I disagree, there is a distinct difference between something exploding and something snapping or breaking. but ok, lets say there wasnt an explosion, that still leaves the virtually impossible chance that all pillars gave out at the same time. remember the tower didnt collapse to the left or right, it collapsed parallel, straight onto itself, meaning all pillars had to have given out at the exact same time.

i agree, first hand recollection are not the greatest, especially years after the event, but there still is a lot of video and a lot of audio recording. 

and when numerous different people all give the same account (ie. that they heard 3 explosions in the north tower, one of which seemed to come from the basement), then there is some truth behind it.

I think Obama went back in time and did it using plasitc explosive made out of silly putty and fremented orange-juice

Sorry Zi, I'll try harder next time




No, it does not require what you're suggesting, at all.   It's not like building a structure out Jenga blocks, where a failure causes it to topple sideways. Or felling a tree.  Real, interconnected structures do not fail that way. 

In this case, we're talking about a specific phenomenon called "buckling".  If one column is able to buckle, or otherwise fails, then the rest of the columns are suddenly supporting a higher load than they were designed for.  If they've also been damaged, then it's possible that they too, will buckle.  This can happen pretty quickly, certainly within the time frame of the collapse of Tower 7.

As for the direction of collapse, other than internal stresses, the only force acting on the building is gravity...last time I checked it basically pulls straight down.  There will be some slight bias based on which column failed first (assuming it wasn't toward the center, which isn't necessarily a good assumption, depending on how the fire damage occurred), but if the columns all fail within less than a second of each other, then it would be pretty hard to determine any direction of fall from the ensuing rubble.


Basically, the point I'm trying to make, if you are willing to think clearly about it, is that once you exceed the failure point of complex structures, lots of things happen that are not intuitive to those who are not studied in the subject.  Furthermore, structures can fail very quickly.  Look at any bridge collapse.  To any eye the major components may appear to fail simultaneously.  But the truth of the matter is that solids transfer load nearly instantaneously (with an imperceptible lag that is on the order of their stiffness coefficient) and as a result, what starts as a single-point failure can radiate out quickly, especially if the entire structure has been compromised in the first place (in this case, lots of metal structure having its structural properties reduced by high heat).



Think about how many people each of these witnesses talked to before they were interviewed, and the way interviewers phrased questions.  It's very easy to fill voids with false memories, or to convince yourself of one thing, or another.

Regardless, you could have 5,000 New Yorkers who work in the financial district claim they heard what they thought was an explosion during the building collapse, and it would mean that a single one of them actually knew what happened, just what they thought it sounded like. 

Believe me, when I say that the energy released from a structure that large when it buckles will sound like an explosion straight out of a movie.  All an explosion sounds like is a huge noise with a relatively low frequency.  It doesn't have any kind of unique tone or quality to it...just a BOOM, accompanied with the sound of whatever shrapnel it generates hitting everything around it.


If you have an engineering degree of any sort, then I'm willing to entertain your opinion about "snapping" vs "breaking" vs "exploding" sounds being generated by structural failures.  But personally, I've witness structural tests of metal structures that were tested to failure, and it can be really loud when they break.  It's very straightforward to extrapolate those observations to a building that is hundreds, or even thousands of times more massive than the structures I'm talking about.

Okay, i'll give it a watch later tonight.

Zoso, before this discussion gets out of hand, let me state that I'm not making attacks against you in what I've said, and I'm not trying to make you look like a doofus, or anything of the sort.

I'm simply providing information that you will hopefully be as open minded about as you were about the video you watched, and balance my expert opinion against that of people who we can say with absolute certainty are politically motivated in their argument, and are thus incapable of providing a sound analysis.

I know many, many engineers who would agree with my assessment. They run a very wide range of political views, so there isn't some kind of right-wing bias.

Just because there is a majority view, doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy, or that they're all drinking the kool-aid. Much more likely, it means that it's the majority view, because it's the conclusion that most people reached using reasonable methods of analysis.

so the official explanation given was that the fire caused the building to collapse, we could argue for days on how it collapsed (i still believe that the collapse was much much too similar to a controlled demolition) but I think we can both agree it wasn't fire that could take down 47 floors of steel reinforced concrete.

so doesn't that leave the window of doubt open for other aspects of 9/11 that might have been different than what we were told? there is a plethora of issues that are debatable about 9/11, I'm not debating that what we were told isn't true, I'm debating that it probably wasn't the whole truth.

The building isn't 47 floors of steel-reinforced concrete. The main structure is just steel. The FLOORS are reinforced concrete, but the vertical structure is not. That would cost a ludicrous amount of money to build.

I agree with the official explanation. A fire led to the collapse of the building. (in this case, due to lowering the strength of the primary structure) Doesn't leave much window of doubt, to me.

So no, that doesn't leave a window of doubt, at all, at least with regards to the collapsing buildings in NYC.

oh no i dont look at what you're saying as an attack at all. I actually really respect the fact that you've backed up your original statement. as in my earlier, there are so many issues about 9/11 that are debatable, some we might agree, others we might not. it is because these issues are so debatable that leads me to believe maybe we weren't told the entire truth. Like I said, I do not believe the conspirators but I also do not fully believe the government.

i dont want this getting out of hand either, so maybe just agree to disagree? lol

As long as you can agree to believe my analysis regarding the structural issues



Honestly, I think a lot of people confuse "the government not having all the facts or really knowing everything that happened", with "the government being sneaky and intentionally hiding information". 

This isn't a Hollywood movie.  The government is not full of legions of ever-faithful-mooks, willing to go to their graves to keep secrets. 

The furthest any government involvement actually goes is helping what became the Taliban eject the Russians from Afghanistan back in the 80's.

People watch too much TV

lol i find it plausible, however just by watching footage of the building collapse, i just don't believe that was the case.

and i do believe that the government hides certain information, we see it again and again of certain documents being "top secret" and "classified". in fact when the congressional report on 9/11 was released to the public, several pages were blank, meaning they were taken out because it was "sensitive information".

but agree to disagree i guess

Sometimes the most dangerous thing is "not knowing what you don't know"...

There was a history channel special on the WTC and it explained exactly how it falling is possible. They had to get hit at the right height within like 30 floors. Regarding the conspiracy, a couple of things were never answered though like why were F-15s not deployed when the 1st jet wasn't responding. That is a standard reaction from the Air Force (source from ex FBI agent who's name escapes me). And then George Bush Jr. just sitting there reading kids books for half an hour twiddling his thumbs was a bit odd.
As far as the people that don't respect conspiracy theorists you have good reason to be annoyed. Keep in mind though anyone that simply believes what the media has fed them, and/or thinks that the governing/ruling men in power would keep us peons informed, have little grasp on history.

oh and btw. i havent seen the OPs movie (i will), but this is the greatest, most entertaining documentary on "being lied to" i have ever seen. Please watch it Arch and lets chat about it





Edit:  beware, this movie is VERY anti-religion

Maybe it gets better further in, but the fact that they open their argument with a George Carlin sketch doesn't do a lot to establish a solid and well-reasoned argument.

haha touche, that was an addition. there are many versions

Of course, if the opening quotes (prior to the Carlin stuff) are indicative of the arguments given throughout the rest of the movie, then I think their underlying premise is completely bunk.

We live in a country that is founded with a strict separation of religion and government. Therefore, by definition, the government (at least in our country) is not using religious institutions to control people. In fact, if a preacher specifically endorses or opposes a candidate during their sermons, churches can have their non-profit status revoked.


Now if they're talking about less secular countries, then sure, it's obvious from the middle east that there are those who would use religion as a means to control their populations.


But none of that has anything to do with the general validity of Abrahamic religions, or the existence of God.

OK, as someone who has done much reading and watched many documentaries on atheism, and as someone who believes there is more than meets the eye when it comes to 9/11, I will honestly say that Zeitgeist is a little over-the-top on the conspiracy meter. (At least for me.)
And if I didn't like it, I'm sure arch will probably hate it. lol

Very well said Robin. 

In 1989 the Loma Prieta earthquake destroyed most of downtown Santa Cruz.  One hotel from the 1920s survived while much newer (and older) buildings collapsed.  Government conspiracy?  Over a week later half the hotel fell down, with the split almost exactly in the middle.  Another conspiracy?  And yes, it fell in the direction of gravity  

You guys are overlooking the obvious.

Where were the explosives (and the detcord) hidden?

You can't just "sneak in" enough explosives to level a building like that overnight. Also, they need to be placed in very specific places, and wired in such a way that they detonate in perfect succession.

Wireless detonators for this sort of operation just aren't used.

Moreover, WHY wtc7? If someone were to go to the trouble of rigging the world's first wireless covert building demo, why wtc7?!

edit: Not to mention the fact that the rampaging fire would have set off any "hidden" plastique well in advance of the signal to detonate.

You do realize spending of money is an economy? Still economy is like still water, it's poison. If you had a retail business that was going down the drain, what do you do? Stop buying inventory and cut all spending, or just keep doing things the same? Both of those will obviously kill your business. What you need to do is barrow some money, and reinvent yourself trying new things. It is pretty simple. Do you honestly think we can just cut all spending, and all of the sudden like magic, faeries will come down and say "everything is better now!"? What does cutting spending do? Yay, now the government has a huge wad of cash sitting there doing nothing. That helped. We could use that wad to pay our debts. Yeah and what did that do for us. now we have no debt and we let time drive our economy even further down the hole yay. Now we are dead in the water, and go from #1 world power to a zero.

I'm done, if anyone actually watched the documentary, let me know how it is

At this point I'm inclined to believe 90% of the population fall into this category but switch sources of trust and information with the switch of powers. 

News stations must have known WTC7 was going to collapse in order to announce it. If 2 news stations announced it at the same time, then a planned time for its demolition must have been known ahead of time. That means the orchestrators in the government were communicating with the media about what was going to happen. The conspiracy must include them. No, it wasn't seconds before.  It was at least 5 minutes according to the conspiracy theorists.  Did you get that wrong or did the documentary get it wrong?

"Creep" (weakening of structure due to deformations caused by continuously applied stress, and exacerbated by high temperatures) not "metal fatigue" (weakening of structure due to repeated stress cycles).

Otherwise you're post is accurate.