Zeitgeist, The Movie 2007

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Legendary

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Jhill
WTF is up with building 7? A building that fell due to fire? With steel structures? The video of that building falling is unreal. With the top middle caving in like that? Either that video or 911 was staged, I'll tell you that much.

Is it really surprising that a building fell due to fire?

Please tell me that you're not that stupid.

It wasn't fire!
Parts of one of the falling buildings DESTROYED the foundation of WTC7.
Try cutting off the bottom of your right leg, then standing up. Difficult?
Now imagine you're a building.

1. Calm down, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe that crap.
2. You're wrong. It was the fire weakening the structure that brought it down, it was not the physical damage from falling buildings.

link

"In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse, based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E.[5] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was primarily caused by fires on multiple stories (which were started by debris from the other two towers), and not by the actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC."

1. That was a misquote, I didn't mean to direct my comments at you.
2. You could at least mention that the falling WTC1 and 2 did hit the building, at least contributing to the collapse. From the same link:

NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[2] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[2]

The fire is a murky question, and WTC7 was fire protected. Losing 10 stories and a significant chunk of the base is a concrete contributor to the collapse.

Edit: Check pictures here: http://www.popularmechanics.co.../911myths/4213805.html

 

[NiteWulf]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: NiteWulf
There is no indication of the number of visitors Jesus had in the nativity story. The Bible mentions "wise men", not three wise men. I don't believe they are referred to as kings, but I may be mistaken.

There is no direct mention of the number of wise men, but their number could be inferred from the number of gifts they presented to the baby Jesus:

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. -Matthew 2:4

Three gifts does not equal three visitors. There could have been two wise men or twenty, it's just that there were three different gifts mentioned.

As with all reiterations of myth the details are subject to change. I have no problem seeing the 3 kings of past myth as the 3 wise men of current myth.

There was a bit of time between the appearance of the new star and the visitation of the wise men, evidenced by Herod's order to kill the male children two years old and under.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. -Matthew 2:1

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. - Matthew 2:16

From these passages the star in the east clearly came first, because it drew the wise men to Jerusalem, where they THEN told Herod of the king of the Jews. He sent them to investigate the matter. After the wise men didn't return to Jerusalem to report on their findings Herod realized that he had been duped and ordered the slaying of children 2 and under in Bethlehem.

So there was the appearance of the star, travel time of the wise men to Jerusalem, Herod's order to find the new king, wise men visiting Jesus, then Herod realizing he'd been duped. ~Two years from start to finish. The video would seem to indicate the belief that the wise men visited Jesus in the same week as his birth

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Printer Bandit

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Jhill
WTF is up with building 7? A building that fell due to fire? With steel structures? The video of that building falling is unreal. With the top middle caving in like that? Either that video or 911 was staged, I'll tell you that much.

Is it really surprising that a building fell due to fire?

Please tell me that you're not that stupid.

Yes.

To address something directly mentioned in the movie: What is the explanation for the molten metal and clearly angled cuts in the steel supports of all three buildings? I've never seen those pictures before, nor been aware of that aspect of the controversy.

After seeing the movie I must be convinced that the pictures are falsified or that somehow the unassisted fall of the building could have produced this phenomenon before I can write it off in good conscience.

It seems to have been made clear that burning jet fuel cannot melt steel at all. Is this true?

 

[Jhill]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Jhill

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Jhill
WTF is up with building 7? A building that fell due to fire? With steel structures? The video of that building falling is unreal. With the top middle caving in like that? Either that video or 911 was staged, I'll tell you that much.

Is it really surprising that a building fell due to fire?

Please tell me that you're not that stupid.

Yeah usually buildings that "burn down" Fall EXACTLY like the ones that where demolished with the center caving and all. I mean it collapsed exactly straight down. I am not saying it didn't happen. I am saying the video of it was staged or 911 was.

You seem young and naive. So gullible, so clueless.

The facts and fallacies that you conspiracy theorists cling onto is pathetic. I see that some of you morons use the fact that a news station erroneously reported the fall of WTC7 before it happened as "proof" that it was a conspiracy. This just demonstrates a clear lack of common sense, since if it was a conspiracy, why would the government let major news organizations know that they're about to do something illegal before it happens? That would make no sense at all.

You conspiracy theorists are morons with a poor grip on reality.

Keep in mind you are the one using the words "moron,clueless,gullible and pathetic" not me.

I understand that if any of this was true it would hurt you and/or your faith, so I can understand why you would be opposed to it.

You are right, the government is filled with honest non-hungry,non-powerful people unlike the rest of society. I hope you sleep well tonite. As I said before Either the footage of this movie or 911 was a fake. But I don't think you even watched the movie so this is a moot point.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: NiteWulf
Three gifts does not equal three visitors. There could have been two wise men or twenty, it's just that there were three different gifts mentioned.

Of course you're right. I have no solid argument here, but there are other parallels between the life of Jesus and various other mythological figures. In hindsight, one might be inclined to compare these myths to our current nativity story.

So there was the appearance of the star, travel time of the wise men to Jerusalem, Herod's order to find the new king, wise men visiting Jesus, then Herod realizing he'd been duped. ~Two years from start to finish. The video would seem to indicate the belief that the wise men visited Jesus in the same week as his birth

I misunderstood your post here. There certainly must have been a 2 year period of time between the first sighting of the eastern star and Herod's order to kill the children, or else he wouldn't have bothered with killing 2 year old children. Apologies.

 

[Narmer]

I still don't understand how the Federal Reserve Banking system is privately owned. How is that so? Does anybody care to lay it out for me?

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Jhill

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Jhill
WTF is up with building 7? A building that fell due to fire? With steel structures? The video of that building falling is unreal. With the top middle caving in like that? Either that video or 911 was staged, I'll tell you that much.

Is it really surprising that a building fell due to fire?

Please tell me that you're not that stupid.

Yeah usually buildings that "burn down" Fall EXACTLY like the ones that where demolished with the center caving and all. I mean it collapsed exactly straight down. I am not saying it didn't happen. I am saying the video of it was staged or 911 was.

You seem young and naive. So gullible, so clueless.

The facts and fallacies that you conspiracy theorists cling onto is pathetic. I see that some of you morons use the fact that a news station erroneously reported the fall of WTC7 before it happened as "proof" that it was a conspiracy. This just demonstrates a clear lack of common sense, since if it was a conspiracy, why would the government let major news organizations know that they're about to do something illegal before it happens? That would make no sense at all.

You conspiracy theorists are morons with a poor grip on reality.

Of course there are extreme opinions on the matter, a lot of people are always going to play devil's advocate and fill in blanks with extremities when no-one has a reasonable explanation. I don't know what "reality" you live in, but deeming those who think outside popular judgment "naive, gullible, and clueless" is the exact opposite of what you claim us to be doing in entertaining such thought. If anything, you denouncing our desire to think otherwise claims you to be the one embodying such qualities. :roll:

I'm not saying I support these theories, but seeing both viewpoints no matter the bias betters my judgment to which I can keep from being indifferent or careless like you seem to be. I'd much rather spend my time watching these "conspiracy videos" than turning on my television or opening my newspaper to top news stories involving Paris Hilton, and other media propagated BS. If more people did so there would be no need for this Zeitgeist Movie in the first place right?

 

[Rockinacoustic]

My apologies. Double Post.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

"Don't take any shit from the zeitgeist." - comedian George Carlin

 

[JEDIYoda]

way to sad you tin foil hats still just don`t get it...lolol

 

[imported_Hanspfall]

I stopped watching it at 18:24 min mark. As far as I know most the of ideas of the first part are ripped from Gerald Massey's many theories on modern Christianity and how most of the stories surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ can be derived from ancient Egyptian mythology. Sadly the idea of the Sun standing still and "residing in the vicinity of the Southern Cross for three days" is ridiculous as the Southern Cross isn't visible from the Northern Hemisphere.

Based on that fact alone I'm leery of even preceding any further. But it is great to see the ideas of a self-taught "Egyptologist" put on film! After reading just a smidgen of Massey's work I would rank him right up there with Ignatius Donnelly. Both men were great at coming up with mounds of circumstantial evidence and then making gigantic leaps of logic to "prove" their theories thus making for some entertaining reading!

 

[jackace]

It's not a very good movie, but it does bring up some very good points about our banking system and how corrupt our entire economic system really is.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Hanspfall
I stopped watching it at 18:24 min mark. As far as I know most the of ideas of the first part are ripped from Gerald Massey's many theories on modern Christianity and how most of the stories surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ can be derived from ancient Egyptian mythology. Sadly the idea of the Sun standing still and "residing in the vicinity of the Southern Cross for three days" is ridiculous as the Southern Cross isn't visible from the Northern Hemisphere.

Based on that fact alone I'm leery of even preceding any further. But it is great to see the ideas of a self-taught "Egyptologist" put on film! After reading just a smidgen of Massey's work I would rank him right up there with Ignatius Donnelly. Both men were great at coming up with mounds of circumstantial evidence and then making gigantic leaps of logic to "prove" their theories thus making for some entertaining reading!

Yeah, there are more than enough real, proven parallels between astrology/paganism and modern religion, that you don't have to stretch the truth just to make every single thing fit. I stopped watching around the same time you did for that reason.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Hanspfall
I stopped watching it at 18:24 min mark. As far as I know most the of ideas of the first part are ripped from Gerald Massey's many theories on modern Christianity and how most of the stories surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ can be derived from ancient Egyptian mythology. Sadly the idea of the Sun standing still and "residing in the vicinity of the Southern Cross for three days" is ridiculous as the Southern Cross isn't visible from the Northern Hemisphere.

Based on that fact alone I'm leery of even preceding any further. But it is great to see the ideas of a self-taught "Egyptologist" put on film! After reading just a smidgen of Massey's work I would rank him right up there with Ignatius Donnelly. Both men were great at coming up with mounds of circumstantial evidence and then making gigantic leaps of logic to "prove" their theories thus making for some entertaining reading!

Yeah, there are more than enough real, proven parallels between astrology/paganism and modern religion, that you don't have to stretch the truth just to make every single thing fit. I stopped watching around the same time you did for that reason.

Skip the religion part its BS that we have all heard before. The end part about the Federal reserve and leaving the gold standard are the only good parts. The patriot act stuff is not bad either.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Hanspfall
I stopped watching it at 18:24 min mark. As far as I know most the of ideas of the first part are ripped from Gerald Massey's many theories on modern Christianity and how most of the stories surrounding the birth, life and death of Christ can be derived from ancient Egyptian mythology. Sadly the idea of the Sun standing still and "residing in the vicinity of the Southern Cross for three days" is ridiculous as the Southern Cross isn't visible from the Northern Hemisphere.

Based on that fact alone I'm leery of even preceding any further. But it is great to see the ideas of a self-taught "Egyptologist" put on film! After reading just a smidgen of Massey's work I would rank him right up there with Ignatius Donnelly. Both men were great at coming up with mounds of circumstantial evidence and then making gigantic leaps of logic to "prove" their theories thus making for some entertaining reading!

Yeah, there are more than enough real, proven parallels between astrology/paganism and modern religion, that you don't have to stretch the truth just to make every single thing fit. I stopped watching around the same time you did for that reason.

I didn't even get that far

I have read a lot about mythology and different religions in my youth, and never saw anything about Horus having disciples or about him being crucified. Mithra was older than 1200BC, and a lot of other things are not correct either. However it is important to know that a lot of the conclusions (while drawn from invalid sources) are still correct. Norse mythology was 'borrowed' for the crucifixion story and the 'spear of destiny' (Odin sacrificed himself by hanging on the world tree Yggdrasil and letting himself be wounded by his own spear).
The winter solstice was indeed chosen as 'birth of Christ' to make it easier for those celebrating the solstice to move to Christianity.
The virgin birth is indeed very popular among stories regarding the birth of deities.

I think they wanted to link them all together too enthusiastically, rather than just showing how several stories with far less overlap between them were used to paste together a new religion.

 

[AFSCrazy]

Conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of unAmerican bullsh*t artists set on bringing down the government with their ill-conceived agenda based on few facts and heavy speculation. And for some reason, any a*hole with youtube access and windows movie maker can now make a, and I use the word loosely. "documentary" by clipping together pre-existing news clips and taking interviews out of context to prove a point.
Conspiracy theorists seem to deem themselves as a more intelligent life form because of their seemingly omniscient perspective, droning on and on about how naive I must be to believe what the news government tells me. But what kind of aficionado are they on this subject? Does watching a documentary suddenly make you some sort of guru blessed with this newfound plethora of information able to dispute years of research and proven facts? Lets compare the information I have, versus the information you have:

Me:
-5 years of extensive media covreage by countless newspapers, magazines and television broadcasts on numerous networks.
-Live video, civilian and press of two jets crashing into the world trade center. Or were the bystanders with video cameras in on it too?
-A full, extensive commission report
-Confessions from the suspected terrorists.

Conspiracy Theorists:
-Loose change
-Loose change 2 (Sequels are never as good as the original)
-Zeitgeist
-poorly conceived, overly dramatic flash of how a "missile" hit the pentagon. See: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

As you can see, my evidence far outweighs yours. Case in point, If you really believe that the government committed 9/11, why are you still here? If I had the slightest shred of doubt, if I thought for even a second that my own country would kill its own people for profit, then I would be the f*ck out of here. Don't get me wrong, the government is not perfect, but for f*ck sake your own country deserves a little more God damn credit then you give it. I'm all for lining up every conspiracy theorist and putting a bullet in their head. They hinder the integrity of the United States, and should be held accountable for treason and inciting anarchy.

 

[QueBert]

I enjoyed it. I'm not a paranoid conspiracist but I do wonder about a lot of what happened during 9/11 and since. I don't blindly accept what they tell us, corruption is obviously there. I have no idea if they were behind 9/11, I don't see that being the truth. But they know more than they're telling us, and if you're with holding back vital information, even if you didn't do it you're guilty of something.

to AFSCrazy, again I'm not saying Bush was behind any of this, but there's no way in hell a 747 flew into the Pentagon, why were we fed this story what happened at the Pentagon? Its never sat well with me

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee


It seems to have been made clear that burning jet fuel cannot melt steel at all. Is this true?

That is very misleading. That's what you get when you let a conspiracy theorist give you your engineering facts instead of an engineer.

They seem to be operating under the assumption that the steel would need to melt before the building would collapse, but that's not true. The steel loses its strength as it gets hotter, and eventually it would be too weak to support the weight. This would happen long before it melted.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

I'm not saying I support these theories, but seeing both viewpoints no matter the bias betters my judgment to which I can keep from being indifferent or careless like you seem to be. I'd much rather spend my time watching these "conspiracy videos" than turning on my television or opening my newspaper to top news stories involving Paris Hilton, and other media propagated BS. If more people did so there would be no need for this Zeitgeist Movie in the first place right?

The thing is that the fact about these subjects are out there, yet I still see the conspiracy theorists stating incorrect information.

They claim that steel can't take down a steel structure because jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. This is nonsense that anyone with common sense would see right through. Obviously you don't need to melt steel to weaken it. While steel doesn't melt until 2500-2700 degrees F, it has already lost half its strength by 1100 degrees F. Fireproofing doesn't make the structure immune to heat, it just helps it stand longer so people can get out. This building burned out of control for hours since they evacuated the area earlier on. Finally the building succumbed to the heat.

Again, common sense. Most of the conspiracy theorists that I see are 15-22 year old kids who think they have a clue about the world but really don't. It's well known that people in that age group are gullible and misguided.

 

[Phokus]

Marked.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: AFSCrazy
Conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of unAmerican bullsh*t artists set on bringing down the government with their ill-conceived agenda based on few facts and heavy speculation. And for some reason, any a*hole with youtube access and windows movie maker can now make a, and I use the word loosely. "documentary" by clipping together pre-existing news clips and taking interviews out of context to prove a point.
Conspiracy theorists seem to deem themselves as a more intelligent life form because of their seemingly omniscient perspective, droning on and on about how naive I must be to believe what the news government tells me. But what kind of aficionado are they on this subject? Does watching a documentary suddenly make you some sort of guru blessed with this newfound plethora of information able to dispute years of research and proven facts? Lets compare the information I have, versus the information you have:

Me:
-5 years of extensive media covreage by countless newspapers, magazines and television broadcasts on numerous networks.
-Live video, civilian and press of two jets crashing into the world trade center. Or were the bystanders with video cameras in on it too?
-A full, extensive commission report
-Confessions from the suspected terrorists.

Conspiracy Theorists:
-Loose change
-Loose change 2 (Sequels are never as good as the original)
-Zeitgeist
-poorly conceived, overly dramatic flash of how a "missile" hit the pentagon. See: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

As you can see, my evidence far outweighs yours. Case in point, If you really believe that the government committed 9/11, why are you still here? If I had the slightest shred of doubt, if I thought for even a second that my own country would kill its own people for profit, then I would be the f*ck out of here. Don't get me wrong, the government is not perfect, but for f*ck sake your own country deserves a little more God damn credit then you give it. I'm all for lining up every conspiracy theorist and putting a bullet in their head. They hinder the integrity of the United States, and should be held accountable for treason and inciting anarchy.

Holy crap, this is the best troll post I've ever read on ATOT, to date.

Good post! :laugh: But please, nationalism isn't funny, it's a serious disease of the mind. You shouldn't make fun of it...

91TTZ, your posts don't provide any kind of proof what-so-ever that you know anything about steel structures or how they support weight. The amount of time the jet fuel would have burned for was far to short to reach steel weakening temperatures, not to mention burning jet fuel barely reaches those temperatures at all.

Let's pretend for a moment that on the few floors that were burning jet fuel for 20x longer than it actually would have IRL, the steel really did weaken to the point of failure. The floors would've fallen a few stories, then stopped. The structure is designed to support that kind of damage. The floors are designed to support that collapse to stop a complete outer collapse. The key word there being "outer".

Let's NOW pretend that the floors actually did pancake all the way to ground level, even though the floors below the few that were on fire could have supported the weight of them falling, as I previously stated. The center skeleton would have stayed standing, due to it's incredible strength.

Now... Look... None of this happened. What happened in real life was the entire structure failed, completely. That is completely improbable, especially with jet fuel that could only have burned for a few minutes, barely heating the steel to temperatures that would have been about what you need to cook eggs on. Yeah.

My grandfather is a career steel worker, and he has been teaching me about steel and specifically the WTC structure since before 9/11. He loved those buildings. I'm no engineer, but he is, and he's absolutely baffled by this entire notion that a plane could take down one or much less BOTH of the WTC buildings in exactly the same fashion.

Don't even get me started on WTC7, because that entire situation is completely rediculous, and there was NO reason for it to fall.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand, and even believe that the jet fuel combined with the jets initial impact could have possibly damaged/burned for long enough to weaken a few localized bolts that held together the beams in the outer structure. That still does not account for the center skeleton, nor does it account for the pancaking of the floors BENEATH said floors, which were designed to catch the fall, so to speak.

Edit: Please, don't start whining about how I'm a nut and that I think the government took the towers down, because there is as much proof of that as there is for the planes being the cause of the twin-towers collapsing.

I'm not going to pretend to "know" that the government had a hand in it, because I don't.

I've said before, though, that I simply wouldn't put it past them.

 

[QueBert]

the movie was interesting, I wouldn't say the person who made it is a paranoid tool. And I'm not trying to push views on other people as to what they should think, but it brings up some things that need to be thought about imho.

you don't have to believe the theories that the US was somehow behind the collapse of the WTC buildings to question what really happen. At very best I believe it was more than 2 planes hitting the buildings, with how they were built it would seem almost impossible odds for both buildings to fall exactly the same, when the reality, as manowar821 said. Is both should have remained standing, at least somewhat. I know about steel, and I know about rocket fuel. I don't see how the pancaking of the floors beneath the impact could happen. I understand there's been a commission report on this and years of investigation. But there's more to this story, maybe I am a bit paranoid but I don't feel I'm Unamerican because I feel the events of 9/11 didn't happen the way I've been told to believe. Terrorists are behind this, but it was more than 2 planes that brought down the buildings. The WTC was a design marvel and I just don't believe it came down the way we've been explained.

 

[Delta6Echo]

Originally posted by: Skacer
- Manbearpig is half pig and half manbear.

lol

 

[Alienwho]

Part 3 was the best, with part 2 leading up to part 3's explanation quite well. The part 1 on religion was just an explanation that the government uses religion as a tool to zombify the sheep to their bidding, which I think is true to an extent. However, that doesn't mean I agree with the religion segment, as I noticed many flaws.

I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but anybody who starts bashing the "tinfoils" without knowing any concept of the corrupt banking system will just make himself look ignorant and stupid. This movie tied in corrupt fat cat control junkies with 9/11 and the banks and the plans for the government to take away rights based on the request of the population quite well, and I believe it is entirely possible.

The evil men are so numerous and their secret combinations so well established, that even if we could get another President with the same caliber as Abraham Lincoln in office, it would be in vain. It's a shame that we don't have men with the same brilliant minds and morals as our founding fathers fighting through the BS of politics to their rightful position as leaders. I'm afraid anyone with that potential either joins in with the corruption, refuses to take part in it and gets ostracized (murdered/scare tactics, etc.) or deliberately stays away to take care of their families and local points of interest.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee


It seems to have been made clear that burning jet fuel cannot melt steel at all. Is this true?

That is very misleading. That's what you get when you let a conspiracy theorist give you your engineering facts instead of an engineer.

They seem to be operating under the assumption that the steel would need to melt before the building would collapse, but that's not true. The steel loses its strength as it gets hotter, and eventually it would be too weak to support the weight. This would happen long before it melted.

I understand that bit, but testimony from firemen (who were presumably IN the WTCs after the crash) in the movie indicates that there were rivulets of molten steel all over the place. One guy describes it as being "like a foundry".

The movie postulates that thermite, which most definitely burns hot enough to melt steel, was used to cut the supports. Then they show you a picture of a steel beam, surrounded by rubble, with a precisely angled cut and covered in melted steel. The caption of the picture reads "World Trade Center support beam" or some such.

Of course I've never seen the WTC rubble with my own eyes. That could have been a picture of a real demolition with a falsified caption for all I know.

If it is a real picture then something was definitely melting steel in that building. If it wasn't jet fuel then what was it?