melt but it would anneal, which is basically when the grains start to reform and become ductile. This would allow the buildings weight to push it, and the acceleration due to gravity would cause the building to collapse under itself like it did. Each floor coming down like a domino. When you multiply the floors mass by the acceleration due to gravity, you see its weight at that point is tramendous.

It's been a year since I've seen it, when I saw it I was rattling off all kinds of problems with their logic on that bit.

So, no.
Great, now assume your hypothesis about annealed alloy metals is correct. Why did the buildings fall at free fall speeds?

Assuming your hypothesis is correct, there will still be debris below which would cause resistance. Watch the video of the buildings falling again and count how long it takes... now account for Gravity and the rate of descent... how did the building get PROPELLED downward. Not fell downward, but at faster than terminal velocity. We're talking about shit that happens that can't be explained by the laws of nature. That is a reason to investigate at least.

now watch the video and try and determine without a shadow of a doubt when the structure finished falling

free fall my enormous fat arse

zeitgeist reiterates some pretty obvious points about the ludicrous nature of organised religion but that's about it

noesis · Post by **noesis** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:16 am

hackman wrote:
Noesis wrote:I'm a mechanical and composite engineer and can tell you that their explanation about how the towers were staged have flawed understanding of metallurgy and physics.

It's been a long time since I have seen it, but a few things I remember... they said the alloy used in building the towers had a higher melting point than the fuel could produce .... actually at the temperatures it reached it wouldn't melt but it would anneal, which is basically when the grains start to reform and become ductile. This would allow the buildings weight to push it, and the acceleration due to gravity would cause the building to collapse under itself like it did. Each floor coming down like a domino. When you multiply the floors mass by the acceleration due to gravity, you see its weight at that point is tramendous.

It's been a year since I've seen it, when I saw it I was rattling off all kinds of problems with their logic on that bit.

So, no.
ok, but why did it melt then?

It didn't.

Surface_Tension wrote: Great, now assume your hypothesis about annealed alloy metals is correct. Why did the buildings fall at free fall speeds?

Assuming your hypothesis is correct, there will still be debris below which would cause resistance. Watch the video of the buildings falling again and count how long it takes... now account for Gravity and the rate of descent... how did the building get PROPELLED downward. Not fell downward, but at faster than terminal velocity. We're talking about shit that happens that can't be explained by the laws of nature. That is a reason to investigate at least.

Basically when you take that amount of mass and accelerate it by gravity, the resistance of the structure designed to hold a static load is almost negligible. The building falls extremely quickly because each time a pillar falls on the next the mass increases and kenetic energy increases, couple that with basically no resistance and you have a quick fall. It didn't fall faster than its terminal velocity.

anaphor · Post by **anaphor** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:21 am

People shouldn't need to watch a movie to realize that religion is a bunch of nonsense. The basic premises that most organized religions are structured with are totally ridiculous.

yong · Post by **yong** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:26 am

9/11 was not staged.

Religion is bullshit.

End of story, k?

djelements · Post by **djelements** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:35 am

yong wrote:9/11 was not staged.

Religion is bullshit.

End of story, k?

Dude knows.

pompende · Post by **pompende** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:41 am

hahaha out to everyone who thinks flying a 747 into a building would not make that building collapse.

isn't the question whether or not the attacks were allowed to happen ala pear harbor?

i havent actually seen the movie but it seems ridiculous...also its a silly use of the word zeitgeist.

relaks · Post by **relaks** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:36 am

The third part of zeitgeist is by far the most interesting, and an opening for zeitgeist two, which goes a lot deeper into money.

In a time when our economy is this fucked up, with bad decisions being made like its going out of style how is their explanation less likely than another?

It's difficult to watch something while disagreeing with one part but believing another, but probably a healthy habit to build. Something people don't do enough these days.

RubiconMan · Post by **RubiconMan** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:21 am

hackman wrote: imo - 911 def staged and religion a blatant lie
but havin trouble believing banks control the world and they want everyone to be microchipped lol
?

how odd, i'm more inclined to beleive the opposite

d-T-r · Post by **d-T-r** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:37 am

do some more research from a lot more sources before you make any conclusive decisions. that go's for people on either side of the fence.

theaccuria · Post by **theaccuria** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:50 am

Okay okay, aside from WTC buildings one and two...

What about WTC Building 7? What about the fact the US said the pilot was a guy - who was later found to be alive?

And the list goes on for other coincidces and explained factors - explosions in the basement before either tower started to fall, USA air defence being sent the wrong way/not scrambled at all, etc etc.

Best line I heard in relation to 9/11 was: "You belive people who live IN A CAVE did this?"

As for Zeitgeist you do have to take it all with a pinch of salt - there are alot of truths in the film but it doesn't go in depth enough and some points and often lacks credible source. The 2nd film however is much better in terms of credibility.

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:19 am

TheAccuria wrote:
Best line I heard in relation to 9/11 was: "You belive people who live IN A CAVE did this?"

Thats a bit racist really isn;t it?

deamonds · Post by **deamonds** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:19 am

Noesis wrote:I'm a mechanical and composite engineer

i just wanted to finish that part with.."but by night..!"

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:22 am

deamonds wrote:
Noesis wrote:I'm a mechanical and composite engineer
i just wanted to finish that part with.."but by night..!"

he watches his flock.

hackman · Post by **hackman** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:32 am

Noesis wrote:
hackman wrote:
Noesis wrote:I'm a mechanical and composite engineer and can tell you that their explanation about how the towers were staged have flawed understanding of metallurgy and physics.

It's been a long time since I have seen it, but a few things I remember... they said the alloy used in building the towers had a higher melting point than the fuel could produce .... actually at the temperatures it reached it wouldn't melt but it would anneal, which is basically when the grains start to reform and become ductile. This would allow the buildings weight to push it, and the acceleration due to gravity would cause the building to collapse under itself like it did. Each floor coming down like a domino. When you multiply the floors mass by the acceleration due to gravity, you see its weight at that point is tramendous.

It's been a year since I've seen it, when I saw it I was rattling off all kinds of problems with their logic on that bit.

So, no.
ok, but why did it melt then?
It didn't.

yeah it did, what about the video footage of molten metal? the pockets of molten metal discovered under the debris by fireman at temperatures of 1500 degrees for weeks after the incident

kins83 · Post by **kins83** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:45 am

Fucking sick of this bullshit. Some conspiracy nut bellend used to fill up the forums with this kind of crap. The pseudo science used to back up some of these claims is a joke, made up by tin foil hat wearing wankers.

So no, I think Zeitgeist and anything else in a similar vein can fuck right off. I've got valid concerns like paying my mortgage, and the welfare of my friends and family to think about, not questioning whether a mysterious group of shadowy types are the ones who really run the world.

Bollocks.