Well, for one I'm doubting that Part I can be refuted, it is based on pretty much undeniable facts. But Part II and III aren't, I want the opinions of people in this section, I checked the search button and a larger thread has been made in the off-topic section, but it was also clustered by useless posts and dumb flames that are not needed.

What I want to know is what rebuttals have been given to the Part II and III of this movie, how much truth is there to the whole FED system of central banking that is a catalyst to a unifying single government, things of this nature, and the whole RFID chip, the national card. The links between the Bush's and the FED. All of this, I'm not at awe here, I've heard most of this before, but never cared. But at this point I'm starting to wonder, so many people talk about this, so there must be some basis to it.

So without further wait, enlighten my dumbass...or not.

That entire movie is propaganda. Conspiracy theory at its finest.

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

That entire movie is propaganda. Conspiracy theory at its finest.

I still believe that, but not as strongly as a felt about Loose Change, I mean can anybody really explain the whole Thermite being present in the Molten Metal, or the beams cut in a way that they cut Support bars when they demolize a building, or the collapse style of the WTC 7.

What about the identification of bodies, but the remains the fact that the plain was hot enough to incinarte itself, the abense of bodies at the Shanksville crash. I mean the crash looked sooooooo different than pictures of other Commercial airliners crashing. The delayed response by the NORAD defense system, just questions like that, that can't be answered. That the government wont give us a credible response too, I can't just disregard those questions for no reason.

I need a explanation of some sort.

As I've said before, the author of the movie is not moron. Part I was about Christianity because it's a solid arguement. Once he get's people to acknowledge that he is using historical fact to support the first part of the movie, he can go ahead and make any outlandish claim he wants (and even them, he loosely supports his claims in Part II and II). Part I was designed to reel you in, and at least get you ready to accept II and III.

About the steel melting in the WTC: sure, the jet fuel never even got close to hot enough to melt the steel at all (a few thousand degrees short, if I recall), but the sheer force of the impact, combined with the already intense heat from the jet fuel could possibly have caused the collapse of both towers.

What irks me, a little, is that on a program I saw on the History Channel, the engineers who designed the WTC specifically stated that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner.

The horizontal 'cuts' at the bottom of both WTC towers were...out of place...to say the least. Honestly, they shouldn't be there. Steel doesn't have the best tensile strength in the world, but if you try to crush it (ala, the weight of the towers falling) it's not going to cleanly break like that - it's going to twist and bend. IF it were to break, it would be a result of the building falling sideways (greatly overstechting the maximum tensile strength of the steel), and it wouldn't look clean like it did, at all.

WTC tower 7 - the little building - shouldn't have fallen at all IMO. Sure, it took a hell of a pounding, but what it experienced was nowhere near what the Federal Building in Oaklahoma City took when what's his face blew HALF of the building off. I have no way to rationalize that, at all.

As for the plane crashes at the Pentagon (and the plane that hit no buildings), I again have absolutely no way to rationalize them either. I remember hearing about the wreckage, or complete lack thereof at both sites, and I remember my dad being very critical of it.

Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair

As I've said before, the author of the movie is not moron. Part I was about Christianity because it's a solid arguement. Once he get's people to acknowledge that he is using historical fact to support the first part of the movie, he can go ahead and make any outlandish claim he wants (and even them, he loosely supports his claims in Part II and II). Part I was designed to reel you in, and at least get you ready to accept II and III.

About the steel melting in the WTC: sure, the jet fuel never even got close to hot enough to melt the steel at all (a few thousand degrees short, if I recall), but the sheer force of the impact, combined with the already intense heat from the jet fuel could possibly have caused the collapse of both towers.

What irks me, a little, is that on a program I saw on the History Channel, the engineers who designed the WTC specifically stated that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner.

The horizontal 'cuts' at the bottom of both WTC towers were...out of place...to say the least. Honestly, they shouldn't be there. Steel doesn't have the best tensile strength in the world, but if you try to crush it (ala, the weight of the towers falling) it's not going to cleanly break like that - it's going to twist and bend. IF it were to break, it would be a result of the building falling sideways (greatly overstechting the maximum tensile strength of the steel), and it wouldn't look clean like it did, at all.

WTC tower 7 - the little building - shouldn't have fallen at all IMO. Sure, it took a hell of a pounding, but what it experienced was nowhere near what the Federal Building in Oaklahoma City took when what's his face blew HALF of the building off. I have no way to rationalize that, at all.

As for the plane crashes at the Pentagon (and the plane that hit no buildings), I again have absolutely no way to rationalize them either. I remember hearing about the wreckage, or complete lack thereof at both sites, and I remember my dad being very critical of it.

I understand he can make loose claims at Part II and Part III,but so far it seems that everyone I talk to can't have explanations the questions I asked in the previous post, I'm not rubbing it in to you by any means, I'm just stating that no-one has answers to these questions.

And most of these answerless questions is due to lies or bad investigation. The 9/11 Commison report was suppose to solve these problems but it didnt at all, its only become a catalyst to more questions about 9-11. I just want answers like everyone else, and I don't expect anyone on this forum to be able to give me hard-rock evidence, but its the best I have for a discussion.

Originally Posted by I GaRbAg3 MaN I

I still believe that, but not as strongly as a felt about Loose Change, I mean can anybody really explain the whole Thermite being present in the Molten Metal, or the beams cut in a way that they cut Support bars when they demolize a building, or the collapse style of the WTC 7.

There wasn't any thermite, blasting caps, or det cord anywhere at ground zero. Not sure about the cut beams, got pics? As for WTC 7 that building got f..ked by the collapse of the twin towers. The bottom floors of WTC 7 are actually an amphitheater so any damage to the trusses would be catastrophic to the entire structure. Several generators fueled by diesel lines were compromised which sparked a huge fire inside WTC 7. Couple that with severe damage from the twin tower collapse and you have a devastating collapse on your hands of WTC 7.

Originally Posted by I GaRbAg3 MaN I

What about the identification of bodies, but the remains the fact that the plain was hot enough to incinarte itself, the abense of bodies at the Shanksville crash. I mean the crash looked sooooooo different than pictures of other Commercial airliners crashing. The delayed response by the NORAD defense system, just questions like that, that can't be answered. That the government wont give us a credible response too, I can't just disregard those questions for no reason.

I need a explanation of some sort.

Plenty of bodies were identified, to say that the flight recorder and passenger log were lying is unsubstantiated. United 93 left plenty of wreckage over a two mile radius. A commercial jet loaded with fuel getting shot down @ over 500mph isn't going to leave much behind anyways. As for the delayed response from NORAD, seriously. What are they supposed to do? They don't know which planes have been hijacked, there are 100's on radar because it's a normal day for US airtraffic, and you don't just shoot down a plane anywhere unless the threat of collateral damage outweighs the lives on the plane itself. They didn't know where the planes were going, and getting fighters to the right ones immediately is completely unrealistic.

Don't forget that your unanswered questions aren't suddenly verification of a conspiracy. Saying "I don't understand how the building fell, therefore the government demolished it" is an argument from ignorance and a non-sequitor as well because your ignorance isn't evidence of government involvement in a conspiracy.

<3 u davis.

Part I made sense but they really started to exagerate in part III. It had some potential.

this is an excerpt from a very long post i made in both of the previous zeitgeist debates on the off-topic section.

part two starts off with a bunch of civilians being quoted as saying "explosion". but duh, numbnuts, what the hell else would they call it? "it was a big boom thing." no. they're going to call it an explosion. history textbooks and people still refer to it as the world trade center "bombing" but we don't actually believe jet fighters flew over and dropped live bombs on it. it's just a word that was used improperly. not something to be taken out of context and prove a point. and so what if they DID think it was an explosion. a bunch of civilians who could barely piece together coherent sentences are suddenly experts on this stuff? as for experts, the bulk of the claims about the conspiracy were coming from dr. steven e. jones. he is one of the least liked of all physicists in his field, because like most conspiracy theorists, his research is very unfounded and lacks peer review. in fact, wikipedia (or any other source) will tell you that his work lacked academic rigor and review. he mentioned his experiments on "thermite" and how it is used as an explosive and how the molten steel suggests presence of thermite. but thermite does not suggest suspicious behaivor. thermite is used as a welding material in railroads and steel beams. it's entirely possible and probably likely that the thermite existed from welding the beams together when the towers were being constructed. speaking of the beams, the video shows ONE beam being cut in a diagonal suggesting an explosion. but google search "wtc rubble" and notice no beams are cut diagonally. if you look hard enough, of course you'd find one or two beams in a diagonal. it's called probability. if you want to find one like that out of hundreds, you'll find it. (also try this: think of two numbers in a deck of cards. look through your nearest deck of cards and chances are you'll find those two numbers you were thinking of next to each other? oh no, conspiracy!)

sorry i missed part three, but if this was the direction it was going, it does not deserve to be watched. i'd rather have the government lie to me then have some douches make a video and lie to me telling me not to believe someone else's lies. i hate hypocrisy. it disgusts me to no end, and documentaries like these that point out inadequacies and lies (while lying) deserve no attention.

hope maybe this can fuel the discussion or at least bring clarity to some points based on my own research on the topic.

Nomini, those were the posts I was hoping for, you to Show. I didn't whole heartedly ever believe that our government was responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 American Citizens, those were just questions that I couldn't answer for myself at all. And you guys for the most part, did. That is all, but I'd still like to hear more debate about this stuff.

Zeitgeist, while an interesting movie, has alot of clips from other CT movies, just all pieced together.

The 9/11 section is the one that interests me the most, and I think that this is something that everyone who is interested should read:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html