MovieChat Forums > American Zeitgeist (2006) Discussion > Determening the Factual Accuracy of Zei...

Determening the Factual Accuracy of Zeitgeist

posted 17 years ago by uljoge
41 replies | jump to latest

This is always the problem with private research-movies like this. A lot of what is presented as facts is maybe not fact, but will be believed after enough people have seen this movie. I have a commen knowledge about history and religion, but most facts were much deeper than that, so i just don't know whether or not its all true. This movie COULD have a lot of impact on the way i see the world thats why I need to clarify, what is fact, what is speculation and what is misinformation. you need to remember that as much as this movie is critical (which is great by the way) with what is out there you have to be as critical with what this movie gives you as well.

So in this thread i would like anyone who knows about a statement being either true, inaccurate, just "one side of the argument" or plain and simple false to reply to this topic (and of course please post more than "[statement] is true/false" ;). Also if you know something about a person that is not commonly known but is qouted in the movie, maybe you can give some information as well.

I for one have seen this documentary about the 9/11 conspiracy which i think is quite informative and not as narrow-minded as most conspiracists are themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylwz3EqpgcU

I am really, really looking forward to all of your answers... let us see what really is behind all this... and excuse my bad englisch please (I'm german) :)

[–] tseybert 17 years ago

The part about the Lusitania being the direct cause of America's entry into World War I is a blatant error. I would guess it shows the filmmakers are kind of sloppy instead of dishonest because they could have easily fashioned a plausible (if false) conspiracy theory around the real cause and effect of the US and WW I.

Zeitgeist claims that America got into World War I because the Lusitania was tricked into going into sub-infested waters and that a German sub was tricked into sinking it and Americans got mad and entered the war.

The Lusitania was torpedoed by a German sub early in 1915. The Germans claimed the British passenger ship was carrying munitions to England, which is certainly a possibility, especialy considering the large explosions and the rapidity with which it sank (around 15 minutes). (I wrote a report on the Lusitania for a journalism seminar class and I read the NY Times and the London Times for much of the early part of 1915. The newapapers are full of ships being sunk by German submarines, but they are transport ships of one kind and another. None of the other ships I saw sank nearly as quickly, and something like 95 + percent of the crew members were rescued. So the Lusitania was unusual for a number of reasons.)

The outcry in the US was quickly muted by Germany's agreement to pull back on submarine warfare and a general lack of real war fervor in the US.

It was not until 1917 that US anger was rekindled by the Zimmermann Note, a message from the German ministry to the German consulate in Mexico. The note is named for Arthur Zimmermann, the German Foreign Minister. Submarine warfare was going to be resumed and, more importantly, the German consul was directed to try to get Mexico into the war against the United to retrieve lost territories in CA, AZ, NM, Texas. This may sound far-fetched but it was only the previous year that the US Army had invaded Northern Mexico and stayed for several months in a fruitless effort to capture Pancho Villa.

The British intercepted the message and eventually released it to President Wilson. WHen its contents became public, Americans, with the help of a jingoistic press, eventually got worked up enough to start wanting to go fight for democracy in Europe.

Some people say the Zimmermann Note was a British forgery. (This is a common enough belief that Zeitgeist could have used and retained just a tad more credibility than the narrative they went with.) Any student of German diplomacy in this era will tell you it was pretty bad, and this incident is typical. SO it sure sounds like something Germans under Kaiser Wilhelm would do. The other thing is this: Zimmermann didn't deny he sent it for very long. Within a few weeks he was justifying the Note as a legitmate war measure; which is probably true, which just shows how stupid war is.

This is probably a lot more than you wanted to know, but it is some very sloppy material from Zeitgeist. I also had a problem with the glib manner in which they handled the controversial matter of FDR and Peral Harbor. The whole scenario makes no sense. FDR had to goad the nice, peace-loving Japanese into attacking the US. He had to get us into war so his plan included a surprise attack that left half the fleet at the bottom of the harbor and could have been worse. Yeah, right. There are a million different ways to hurl ridicule at the the nonsense about FDR knowing about Pearl Harbor. (And, yes, I have read Stinnett.)

I would love to believe the rest of Zeitgeist, and they are probably onto something at times, but the sloppy way they handled two incidents I am well-informed on forces me to toss this whole exercise into the hamper.

[–] earthgirl-1 17 years ago

I also have a couple of questions about this film, I watched the second part last night and some things didn't gel.
The claim made by the producers was that there was no plane that crashed into the field in Pennsylvania, or the Pentagon.
So, how can there be a flight record of the passengers voices storming the cockpit which was broadcast all over the place, and an entire move based around it as well.

People recorded phone calls made by passengers during the hijacking.

Aviation authorities must have records of the flights taking off and passenger lists. How can these flight numbers simply not exsisted?
The bereaved families have lost loved ones from these two flights. Where are they???

I"m not American, and haven't followed the whole 911 thing closely, so perhaps there are some basic things I don't know.
But my logic just can't make that leap about the non exsistance of the Pennsylvania crash plane along with a load of passengers..
The Pentagon argument seemed to hold a bit more water though.

Can anyone enlighten me?

(this film has certainly reached its objective of getting people talking)

[–] SuryaVL 17 years ago

I've seen in another 911 documentary that some people believe the whole records are forged. One recorded phone call reportedly has a guy calling his mom. He opens with "Hi mom, this is (his first name) (his last name)". How many people call their mom and go on to mention their last name? That seems strange to say the least.

http://www.stripinfo.be/
http://www.drumnbass.be/

[–] arm_monkey 17 years ago

Well wasnt it almost impossible for cell phones to work at the height the plane was at when the cell phones purportably took place?

[–] dontcallmesimpson 17 years ago

i've read a few reports that it is possible to get them working but not always depending on location.

another theory was that the seats had phones in them that could be used to call people on the ground but again i dont know if this was the case, i've never seen a plane with these phones on most seats but i'm sure someone will be able to tell us if the plane in question usually carries such phones.

[–] belancourt 16 years ago

When I first heard about the "no planes" theory, I questioned it too. I thought, c'mon, that's crazy! Even if our government is capable of this sophisticated level of deception (and I do feel they are capable of things way beyond our imagination), would they really go to so much trouble?

When you think about it, none of the families of these victims have been heard from in quite some time. If my child was one of the heroes on this flight and I heard conspiracies that he did not exist, I would be telling the world that this is real. Why hasn't any mother stepped forth to dispel this theory?

Another thing to think about is how "movie like" all the news coverage became after 9/11. I saw some interviews with family members at the time, but could I authenticate their identity? If anyone can - there would be the proof to dispel this theory.

I think an important concept to keep in the front of your mind when exploring possibilities, There is a ying and yang in any theory/belief based on fear. This theory scares me sensless. It gives me the chills on a warm summer day. I fear for my children. Just as Bush has instilled fear of terrorism, this instills fear of world powers.

I personally believe in the movie's theory as a whole, similar to forecasting. Will it all come about as predicted? Probably not blow by blow. But it will be recognizable as a foretelling someday. Just as we are earily moving in the prophecied direction of Orwell's 1984.

The funny thing is, before I was enlightened through sources outside of corporate media, I would look at President Bush and see the eyes of a pig. He chilled me and I feared he was the Anti-Christ before he got past sending us to Iraq.

When you are a "truth" junkie, the whole picture starts to gel. There is a wealth of information available out there. LinkTV, an independent station that accepts no support from corporations aires some of the most disturbing documentaries on the atrocities of the United States that I have ever seen.

There used to be a great website called From The Wilderness, www.FTW.com that was very informative. The owner wrote the book, "Crossing the Rubicon", another source of information on the 9/11 conspiracy and peak oil. I can't remember his name right now, but if you search the book title, you can find him.

The site may still be up and you may be able to read the archives, but I haven't gone back since he mysteriously "dissappeared". The information they predicted on this site foretold the next step of taking Iran. They say this is a 40-year old (keep in mind I'm going on memory here and the brains a little old - exact numbers not guaranteed!) conspiracy that involves the Bush's, Bin Laden's, and most of the executive house and Wall Street elite.

With the CNN financial notices I get, I've seen oil prices now topping $96 a barrel. FTW also predicted that this would happen and states that this is the evidence of world peak oil. Meaning we are in fossil energy decline while demand is growing at a healthy pace.

China is out-dealing us on oil deals now with the money we have given them through "free trade". At some point, our energy demands will exceed our supply. The site and book talk about what happens next as we deal with total national economic break down.

Having read this information two years ago and now seeing it realized makes me think that the world powers' evil plan will not be realized unless they are able to overtake every major oil bearing country in the world. I think Russia sees what is happening and they are getting ready to take sides and it will not be with us. Let's see, the U.S. and Europe in its entirety against the Middle East, South America, Asia, and Russia? Not gonna happen.

The demi-Gods have gone mad with power. Once global warming makes Greenland inhabitable, I think it's time for a New America that is based on the original constitution and beliefs we citizens hold so dear. Today's America is not the one I was taught about in public school history books. It's not the one my daughter is learning about today. Many of my own relatives are so brainwashed by national television that they think I am crazy to believe any of this. America is asleep at the wheel and the terror level is red within our own back yards. The acts of a few will bring harm to billions throughout the world.

[–] earthgirl-1 16 years ago

Hey, Belancourt,
Great post.

You and many others might be interested in checking this doco out:

http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/

Very factual, and VERY important. And not on IMBD.
Cheers.

[–] Der_Schnibbler 16 years ago

[quote]If my child was one of the heroes on this flight and I heard conspiracies that he did not exist, I would be telling the world that this is real.[quote]Since when does dying in a hijacked plane make one a hero?

--
"Den Gleichen Gleiches, den Ungleichen Ungleiches."

[–] estcst-3 16 years ago

The site may still be up and you may be able to read the archives, but I haven't gone back since he mysteriously "dissappeared".

Why is it that you expect people to come forward and identify themselves (to you, of all people) as relatives of the 9/11 hijacking victims or else it's not credible but at the same time someone supposedly disappears that supposedly uncovered a conspiracy but no one seems to know who this guy is nor has anyone stepped forward about it yet we're suppose to believe you?

Many of my own relatives are so brainwashed by national television that they think I am crazy to believe any of this.

So, you read a website and watch a movie and formulate your ideals and they do the same thing and they're suddenly brainwashed? What makes your sources so much better? Because they're not making as much money as NBC or whomever?

The bottomline for me is that I keep hearing about black vans and people being hauled away by Bush and company (as you guys like to call them) but I've never heard of a single person who's been hauled away. Produce some proof!

Big media may suck but they come across much more credible. I live in the general area of the PA crash and while I didn't witness anything on 9/11 there certainly were eye witnesses and I have yet to hear of anyone in the area dispute the plane theory and no one in the area has gone missing that I know of.

Instead of conspiracy theorists quoting Orwell endlessly and telling us that big money equates into a big lie they need to try producing some proof. I simply don't buy into the lip service from a small fringe group anymore. It's sounds more like a cult to me.

[–] donaldtroll 16 years ago

did that guy really just say "how can there be a movie about something that isnt true?" LOL

[–] vaughan_1986 16 years ago

the Pearl Harbor attack only left one American ship unrepairable. Not that it makes the thing an inside job any more than otherwise, just a fact that I know. It is widely debated as to whether or not it was a set up by historians and scholars to this day. Go ask 3 history professors, they'll each give you a different answer. Guaranteed

[–] srlindsey42701 17 years ago

One problem that I noticed. In the film it is claimed that the 16th Amendment of the constitution was never ratified. That is incorrect. The amendment was ratified by New Mexico on Feb 3, 1913 completing the required 36 states. 6 more states ratified the amendment within a few weeks. Four states rejected the amendment, 2 never took it up in the first place and Hawaii and Alaska were not states in 1913.

Also, the argument proposed by the two former IRS employees seems kind of silly. It may be true that one need not file an income tax return, but it would be rather silly for a lot of people, I would think. If you don't file then you will not get any sort of refund. I think that many people, at least most of the people that I know see more taking out of their paycheck than they ultimately owe and are due a refund. Not filing a return may not be illegal, but it would be pretty silly.

[–] uljoge 17 years ago

I am very thankful for all your answers so far. It's nice to see that people do not just take what is fed to them and make up their own mind. And the answers were not too long. not at all! This kind of display is crucial for such a vague topic.

Right now I would think this movie uses a lot of unclear and misleading information to create some sort of sensation that draws attention to the maker of this movie in a loose-change kind of fashion. Now I am pretty sure this is applicable to the third and especially to the second part of the movie, but I would like to know more about the first part, that seemed pretty logical to me.

Once again a big "thank you" goes out to tseyberd and srlindsey for sharing their knowlegde, and keep it coming ;)

Edit: earthgirl, maybe you should check out this hour-long documentary i posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylwz3EqpgcU). I think it might answer some of your questions

[–] earthgirl-1 17 years ago

Thanks Uljoge,
Unfortunately I can't get youtube at work (no wait, that would be fortunately!) and I live so far away from civilisation that my computer connection is too slow to download videos.

But, I have friends.....

[–] lorri789 17 years ago

I kinda agree with what has been said generally so far. Here's a couple of other points that may or may not be important.

He claims the Lusitania was sunk in German controlled waters and that it was sent to "German controlled water". I thought the Lusitania was sunk off Ireland in International waters.

Secondly, he claims those SAS guys were shooting people willy nilly out of car windows. How does he know this? I seem to remember witnesses saying they were stopped at a checkpoint and legged it, with Iraqis firing and the troopers firing back.

My point is that this filmmaker seems to only want to get his information sources that he knows will agree with him. Please correct me on any points if I am wrong.

[–] lorri789 17 years ago

Hang on? Have we got the correct film here? I'm talking about Zeitgeist, not American Zeitgeist. We have cocked up.

[–] gabynew1 16 years ago

i belive that the movie or topic of these forums should not be on if it's true or not if God exists, WW I & II war etc.
and more about the present and how the Gov. is using real or fake data to get the general public in to accepting things that are not constitutional, correct,fair...moral,...and so on to any citizen US or not.
Can not deny that all these terrorims, money, migration, etc problems, are used daily to manipulate people in to thinking that some out there is out to get them, so that in turn other are free to make more and more many, get more and more power.

the idea of one gov over the entire Earth is as real as you and me. that is what I find more scary.

[–] jtalbot-3 16 years ago

Re cell phones: this is something you can test, turn your cell phone on the next few times you fly and see if you get a signal...dont worry, you won't get sucked out of the plane, or arrested. :-)

The documentary makes several errors, but even critically acclaimed documentaries do (see SICKO). It tends to simplify arguments by presenting a few facts, and then drawing conclusions.

I think it is important to remember that Zeitgeist is only one source of information, and as the author states several times everyone should do their own research. I think the author is trying to stir people up a bit, and encourage them to ask the challenging questions authorities are not.

Finally, I think it is interesting this movie can't get a post on Wiki...

[–] depris 16 years ago

The two most important topics the film covers are that of religion and of banking. Thats the meat of the documentary, whether the Lusitania was the cause of the US entering WW1 or not.

I cannot attest to the factual accuracy of that suffice to give these two points:

1.) The narrator did not claim they sent the lusitania into official German waters.. he said they purposely set its navigation path into an area known to be monitored and controlled by german U-boats. (submarines)

2.) Even if the zimmerman is what actually caused the public fervor behind the US entry into WW1 ... this incident certainly played a big part and is what first gave notion to the idea even being discussed. Prior to the lusitania public fervor was strongly for neutrality.

Overall though its a mistake to look for some kind of concrete proof of conspiracy; their isn't any. Their isn't some magic document that could be released that would prove without a doubt.. fully and totally.. that every aspect of the government is controlled by conspiracy. Even if such a document existed and was somehow released, the media would just bring on respected people to downplay it.

While I do not condone lack of critical thinking... and I do appreciate the concept of evidence.. I do not think everything needs to be proven through physical evidence... sometimes simple logic can help you.. in this case:

"Is the idea of a few extremely wealthy individuals... individuals whom have more direct control and influence than everyone else working together for their own interests... despite whatever loss of life occurs.. simply to increase and/or ensure their own power?"

Another way to look at it is to put yourself in their place:

"If I was extremely wealthy... how could I ensure I stay on top... given the fact that not everyone.. in fact not even most people can be on top? That the system we have just doesn't allow for everyone to have the same?" In other words... If you were rich would you be willing to do things to ensure you stay rich? If you wouldn't, would your kids? Especially if they grew up without ever experiencing real suffering or pain .. without any respect for people below them... without any experiences illustrating what life is really about? For someone that grew up with say a billion dollars in the bank ... thats always had that ... they don't understand or respect the kind of suffering and hardship you and I take for granted. They just don't. A hundred people or a thousand "commoners" dying really doesn't mean anything to them.

Basically, if you accept that religion is *beep* and that bankers control the country (everything else is an aftermath) then this documentary is true for all intents and purposes.

Personally I do believe a handful of people control everything, I do believe the government is currently fascist and heading for extreme fascism in the near future.

My only criticism of the movie is that it didn't mention Napoleon Bonaparte anywhere.

[–] srosa 17 years ago

For the first part, I was really impressed by the Jesus/Horus thing so I've done some research and I've found out that, again, this was sloppy. The Horus/Jesus relationship is a theory made up by one guy that have been repeated and repeated but you'll never see any informations in the Egyptian Book of the Dead that will validate this theory. You can find more details there http://egyptologist.org/discus/messages/11/2714.html?1031040351.

Maybe Jesus is related to a Solar cult but this movie make it really hard to sort the good stuff from the bad...

[–] shambobilla 16 years ago

Yeah, the bit about Crux might be stretching things as well. According to Wikipedia, Crux, or the Southern Cross, was considered to be part of a larger constellation until the 1500s, so while convenient, its use in the movie raises further questions.

[–] gryspnik 17 years ago

Very close minded way of thinking...The ones that get a refund are the ones that had already had a big chunk of their salary withheld by their employers so that it is give to the federal government. When you are self-employed you get no refund unless you are very poor. It is indeed legal not to file a federal tax return.

[–] metsrus 16 years ago

judaism and other monotheistic relgions are more influenced by Zoroastrianism than ancient egyptian myths...but the point is well taken, people can use religion to manipulate the mass.

[–] moveguy 16 years ago

do you know how stupid that sounds.
how would it be silly not to file?
theyre saying dont pay at all in the first place. sure I might get 1000 back from the 10,000 they took but whats really silly is still giving them 9 grand.
but from your logic youre happier getting the 1000 and giving up the 9?

[–] youthxl 16 years ago

[–] tgrdavid 16 years ago

also the connection between Jesus and Joseph of the old testament was a huge stretch, so much so that it should not even have been mentioned the only connection was 12 sons and 12 disciples, but the sons were not followers of Joseph, and all of them betrayed Joseph, not just one of them as was stated in the movie. so the only connection is the number 12 other than that the two stories are vastly different

[–] jcjohnston1-1 16 years ago

You do know that this is a discussion forum for AMERICAN ZEITGEIST, not ZEITGEIST, right?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lacrossestanley 16 years ago

Would anyone know where I can purchase a copy of the film "American Zeitgeist"? I've searched but it hasn't turned up yet for sale. I think there are many good points made in this film whether they are completely factual or not it raises good questions to think about. We all know there are people who love power at any cost. I especially like the statement shortly after the beginning of the film that we are all made perfect, or something to that affect. After viewing this film I can see in myself how I was trained to act or react to daily events and how my reactions are learned. Thanks for any help in locating a copy of this film.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jack_Acid 15 years ago

People need to OPEN THEIR EYES. I strong suggest all of you take the time to watch this documentary sometime, "In Plane Site":

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlqqi1ITACY
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvyJG9Qz1Bs
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flcqJrtHz3w
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsdglv3dS8
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPR0hw-mqnk
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI3KCC4snXs

Forget "theories", or who was behind 9/11. Look at the EVIDENCE of the collapse of the towers, or the Pentagon:

1. VISUAL EVIDENCE - Note the explosions taking place dozens of floors down from where any damage occurred as the building collapse.

2. EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS - Note the COUNTLESS eyewitnesses that claimed they heard explosions.

3. HISTORICAL DISCREPANCY- Note that in the HISTORY OF MODERN ENGINEERING, NO SKYSCRAPER BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM A FIRE.

4. PHYSICS - Note that it's scientifically impossible for jet fuel to burn hot enough to melt steel, let alone in 2 hours or less. The specs for the WTC were to resist 2000 temperatures for up to 6 HOURS. Experts agree that the temp. in the buildings was probably maxed between 1200-1500 degrees, but likely averaged closer 500 degrees after the initial explosions. Even if the steel DID melt, the collapse would have been FAR different than what we saw -- it would have been a partial collapse and most of the building would have remained intact. Instead, we saw floors dropping at free fall speed.

5. VISUAL EVIDENCE - Note that the damage to the Pentagon is 100% inconsistent with the idea of a jet airliner hitting it. In addition to the visual evidence of the building damage, there was no wreckage to support the idea of an airliner. So let me get this straight - a single jet is enough to collapse the WTC, but not enough to demolish the entire face of the Pentagon? We can SEE unharmed computers, filing cabinets, etc. within FEET of the impact point at the Pentagon.

6. EYEBROW RAISING COINCIDENCE - One of the directors for the company that managed security for the WTC was George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securacom). There were many extended planned powerdowns in the the weeks leading up to 9/11.

7. EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS - Many people who worked there claimed that certain floors were not able to be accessed via the elevators or stairs, that you needed special security clearance to reach them. Many claimed to hear "unusually loud commotion" on these floors leading up to 9/11.

8. EYEBROW RAISING COINCIDENCE - George Bush, on video, recounting his reaction to first hearing about he attacks saying he saw the the first plane hit when he was watching TV - that's strange George, the first plane hitting was never televised, or not until the following day.

If you want to deny that this was an inside job, fine. But you cannot, and I mean CANNOT deny that what happened on 9/11 is what we've been told, at least not entirely.

I hope more than anything, a non-govt. agency takes on a huge investigation and brings the truth forward. The people that died that day, as well as our service-people in the Middle East, deserve so.

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

1. VISUAL EVIDENCE - Note the explosions taking place dozens of floors down from where any damage occurred as the building collapse.

Wrong, escaping air, did it sound or look like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

2. EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS - Note the COUNTLESS eyewitnesses that claimed they heard explosions.

Name them and please use Willie the liar, there are very few that make this claim.

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

3. HISTORICAL DISCREPANCY- Note that in the HISTORY OF MODERN ENGINEERING, NO SKYSCRAPER BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM A FIRE.

A skyscraper with a higher center of gravity and more of a load helps?

--------------

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010Vgn
VCM100000f932a

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991 a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on it's steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf

Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, December 20, 1991. Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf

Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

4. PHYSICS - Note that it's scientifically impossible for jet fuel to burn hot enough to melt steel, let alone in 2 hours or less. The specs for the WTC were to resist 2000 temperatures for up to 6 HOURS. Experts agree that the temp. in the buildings was probably maxed between 1200-1500 degrees, but likely averaged closer 500 degrees after the initial explosions. Even if the steel DID melt, the collapse would have been FAR different than what we saw -- it would have been a partial collapse and most of the building would have remained intact. Instead, we saw floors dropping at free fall speed.

LMFAO!

1. No one claimed steel melted.

2. It was in NO WAY FREEFALL.

3. Show your calculations on load bearing on a partial collapse.

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

5. VISUAL EVIDENCE - Note that the damage to the Pentagon is 100% inconsistent with the idea of a jet airliner hitting it. In addition to the visual evidence of the building damage, there was no wreckage to support the idea of an airliner. So let me get this straight - a single jet is enough to collapse the WTC, but not enough to demolish the entire face of the Pentagon? We can SEE unharmed computers, filing cabinets, etc. within FEET of the impact point at the Pentagon.

LMAO, Teh impact point on the Pentagon was reinforced concrete made to withstand a indirect Nuclear bomb strike, the WTC's were mostly Aluminum and glass? Get an education.

------------------------

These are fairly convincing, look at the top one of the plane, then look at the others and go back to the top and see where they fit in.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Fragment.jpg

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg

Both the "C" and other debris carried.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_18.html

how would a Boeing 757 with wings, a tail, and engines create a plain hole with no other obvious scars?

Interior damage and report

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

All right here, though a plane hitting a reinforced building at that speed is going to be in parts....

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

Great short computer modeling of flight 77 and Pentagon damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

More good stuff

Wing Scars on the Building in the Link Below

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

MUCH MORE, Click on each picture and there are about 20 in a slide show.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.ht ml

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

I also have some pictures from the Moussaoui trial of passenger bodies burned very badly but I won't post those unless you want them.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html#parts

AND..............

Two people on American Airlines Flight 77 made phone calls to contacts on the ground. At 09:12 EDT, flight attendant Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. During the call, which lasted nearly two minutes, May said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals and they had been moved to the rear of the plane. May also asked her mother to contact American Airlines, which she and her husband promptly did. American Airlines was already aware of the hijacking.

Passenger Barbara K. Olson called her husband, United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson at the Department of Justice twice to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were held in the back of the plane. After the first call was cut off, Theodore Olson contacted the command center at the Department of Justice, and tried unsuccessfully to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft. Olson called her husband back, and asked him "What should I tell the pilot?"

Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people.

A team of more than 100 workers at a military morgue at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware used several methods to identify remains but primarily relied on DNA testing and dental records. They formally ended their effort Friday after concluding that some remains were too badly burned to identify.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=pri nter

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

6. EYEBROW RAISING COINCIDENCE - One of the directors for the company that managed security for the WTC was George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securacom). There were many extended planned powerdowns in the the weeks leading up to 9/11.

Wrong, He was a stockholder and was not at the time of 9/11.

Stratesec installed the initial security-description plan—the layout of the electronic security system—at the World Trade Center.
http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20050215bushes_3.cfm
...so is it significant that Marvin Bush worked there? Possibly not, as he left his directors job in the fiscal year 2000 ( http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm ).

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.
http://www.physics911.ca/Burns:_Security,_Secrecy,_and_a_Bush_Brother

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

7. EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS - Many people who worked there claimed that certain floors were not able to be accessed via the elevators or stairs, that you needed special security clearance to reach them. Many claimed to hear "unusually loud commotion" on these floors leading up to 9/11.

BS: Name the many and their statements.

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman

[–] MasterShake_2015 15 years ago

8. EYEBROW RAISING COINCIDENCE - George Bush, on video, recounting his reaction to first hearing about he attacks saying he saw the the first plane hit when he was watching TV - that's strange George, the first plane hitting was never televised, or not until the following day.

So the only fact you have is the President likely confused the first strike with the second so he is behind the whole thing, LMFAO!

THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman