ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[brettDbass]

News has reached me (via the Randi MySpace profile) of a new 9/11 conspiracy video, Zeitgeist (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=928518742089256264). They also have their own website http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

The MySpace conspiracy chat forums are all excited about it, although there is some disagreement about the highly religious (apparently strongly Catholic) content.


What does Christianity, 911 and The Federal Reserve have in common?

Zeitgeist was created as a not for profit work to inspire people to start looking at the world
from a more critical perspective.


Couldn't find any reference to it via the forum search facility (although you'll probably prove me wrong in a heartbeat), so I thought I'd share here. Enjoy.

[e^n]

I'm 6 minutes in and frankly insulted they would call this a movie. It's a music video at the moment and not a very good one.

edit: Jesus, I have my subwoofer on the lowest setting and it is far too bassy, whoever EQd this did not have a good set of monitors. Also 15 minutes in, still nothing interesting.

edit: This gets even better, 'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'. It is not, it is from 'horizontem'.

[jezcoe]

Also sunset is from the Egyptian god Set. I did see a beautiful Sunhorus this morning.

[Totovader]

A couple of conspiracists are buzzing about it- apparently it's quite anti-religious, which is odd for a conspiracy movie.

I have only watched the first 6 minutes or so- it's a black screen with some unnamed person giving a lecture. A lot of non-specific tripe so far.

This is probably going to be another one of those sophists movies. Going on and on and not saying anything specific or supported.

When conspiracists start making movies like the MythBusters make shows, I'll be interested.

[jezcoe]

Just skipped around as much as I could stand to watch. Imagine "The God who wasn't there" " Loose Change" and "America: Freedom to Fascism" put in a cannon.... fired off.... and then re-edited together. And I do mean that. Footage from those three movies were used.

[brettDbass]

Aah, I see.
The conspiracists' chats I'd been seeing all seemed to suggest the content was very much pro-religion. I might guess they're as wrong about most things in life as they are about 9/11.

Sounds like I'm missing nothing by not having watched it yet.

[boloboffin]

I am 1 hour and 31 minutes in. This is the most unadulterated, pressure-packed barrel of bull[rule8] I have yet seen in my life.

Part One: Why the Jews and the Christians Are Evil
Part Two: Why 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Part Three: Why the International Bankers Have Been Getting Away With It For Centuries

All of our favorites are here. It moves from CT to CT so fast that a library would have be dedicated to debunking the whole thing. It's insidious.

ETA: OMG, they used a clip of Carl Sagan at the end! Sweet Sufferin' Jeebus.

[Brainster]

I watched it last week and while I enjoyed the fruitcake first third about religion because it was new to me, the 9-11 nonsense was the same old, same old. I did not finish the last segment about the international bankers.

[Par]

Who is the rather pompous and overly verbose quasi-postmodernist at the beginning?

I watched as far as the Flight 175 impact pornography complete with car crash sound effects.

[Redtail]

edit: This gets even better, 'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'. It is not, it is from 'horizontem'.

:eek: I read that and my brain stopped. Quick! What year is it?!?!?11

[boloboffin]

I watched it last week and while I enjoyed the fruitcake first third about religion because it was new to me, the 9-11 nonsense was the same old, same old. I did not finish the last segment about the international bankers.

"Fruitcake first third" is right. I am an atheist, and my head pounded three holes into the drywall watching that nuttiness.

Anyway, the whole thing's plagiarized and we are starting to get bombarded with this over at DU. Somebody wants me to point out some lies in the silly thing, and is upset with me because I say things like "Well, start at about the beginning, and right around where the end is? That's all lies."

Here's where I'm pointing people to for more information:

The God Who Wasn't There analysis (http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm)
Loose Change Guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html)
Debunking Federal Reserve CTs (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html)
Income Tax myths (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm)

I'm liking what I see at the GWWT analysis because the guy seems to be like me, ready to accept the basic premise but stoked about how the numbskull goes about "proving" it.

[T.A.M.]

Apparently the truther community is buzzing about it. A truther here, I believe, or at SLC blog called it, I'll let you guess....undebunkable, and the best movie from the truth movement.

I will not watch it, as reviews here tell me all I need to know.

TAM:)

[Matilda]

I didn't get far in. I listened to the guy lecturing in the dark, inside the echoey (presumably empty) lecture hall, watched the flashy thing trying to give me a seizure, and pretty space stuff (I liked that), then the BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM thing. I noticed there's over 2 hours of this stuff and gave up.

[Jonnyclueless]

I would like to hear about this movie. I have not been able to watch it due to strict policies.

The policy is that I will not watch anything that makes me sit for 10 minutes listening to sinister music while displaying quotes. If someone has a point to make, they would not have to rely on cheap tricks.

If there is a version where all this crap is edited out, i would be really interested in watching.

[grmcdorman]

I would like to hear about this movie. I have not been able to watch it due to strict policies.

The policy is that I will not watch anything that makes me sit for 10 minutes listening to sinister music while displaying quotes. If someone has a point to make, they would not have to rely on cheap tricks.

If there is a version where all this crap is edited out, i would be really interested in watching.From the sound of it, there wouldn't be anything left. :D

[boloboffin]

I would like to hear about this movie. I have not been able to watch it due to strict policies.

The policy is that I will not watch anything that makes me sit for 10 minutes listening to sinister music while displaying quotes. If someone has a point to make, they would not have to rely on cheap tricks.

If there is a version where all this crap is edited out, i would be really interested in watching.

The originals. LOL.

Actually, I'm serious. Merola hasn't just borrowed heavily from other CT films out there - the movie is nothing but wholesale blocks of other people's materials. It has the tacit approval (or outright approval) of some, though - Prison Planet recognizes the use of Terror Storm on an announcement about the piece.

This seems to be Merola's video for his live presentation, which would presumably include his live musical accompaniment to many parts of the video that lack other sound. Merola is really interested in brainwashing people, and like most brainwashed subjects, the converts are running around trying to "unbrainwash" everyone by making them watch the movie.

[T.A.M.]

If there is a version where all this crap is edited out, i would be really interested in watching.

Here is the version with all the crap edited out....()

TAM;)

[Brainster]

Merola hasn't just borrowed heavily from other CT films out there - the movie is nothing but wholesale blocks of other people's materials. It has the tacit approval (or outright approval) of some, though - Prison Planet recognizes the use of Terror Storm on an announcement about the piece.

It's a recognition that this stuff is all seat-of-the-pants and that maybe somebody will come up with the ultimate mix that will turn us all into Zombies for 9-11 Denial. Or maybe lots of people delivering their own personal message will turn enough into semi-"Truthers" to expand the market for tee shirts and videos.

That said, I have long been a proponent of the type of marketing these folks are using; "Give it away and eventually loyal customers will pay for it."

[grmcdorman]

Here is the version with all the crap edited out....()

TAM;)That's what I said (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2709527#post2709640)... :p

(Well, almost.)

Edit: Huh? The [post] code makes an embedded window with the other post in it? That's not what the help seems to say it does?

[mnky]

You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it, despite it having a 9 minute introduction of almost entirely music (although I agree this introduction is a little unneccesary).

"'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'" I've now seen it twice and I didn't once hear anyone mention horus leading onto horizon. Even if i did miss it, twice, surely there are plenty of other more relevant statements that you could focus on discrediting than one small point regarding language. Afterall that part of the film was focussing on religion, something that you all have avoided to discuss.

My advice to you so called well-educated crowd is that maybe you should educate yourself by watching the film entirely before passing such self-righteous judgement on it.

My review? It's certainly flawed, it's unneccesarily melodramatic and it's hypocritical at times for lacking substance in it's convictions. However, it's also very refreshing, educating, challenging, mind opening... it certainly can do no more harm than your government and media does in the same amount of time.

I'm all for being cynical, I think it's an essential prerequisite for reading any newspaper these days. However, you guys all seem to be capable of only skepticism... i'm still waiting too see evidence of educated discussion.

The 2nd part about 9/11 is the film's weakest part, but it's there for a reason. The 3rd part of the film is extremely hard to swallow, but something everybody should be aware of, so, in the unlikely case that it is true, at least we can see it coming.

[T.A.M.]

You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it, despite it having a 9 minute introduction of almost entirely music (although I agree this introduction is a little unneccesary).

"'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'" I've now seen it twice and I didn't once hear anyone mention horus leading onto horizon. Even if i did miss it, twice, surely there are plenty of other more relevant statements that you could focus on discrediting than one small point regarding language. Afterall that part of the film was focussing on religion, something that you all have avoided to discuss.

My advice to you so called well-educated crowd is that maybe you should educate yourself by watching the film entirely before passing such self-righteous judgement on it.

My review? It's certainly flawed, it's unneccesarily melodramatic and it's hypocritical at times for lacking substance in it's convictions. However, it's also very refreshing, educating, challenging, mind opening... it certainly can do no more harm than your government and media does in the same amount of time.

I'm all for being cynical, I think it's an essential prerequisite for reading any newspaper these days. However, you guys all seem to be capable of only skepticism... i'm still waiting too see evidence of educated discussion.

The 2nd part about 9/11 is the film's weakest part, but it's there for a reason. The 3rd part of the film is extremely hard to swallow, but something everybody should be aware of, so, in the unlikely case that it is true, at least we can see it coming.


Welcome to the forum mnky.

I have not watched it. if I had to watch every single CT video that rises from the swamp, I would have to quit my day job, and it pays the bills. As a result, I rely on the opinions of those from this 9/11 Debunking Subforum, who do watch it, to see whether there is anything new or exciting to watch and trash. In this case it appears to be the same old diatribe from a 9/11 pov. As far as the other two sections go...does not interest me anyway.

Oh, and you are not likely doing yourself any favors in terms of welcoming here, by referring to us as "So Called" educated crowd.

TAM:)

[calebprime]

I didn't get far in. I listened to the guy lecturing in the dark, inside the echoey (presumably empty) lecture hall, watched the flashy thing trying to give me a seizure, and pretty space stuff (I liked that), then the BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM thing. I noticed there's over 2 hours of this stuff and gave up.

my bold

Here is the version with all the crap edited out....()

TAM;)

You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it...

Thanks all, for saving me the time and the sanity.

First impressions are important. If something relies on flash-cuts, or flashes of some other kind, or music, or it sucks for the first six minutes, that's all one needs to see.

But some people here did watch more, and the rest was the usual CT nonsensical mess. No big surprise.

There are many things competing for our attention. What duty compels us to watch crap?

First posts are often telling, too.

[calebprime]

I see there's a newer version here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/ZEITGEIST-The-Movie-Official-Release-Full-Film

without the pseudo-Buddhistic vaguely nonsensical intro.

It's also posssible to dip in to various moments by moving the pointer thingy.

By doing this, you can see what utter crap this movie is.

[boloboffin]

You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it, despite it having a 9 minute introduction of almost entirely music (although I agree this introduction is a little unneccesary).

"'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'" I've now seen it twice and I didn't once hear anyone mention horus leading onto horizon. Even if i did miss it, twice, surely there are plenty of other more relevant statements that you could focus on discrediting than one small point regarding language. Afterall that part of the film was focussing on religion, something that you all have avoided to discuss.

My advice to you so called well-educated crowd is that maybe you should educate yourself by watching the film entirely before passing such self-righteous judgement on it.

My review? It's certainly flawed, it's unneccesarily melodramatic and it's hypocritical at times for lacking substance in it's convictions. However, it's also very refreshing, educating, challenging, mind opening... it certainly can do no more harm than your government and media does in the same amount of time.

I'm all for being cynical, I think it's an essential prerequisite for reading any newspaper these days. However, you guys all seem to be capable of only skepticism... i'm still waiting too see evidence of educated discussion.

The 2nd part about 9/11 is the film's weakest part, but it's there for a reason. The 3rd part of the film is extremely hard to swallow, but something everybody should be aware of, so, in the unlikely case that it is true, at least we can see it coming.

I've watched the entire thing, mnky, and it's something the scarab dragged in from start to finish.

[Tonberry2k]

Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? I'd like to lay a few of the internet message boards to frequent to rest. I've read that this simply restates things from other more famous videos.
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.

[calebprime]

...
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.

Try posting specific assertions from the film one by one, and see what people say.

I, for one, simply couldn't take it seriously--anything finding big links between 9/11, Federal Reserve, and Christianity is nonsense.

It seemed mostly to consist of non sequiturs and red herrings. It simply didn't hang together.

When someone says "everything is related" I reach for the DSM-IV or the "off" button.

But, again, maybe there were particular statements that you could get from it. If so, your work posting textual assertions from the film would be a service.

There are people here with expertise in each of the many areas the film covers--but I didn't think it was worth watching closely.

[calebprime]

Dipping in, I notice that they quote Dr. Steven Jones.

from the Wiki:

Like many professors at BYU, Jones has an interest in archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[4] For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence regarding the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.[5]

Jones also claims to have discovered evidence that Jesus Christ visited the ancient Mayans. His paper on the subject is no longer on the BYU website, but it is available elsewhere.[6]

[calebprime]

Then we have the usual crypto ultra right-wing paranoia about the Fed and money supply.

On this board, one poster who knows a lot about this is JonnyFive (sp?).

There are also threads on the subject--at least one current one.

[calebprime]

Ok, here's one:

"...to create a controlled population, utterly malleable in the hands of the few..."


This is the central tenet of conspiracy thinking--everything's being controlled by shadowy elites--maybe the Scottish freemasons, or reptoid shape-shifters, or, the JOOOOOS.

It just isn't that way. Things are highly decentralized, there IS no over-arching narrative.

[T.A.M.]

Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? I'd like to lay a few of the internet message boards to frequent to rest. I've read that this simply restates things from other more famous videos.
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.

Heh Tonberry2k, welcome to the forum...officially.

As you have read above, I avoided watching it after some comments from people I trust on this site.

If you have any particular claims the movie makes that confuse you, have you worried, or even convinced, do the following...

1. Is the claim they make backed by SPECIFIC EVIDENCE. If yes, go to Question 2, if not, than it is mere speculation and opinion, and should be treated as such.

2. Is the evidence from a reliable source without any anti-govt or other bias? if yes, than go to #3, if no, than consider the source suspect, and hence the evidence itself.

3. Present the specific arguement they make here at the forum as a single topic or posting, along with the referenced evidence they site, and we will all likely have a go at it.

TAM:)

[Tonberry2k]

Oh, I wasn't aware of another, more active topic on this subject. I didn't mean to bump a stagnant thread.
Thanks for the input, guys. I'll look around the forum for some more comments on this video.

[T.A.M.]

No Tonberry, this is the thread. What gives you the impression the thread was stagnant. I merely was stating that I did not watch the video, because others who have, basically told me it held nothing new in the area of 9/11, and the other two parts I wasnt really interested in anyway. Please take my earlier suggestion seriously. If you have an issue it discusses, which you wish to discuss, bring said issue up as a singular topic, and I am sure others will chime in.

TAM:)

[Tonberry2k]

Well, the religion bit is all bunk anyway, so I don't need any explanation there. Same with the 9/11 stuff. I've heard it all before.
The new stuff to me is the Wold Bank. If anyone could explain the conspiracy there and debunk some of the points this movie brings up, I'd be very grateful. Thanks!

[Brainster]

Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? I'd like to lay a few of the internet message boards to frequent to rest. I've read that this simply restates things from other more famous videos.
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.

I suggest for the claims in the second part that you check out 9-11 Myths (http://www.911myths.com/); Mike's site is very well organized, as is Debunking 9-11 (http://www.debunking911.com/). There are any number of good books on the Federal Reserve; one that I enjoyed personally was Secrets of the Temple, by William Greider which while written from a leftist perspective is not CT.

[GregoryUrich]

Just viewed part three. Scary. Hit the Federal Reserve site for this:

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

The last part seems like circular logic by which you need to be a member to receive stock and you need to have a certain amount of stock to be a member. So can a bank without stock become a member? It wouldn't seem so.

[arockincanada]

Does anyone know if some of the main statements made in part 1 of this movie are in fact true?

1. Would "The Three Kings" of Orians belt actually line up with Sirius, as to be pointing towards the sunrise on December 25th, (in ~4AD of course.)

2. Does the sun, when viewed from the northern hemisphere, at the winter equinox "stop" moving south (perceivably), for three days, and then start to move north again?

3. On the winter equinox, does the sun set in the vicinity of the southern cross?

4. Is Moses believed to have been alive in ~2150 BC?

[boloboffin]

1. The three stars of Orion's belt don't line up. Any line approximated from their general position will always describe the same line with Sirius. I have found no evidence yet that anyone called those three stars the Three Kings independently of the Christian legend.

Does it line up with the rising of the sun on Christmas morning? Absolutely not. I went to a site called Your Sky (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yoursky) and found the view of the sky over Jerusalem on 12 December 4 BC. At sunrise, Orion and Sirius are not even in the sky. They are in the sky 5 hours earlier, at midnight, but a line starting at Sirius and going through the belt is pointing at exactly due WEST. And I believe GWWT draws the line as starting at the belt and going through Sirius, which puts the intersection with the horizon SSE, well south of the sunrise.

I checked 1 CE. Same thing. It's a flat out lie.

2. It depends on how strong your perceptions are. Ancient civilizations could mark the exact day of the equinox, so the "stop motion" would be beside the point.

3. Absolutely not. It's the Southern Cross for a reason. It's in the South. At that point in time, the Southern Cross was just barely visible at the extreme southern part of the sky in Jerusalem.

4. Moses is not believed to have been alive at all. The story of the Exodus doesn't fit any scholarly account of history available.

[Kahalachan]

Good to see this topic. I made a topic about this movie when the craze was just starting. I would like to hear more about it.

I was very skeptical first seeing it. Even other atheists were jumping on this bandwagon.

[CurtC]

Does it line up with the rising of the sun on Christmas morning? Absolutely not. I went to a site called Your Sky (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yoursky) and found the view of the sky over Jerusalem on 12 December 4 BC. At sunrise, Orion and Sirius are not even in the sky. They are in the sky 5 hours earlier
Does that web program account for the precession of the equinoxes? I wouldn't think that it would move 5 hours in 2000 years, but still I wonder whether that program is accurate for 2000 years ago.

[babycondor]

Does anyone know if some of the main statements made in part 1 of this movie are in fact true?

1. Would "The Three Kings" of Orians belt actually line up with Sirius, as to be pointing towards the sunrise on December 25th, (in ~4AD of course.)

2. Does the sun, when viewed from the northern hemisphere, at the winter equinox "stop" moving south (perceivably), for three days, and then start to move north again?

3. On the winter equinox, does the sun set in the vicinity of the southern cross?

4. Is Moses believed to have been alive in ~2150 BC?

1. The three stars are closely (but not exactly) lined up with each other, and a line can be drawn from them at a slight angle to Sirius. This configuration is well recognized and often used by stargazers to locate Sirius.

Orion appears in the Dec 20-21 Jerusalem sky shortly after sunset in ~4 BC. A line drawn from the belt through Sirius (as depicted in the film) would be pointing at the East/Southeast horizon, approximately where the sun would rise the following morning.

2.You mean the winter SOLSTICE. From Wikipedia: "The name is derived from Latin sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), because at the solstice, the Sun stands still in declination, that is, its movement north or south is minimal."

3. Again, you mean the winter solstice. At the winter solstice, the sun would have set at its furthest southern point on the western horizon.

From Wikipedia: "Due to precession of the equinoxes, the stars comprising Crux [the southern Cross] were visible from the Mediterranean area in antiquity....Although these stars were known to the ancient Greeks, gradual precession of the equinoxes had lowered them below the European skyline so that they were forgotten there. For example at the latitude of Athens in 1000 B.C., Crux was clearly visible, although it was low in the sky. However, by 400 A.D., most of the constellation never rose above the horizon for Athenians. "

4. I don't know.

The Zeitgeist movie used a great deal of what can charitably be called "artistic license" in laying out the case for the mythological underpinnings of Christianity. Joseph Campbell's exhaustive studies in the field of comparative mythology do a much better job of this, and more convincingly, in my opinion. Also of interest along these lines (particularly the subfield of archaeoastronomy), is Hamlet's Mill by Georgio Santillana and Hertha von Dechend.

[arockincanada]

4. Moses is not believed to have been alive at all. The story of the Exodus doesn't fit any scholarly account of history available.

Not that I'm trying to say that it's true or not, but you should see "The Exodus Decoded" (I think I saw it on The Discovery Channel), a very interesting watch.

[Grimlorn]

I just watched this movie and I have to say I'm very curious about this movie and some of the things it talks about.

Someone said everything from beginning to end is false, however, they are wrong. Some of the things in this movie are true. Atleast I know for a fact.

It talks about the Patriot act and the illegal laws that were passed in it. Nothing about this was untrue. I've also read, last month, that the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for Bush to detain any US citizens he considers enemy combatants without any charges or proof.

I also think I remember reading another article saying that there was another ruling that was for all other people besides citizens of the US saying basically the same thing.

I also don't see how he faked a video of a guy on MSNBC market watch talking about the Amero? I'm not sure if I've heard anything about this or not. I might have but I don't know if its true. So I'd like to know whats going on with this.

Back when I was in college in May the teacher was talking about them trying to pass a law for a National ID card with a strip on it with all our information on it. So they can just swipe your card and get anything they want on you. This movie was made in June I guess and its talking about the same thing. He actually sets a date for May of 2008 we will start being required to have these for ID.

I don't know if the date is maybe wrong but I find it odd that I would hear about this stuff from different sources.

The 9/11 stuff was new to me. I have to admit that I had no idea there was a 3rd building not hit by anything but apparently collasped anyways? WTF was that. Is it true that the support beams or whatever looked like they were cut at an angle? I mean they did make and pass the Patriot Act within like 28 hours? or maybe it was 2 days, but they passed it quick even though it removed a lot of liberties. I forgot to mention that they also have lots of different people who apparently worked in these buildings and were there on 9/11 and heard an explosion come from the bottom of the building right before the airplane hit the top. Also I think some resuce workers said they heard a bomb or explosion before the building collapsed.

It talks about the guy who lead the 9/11 commission being biased which I've read before and know that people were trying to petition him to resign so I know this is true. Maybe not him being biased but him being linked to the Bush administration and people trying to get him to resign. Is it true that the 9/11 commission had to unanimously agree with what was put in the report or it was dropped from it?

I've read different things on the centralized bank theory. It seems like people here disagree with the conspiracy of it? So I'm guessing the main bankers back in the early 1900s had nothing to do with the 1907 panic or 1920 panic or 1929? The reason I ask is because apparently a best friend of a Rothchild (sp?) that lives today came out and said he talked about this stuff with 9/11 and going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and there eventually being a chip with our money and information on it, and if anyone protests or rebels they will just turn it off. (in the movie)

I don't know if this is true. It could be pretty fake but it atleast sounds like enough to look into. Is that guy a credible source or is he some crazy guy that just asked for a picture with the guy and made the stuff up?

I know the religion aspect looks like crap to some people but its only on for 30 minutes, and it doesn't really relate religion to the 9/11 thing. It just kind of relates 9/11 to the world bank conspiracy and the wars.

I am a little curious but this would take some study about the religion part. Is it true that there were other supposed special gods or sons of gods or divine people born on Dec, 25 by a virgin? Or atleast when the same stars lined up? Or is this lies?

Anyways I know this is long I hope some of you can answer some of these questions I have if you can. You don't have to answer all of them, but if you could site sources as opposed to some guy that just wrote "the facts" on his web page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

[Grimlorn]

I hate to bump this, but I'd like to get some info from people on the subjects.

[Gorgonian]

The 9/11 stuff was new to me. I have to admit that I had no idea there was a 3rd building not hit by anything but apparently collasped anyways? WTF was that. Is it true that the support beams or whatever looked like they were cut at an angle? I mean they did make and pass the Patriot Act within like 28 hours? or maybe it was 2 days, but they passed it quick even though it removed a lot of liberties. I forgot to mention that they also have lots of different people who apparently worked in these buildings and were there on 9/11 and heard an explosion come from the bottom of the building right before the airplane hit the top. Also I think some resuce workers said they heard a bomb or explosion before the building collapsed.


The third building you are speaking of was WTC 7. The nearer of the two big WTC buildings collapsed into it, severely damaging it and starting a fire that was allowed to burn for many hours (because the sprinkler system was inoperative and the building itself was growing more and more unstable throughout the day) which eventually led to its collapse. The collapse of this building was widely believed to be probable all afternoon.

For a source on almost any 9/11 things you would like to know about, see the sticky post at the top of this sub-forum titled "Gravysites."

As for the rest of your stuff, I either don't know enough about it to comment or am just not interested enough to look into it. Maybe someone else can help you on that stuff.

[Grimlorn]

Thanks for the link. It looks like I have a lot of reading to sift through.

Hopefully someone else can help with the other questions I ask about?

[Tokyo Psyblog]

You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it...

My advice to you so called well-educated crowd is that maybe you should educate yourself by watching the film entirely before passing such self-righteous judgement on it.


I also found this forum by way of the same blog, and frankly was greatly disappointed when I got here. "I don't need to watch it because all the reviews say it's bad." ??? Gimme a break!

Judging by some of the juvenile comments in this thread, I have to believe that many posters have watched the wrong movie, or been spoon-fed what to say.

Fear of finding out that you've been lied to must be more frightening than I imagined. This is what separates the indoctrinated from the educated.

Cheers! Tokyo Psyblog

[Par]

"I don't need to watch it because all the reviews say it's bad." ??? Gimme a break!


Go and watch a load of holocaust denial and creationism documentaries then; or have you been “spoon-fed what to say”?

[maccy]

I also found this forum by way of the same blog, and frankly was greatly disappointed when I got here. "I don't need to watch it because all the reviews say it's bad." ??? Gimme a break!

Judging by some of the juvenile comments in this thread, I have to believe that many posters have watched the wrong movie, or been spoon-fed what to say.

Fear of finding out that you've been lied to must be more frightening than I imagined. This is what separates the indoctrinated from the educated.

Cheers! Tokyo Psyblog

Welcome to the forum, Tokyo Psyblog. I suggest you educate us by picking the single most important piece of evidence from the movie and starting a thread about it. If, as you say, we've been "spoon-fed", it shouldn't be too difficult to convince us.

[Tokyo Psyblog]

Go and watch a load of holocaust denial and creationism documentaries then; or have you been “spoon-fed what to say”?
Send me some links to these movies. As a journalist, filmmaker and an atheist, it should be interesting. I'm not afraid to look at what's in your spoon.

[Viper Daimao]

I'm not afraid to look at what's in your spoon.

Of course not. It's just that when you get the same spoonful for the 30th time only this time with really annoying music playing in the background, well you lose interest.

But please, find a bit or claim from the movie you found interesting and start a thread about it. That's much easier to digest than to say "Here watch this 2 hour movie and tell me what's wrong with it. That's a herculean task, though I'm sure it's been done somewhere by someone, the same way loose change has been picked apart scene by scene showing the lies, half truths, selective quotations and deceitful editing.

[Par]

Send me some links to these movies. As a journalist, filmmaker and an atheist, it should be interesting. I'm not afraid to look at what's in your spoon.


OK, well here are some on varying subjects to be going on with:


The Truth about the Theory of Evolution Parts 1-4 (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22++The+Truth+about+the+Theory+of+E volution%22)
Ten reasons WHY AIDS IS A HOAX (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9070469211931216625)
Who Infiltrated America? Jesuits? Zionists? Illuminati? NWO? Aliens? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2122580172028011390)
Close Encouters: Proof of Alien Contact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6M9JR1COPw)



Let me know when you've watched and evaluated those, and I'll find some more for you.

[Tokyo Psyblog]

"Here watch this 2 hour movie and tell me what's wrong with it. That's a herculean task...
Yeah... I never said that. In fact, I never said what I thought of this movie.

What I said was that I came to this forum on the premise that it offered insightful comments from an "educated" group -- and was disappointed to find very little.

[Viper Daimao]

Yeah... I never said that. In fact, I never said what I thought of this movie.

What I said was that I came to this forum on the premise that it offered insightful comments from an "educated" group -- and was disappointed to find very little.

Then honestly, you haven't looked very hard. I know you didn't say that, but it's kinda how the thread was started. I simply stated why this thread received the responses it did, and a better way to get what you are looking for. Look, grimlorn and possibly you are new to this movie yes? And at least grimlorn is obviously new to this whole 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. That's fine, nothing wrong with that, but many of us here have been researching this stuff for years. I simply say that so that you realize how repetitive this becomes and how jaded many posters here are.

So I ask you to look around. Come up with a question and search for it on here, or start a new thread and ask it. The tags at the bottom of the forum index are a good place to start. Find a bunch of WTC7 or Pentagon threads, read about Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin.

Also I found this thread (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98970) that may interest you.

[Grimlorn]

Well is there any real information about RFID chips. Do they put them in passports now. What do they do,etc?

I'm also curious about this national ID card thing. Is it really going to happen in May of 2008 where we are required to have one? I remember talking about this in college before this movie was created. I just thought the teacher was being stupid but apparently there may be something to it.

Also is there anything going on with the Amero? Is that actually a form of currency thats going to be released?

I just started reading that thread Viper, and its pretty much crap going back and forth between people. One guy is trying to tell everyone that the religion part is fake and stuff while 1 or 2 people are arguing with him that it isn't. While none of them are really providing any facts to it.

[Viper Daimao]

I don't have all the exact answers on some of that stuff, but why don't you try searching for yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_national_identity_card
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71910&highlight=amero

[Tokyo Psyblog]

OK, well here are some on varying subjects to be going on with:

The Truth about the Theory of Evolution Parts 1-4
Ten reasons WHY AIDS IS A HOAX
Who Infiltrated America? Jesuits? Zionists? Illuminati? NWO? Aliens?
Close Encouters: Proof of Alien Contact

Let me know when you've watched and evaluated those, and I'll find some more for you.

* Truth about the Theory of Evolution Parts 1-4 -- Flawed from the outset. Melodramatic scare movie that plays on fundamentalist delusions that the Genesis fable of creation is real, and that any science that contradicts it can't be true and must be evil. Linking/blaming the atrocities of Hitler (a raving Christian, and yes there is plenty of photo evidence of this online) on the writings of a 19th century scientist is disturbingly funny. The misconception of racial superiority was written into the bible long before Darwin.
* Ten reasons WHY AIDS IS A HOAX -- Most people, I'm sure, can't get past the title, which should have been "Ten reasons WHY AIDS IS A FRAUD." However, the premise is consistent with efforts to expose the cancer treatment industry as a massive money-making fraud.

I'll grab the other two tomorrow, but send me the holocaust one you mentioned.

For Grimlorn: Well is there any real information about RFID chips. Do they put them in passports now. What do they do,etc?
There was an excellent story in the Los Angeles Times on July 22 about RFID implants. The article has been moved to their online archives, but you should be able to find it. Yes, RFID implants are real. How these implants are being, or can be used is a topic that should be getting more discussion.
BTW -- the quip you were sent about WTC7 by poster Gorgonian is a myth. Even the CNN video of WTC7's destruction shows all the classic physical signs of a controlled demolition.

For Viper Daimao: This clown Conspiracy Clothes that you provided the link for is obviously another delusional nut case -- "The bible has been 100% accurate in its writing history in advance, this is how has validated itself. Challenge this claim..." Really? Why sure! Circular logic at its best! This is the same person who claimed there would be an alien encounter on July 4, which there wasn't.

Cheers! Psyblog

[Gravy]

BTW -- the quip you were sent about WTC7 by poster Gorgonian is a myth. Even the CNN video of WTC7's destruction shows all the classic physical signs of a controlled demolition. Hello, Tokyo. This statement is false. There are no signs in the videos, and no other evidence, and no logical reason to believe, that WTC 7 collapsed due to anything but damage and fire, as is true with the towers. There's plenty more information about WTC 7 in the link in my signature. Please get informed. Silly unsupported claims will earn you nothing but derision here.

[Viper Daimao]

For Viper Daimao: This clown Conspiracy Clothes that you provided the link for is obviously another delusional nut case -- "The bible has been 100% accurate in its writing history in advance, this is how has validated itself. Challenge this claim..." Really? Why sure! Circular logic at its best! This is the same person who claimed there would be an alien encounter on July 4, which there wasn't.

You're correct, the bible is not 100% accurate as far I know. I was merely trying to help with searching for info on the zietigest movie. It appears you need to do a lot of the same for wtc7 if you think it was a controlled demo.

[beachnut]

Yeah... I never said that. In fact, I never said what I thought of this movie.

What I said was that I came to this forum on the premise that it offered insightful comments from an "educated" group -- and was disappointed to find very little.
Okay, it is tripe, very bad. Like junk. What do you want? Go ahead, do the perfect review and tell us all the facts and good stuff. When can we expect an educated review of the film?

[beachnut]

*
BTW -- the quip you were sent about WTC7 by poster Gorgonian is a myth. Even the CNN video of WTC7's destruction shows all the classic physical signs of a controlled demolition.

Cheers! Psyblog
No, WTC7 show the signs of a bad CD. Did you really watch it? Gee, the top section failed first, well before the rest fell. Plus the building burned all day long. I have never seen in the history of high rise buildings a building burning all day before pushing the button. You see, fire would burn up and cook off the charges. Darn, that makes WTC7 the least like any CD ever in the history of the world. Forget the review of the movie, your ability to make rational conclusions may be flawed.

[Grimlorn]

So Tokyo is Lyte then? That stuff about RFID chip is wrong? And why haven't you guys responded to my questions about that stuff? Do you not know?

It almost seems like I have to create a thread attacking your way of thinking and throwing out that garbage from say zeitgeist or whatever just to get a constructive response and information on the subject that is cited properly. I don't want to do it, but I see why so many people do that here. :(

[Gravy]

Did you miss Viper Daimao's post #55?

[Brainster]

So Tokyo is Lyte then? That stuff about RFID chip is wrong? And why haven't you guys responded to my questions about that stuff? Do you not know?

It almost seems like I have to create a thread attacking your way of thinking and throwing out that garbage from say zeitgeist or whatever just to get a constructive response and information on the subject that is cited properly. I don't want to do it, but I see why so many people do that here. :(

A fair criticism there, but your questions revealed a certain lack of rigorous interest that is off-putting. Let me cite just one example:

I'm also curious about this national ID card thing. Is it really going to happen in May of 2008 where we are required to have one? I remember talking about this in college before this movie was created. I just thought the teacher was being stupid but apparently there may be something to it.

There is this thing called Google. When you ask it for "national ID card" it gives you lots of different websites that have lots of different opinions about the "Real ID Act", which is something else you should search for.

And if you search hard enough you'll find that the national ID card thing is basically a requirement that states standardize their drivers' licenses so that they all contain the same basic information that your driver's license probably already contains. Cue scary music.

[Tokyo Psyblog]

So Tokyo is Lyte then? That stuff about RFID chip is wrong? And why haven't you guys responded to my questions about that stuff? Do you not know?

Please tell me that your curious spelling "Lyte" was not some kind of a racial slight because you think I'm Japanese... you know, the "L & R" thing...

[Tokyo Psyblog]

Hello, Tokyo. This statement is false. There are no signs in the videos, and no other evidence, and no logical reason to believe, that WTC 7 collapsed due to anything but damage and fire, as is true with the towers. There's plenty more information about WTC 7 in the link in my signature. Please get informed. Silly unsupported claims will earn you nothing but derision here.
Unsupported? They must not teach physics in your high school. And you have obviously never watched any video clip and timed the falls of the towers. Do the math. Were the physical laws of the universe suspended for a bit? No, what I said is true, and I'll add to it: all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The official explanation which is becoming legend is simply unbelievable. It's just like how the last generation was told to believe the Magic Bullet Theory in the JFK execution.

[beachnut]

Unsupported? They must not teach physics in your high school. And you have obviously never watched any video clip and timed the falls of the towers. Do the math. Were the physical laws of the universe suspended for a bit? No, what I said is true, and I'll add to it: all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The official explanation which is becoming legend is simply unbelievable. It's just like how the last generation was told to believe the Magic Bullet Theory in the JFK execution.
Wrong. You must of flunked physics. You are so wrong it is funny. It is so easy to show the time of the fall is exactly like a model shows. Too bad you flunked physics and are unable to do the math. BTW, parts of the towers were standing 20 to 25 seconds or more after the initial fall.

Do, you need a paper too show how wrong you are? BTW millions of engineers agree with me. Only 0.00067 percent of all engineers believe the lies you beleive. You lost by millions.

There was no magic bullet, you have not been to Dallas, and you just proved with the JFK junk you are a CTer from way back. What other dumb CT ideas do you have?

[Unfit4Command]

Unsupported? They must not teach physics in your high school. And you have obviously never watched any video clip and timed the falls of the towers. Do the math. Were the physical laws of the universe suspended for a bit? No, what I said is true, and I'll add to it: all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The official explanation which is becoming legend is simply unbelievable. It's just like how the last generation was told to believe the Magic Bullet Theory in the JFK execution.

Please tell me what the official explaination for the collapse of the Twin Towers is. Thanks.

[beachnut]

Please tell me that your curious spelling "Lyte" was not some kind of a racial slight because you think I'm Japanese... you know, the "L & R" thing...
You have no clue? You will not understand since you are challenged with reality.

[Corsair 115]

The official explanation which is becoming legend is simply unbelievable. It's just like how the last generation was told to believe the Magic Bullet Theory in the JFK execution.How about the lunar landings? Are those a fake too?

[Viper Daimao]

tokyo, lyte is the name of another poster here. I guess that's what was being referred to?

I also ask you:
Please tell me what the official explaination [sic] for the collapse of the Twin Towers is. Thanks.

Also, the single bullet theory makes perfect sense when you accurately portray (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sbt2.jpg) the positions of Kennedy and the governor.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sbt2.jpg

[Reality Believer]

Unsupported? They must not teach physics in your high school. And you have obviously never watched any video clip and timed the falls of the towers. Do the math. Were the physical laws of the universe suspended for a bit? No, what I said is true, and I'll add to it: all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The official explanation which is becoming legend is simply unbelievable. It's just like how the last generation was told to believe the Magic Bullet Theory in the JFK execution.

OMG. Have you ever seen a Godzilla movie?

"Oh no! There goes Tokyo! Go,go Godzilla"! :D

[Gravy]

Unsupported? They must not teach physics in your high school.As far as I know they still do. I took physics with Mr. Robillard. "Two els and one I" (he wore an eye patch). Excellent, and strict, teacher. He would fail a paper if the staple in the corner wasn't at a 45-degree angle. Really.

And you have obviously never watched any video clip and timed the falls of the towers.I'd like to know more about this. Please present your findings.

Do the math. Were the physical laws of the universe suspended for a bit?I have no idea what you mean. Please present your findings.

No, what I said is true, and I'll add to it: all 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.This is shocking! Who else have you told about this? Which law enforcement agencies or newspapers have seen your information, and how did they respond?

The official explanation which is becoming legend is simply unbelievable.Interesting.

It's just like how the last generation was told to believe the Magic Bullet Theory in the JFK execution.Are you writing from camp?

[Tokyo Psyblog]

I also found this forum by way of the same blog, and frankly was greatly disappointed when I got here.

This is how I started my very first post on this forum this week, and I depart standing by this assertion, only now multiplied. Since I won't be around long enough to reach the 15-posts minimum for including URLs, you'll have to research the information yourselves if you are really interested in deciding for yourself what's really happening. Ask yourself why people feel justified in condemning and insulting you when you question "conventional wisdom" -- ie, the zeitgeist (idea of the day).

Some of you will be thrilled that I won't be back, I'm sure. No doubt that these folks will enjoy gloating that they chased me away, but that's what they do most of the time anyway.

Overall this has been a frustrating waste of time, but I did gain some insight on a couple of important things here: 1) Religious fundamentalism has a counterpart -- blind devotion to defending the "war on terror." 2) This counterpart can evoke the same emotions as "Santa Claus Syndrome" on Christmas Eve.

Also in my first post, I made reference to juvenile comments.
Here are a few, too ignorant to be funny, that back that up:
How about the lunar landings? Are those a fake too?
Huh?
OMG. Have you ever seen a Godzilla movie?
"Oh no! There goes Tokyo! Go,go Godzilla"! :D
Oooohhhh... clever.... (pause) NOT!
You have no clue? You will not understand since you are challenged with reality.
Again, huh?
There was no magic bullet, you have not been to Dallas, and you just proved with the JFK junk you are a CTer from way back. What other dumb CT ideas do you have?
Can you say "Warren Report"? Been to the plaza. And, uh, batter up?

Are you writing from camp?
No, but it sounds delightful! Again, huh?

Cheers! Psyblog!

[calebprime]

This is how I started my very first post on this forum this week, and I depart standing by this assertion, only now multiplied. Since I won't be around long enough to reach the 15-posts minimum for including URLs, you'll have to research the information yourselves if you are really interested in deciding for yourself what's really happening. Ask yourself why people feel justified in condemning and insulting you when you question "conventional wisdom" -- ie, the zeitgeist (idea of the day).

Some of you will be thrilled that I won't be back, I'm sure. No doubt that these folks will enjoy gloating that they chased me away, but that's what they do most of the time anyway.

Overall this has been a frustrating waste of time, but I did gain some insight on a couple of important things here: 1) Religious fundamentalism has a counterpart -- blind devotion to defending the "war on terror." 2) This counterpart can evoke the same emotions as "Santa Claus Syndrome" on Christmas Eve.


Can you say "Warren Report"? Been to the plaza. ...


...Again, huh?

Cheers! Psyblog!


In more than 30 years, no evidence of a JFK conspiracy has been substantiated. Check out the new Bugliosi book. On the other hand, there's tons of evidence against Oswald.

As for the WTC complex being a controlled demolition--same thing. No evidence, plus it would be impossible to rig and it wouldn't make sense.

And why have an in-depth discussion of Zeitgeist when the movie doesn't warrant it? With trash like that movie, people are only going to give it a few minutes of their attention.

On the other hand, if you had intelligent things to say, people here would have replied in kind. There's a lot of depth here, but you didn't begin to engage it.

The best conspiracy experts here (of which I'm not one) have been through this stuff a thousand times.

[Gravy]

Since I won't be around long enough to reach the 15-posts minimum for including URLs, you'll have to research the information yourselves if you are really interested in deciding for yourself what's really happening.We wouldn't know how to go about that. Please come back and show us!

Some of you will be thrilled that I won't be backNo, within minutes you will be forever forgotten by the few people who read your posts.

Overall this has been a frustrating waste of time,Well, no one can look at your seven posts of drivel and say you didn't do your best.

Can you say "Warren Report"? Been to the plaza.I've slept at the Ritz. I hope you didn't breathe the fine mist that's always spraying from the nozzles on the grassy knoll. It'll make your Dictabelt skip permanently.

Cheers! Psyblog!Good luck in the war canoe race!

[Viper Daimao]

How disappointing. He comes here, talks high and mighty, and refuses to make any arguments nor respond to any questions. Can't say I think he's very secure in his beliefs about 9/11 then eh? Oh well, maybe he'll be interested in learning the truth someday.

[8den]

It's just like how the last generation was told to believe the Magic Bullet Theory in the JFK execution.

The magic bullet theory is a classic strawman argument. Conspiracy Theorists claim it's the offical version of events. It's not.

Tokyo, meet the Single Bullet theory. Single bullet Theory, Tokyo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0

Watched it? Good. Now take the fact that you've been working of an erroneous assumption on JFK, and step back a moment. Now look at some of the posts on this site. I recommend the stickies, as a jumping off point. You'll see there's a plethora of really good informative stuff, that demonstrates that all this Controlled Demolition junk is just that. Junk.

[Grimlorn]

I can see why the lunar landings are so unbelievable.

We fought with swords for thousands of years. In the late 1800's and early 1900's we just developed cars that go like 10 to 15 miles an hour or something like that?

We went from that to flying hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon in like 70 years. Its a huge leap we made.

[Viper Daimao]

Agreed grim, when looked at that way, it certainly was amazing. However I think the conspiracy theorist has trouble with historic perspective. They see it more as looking back on the kind of technology we had in the 60s to how much more advanced we are now.

[8den]

I can see why the lunar landings are so unbelievable.

We fought with swords for thousands of years. In the late 1800's and early 1900's we just developed cars that go like 10 to 15 miles an hour or something like that?

We went from that to flying hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon in like 70 years. Its a huge leap we made.

Incredible is the word you meant to use. We made fantastic leaps in every aspect of society, in the past 50 years. We've invented new artforms, communications devices, methods of transportation. We've made astonishing leaps in every scientific field, medicine. Western culture has gone on transformed our ideas on gender roles, sexuality, and other races. We engage in practices that would be scandalous to our great grandparents.

The lunar landing did not occur in a vacuum (insert Malcolm Kirkman joke here) It came on the back of extraordinary advances in technology and no how. And they did it with pencils and slide rulers.

[The Almond]

Incredible is the word you meant to use. We made fantastic leaps in every aspect of society, in the past 50 years. We've invented new artforms, communications devices, methods of transportation. We've made astonishing leaps in every scientific field, medicine. Western culture has gone on transformed our ideas on gender roles, sexuality, and other races. We engage in practices that would be scandalous to our great grandparents.

The lunar landing did not occur in a vacuum (insert Malcolm Kirkman joke here) It came on the back of extraordinary advances in technology and no how. And they did it with pencils and slide rulers.

Since the thread is dead, I thought I'd insert this interesting side note. On one of the Apollo flights, Buzz Aldrin used a star chart and an astrolabe to navigate the spacecraft after the computers failed. That guy was awesome.

[Jrps75]

I don't know if this is true. It could be pretty fake but it atleast sounds like enough to look into. Is that guy a credible source or is he some crazy guy that just asked for a picture with the guy and made the stuff up?

The guy you are referring to is Aaron Russo. He is definitely not a crazy guy that got into one picture with Rockefeller. He has made a documentary called America: Freedom to Fascism that is worth watching. You can watch it on Google videos or through the link on Wikipedia, which has information about Russo. He is a Hollywood director that has made some successful films and has been involved in politics for years.

[beachnut]

I can see why the lunar landings are so unbelievable.

We fought with swords for thousands of years. In the late 1800's and early 1900's we just developed cars that go like 10 to 15 miles an hour or something like that?

We went from that to flying hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon in like 70 years. Its a huge leap we made.
No, it was one small step for man...

[Viper Daimao]

for A man.

[beachnut]

for A man.
Is if fair to know the facts? You have studied well.

[beachnut]

The guy you are referring to is Aaron Russo. He is definitely not a crazy guy that got into one picture with Rockefeller. He has made a documentary called America: Freedom to Fascism that is worth watching. You can watch it on Google videos or through the link on Wikipedia, which has information about Russo. He is a Hollywood director that has made some successful films and has been involved in politics for years.
A woo movie. Wow. Funny how it is free to present lies about anything you want, and make money. The title should read Fraud: Free to lie In America (buyer beware).

The idiot has stopped paying taxes. Funny when a fool believes his own lies.

[Viper Daimao]

a comment (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm) on the tax law information presented in "Freedom to Fascism", from a George Washington Law Professor. Short version: everything Arron Russo says is wrong.

[Gravy]

The guy you are referring to is Aaron Russo. He is definitely not a crazy guy that got into one picture with Rockefeller. He has made a documentary called America: Freedom to Fascism that is worth watching. You can watch it on Google videos or through the link on Wikipedia, which has information about Russo. He is a Hollywood director that has made some successful films and has been involved in politics for years.Correction: Russo is a paranoid nutjob. As for "Rockefeller," if it's "Nick" you're talking about, I suggest you look into his importance and what his relationship is to any famous Rockefeller.

[pandamonk]

Ok, from the documentary:

The FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers of 911. At least 6 of these men are still alive and have came forward. However, the list has not been revised...

At the pentagon, there was no evidence of a plane crash. (they claim that the entire plane vaporized by the burning of jet fuel :boggled: and yet they managed to get DNA and fingerprint evidence from non-vaporized people. If metal, aluminium, steel, etc, simply vaporizes, then so must flesh). They also covered the lawn with dirt and gravel, hiding any forensic evidence. The films from nearby security cameras, which would have seen the event, were confiscated immediately, and have not been released. These would undoubtedly be proof of the planes impact, and yet they are not released. Over 80 videos are being withheld by the FBI, apparently.

Refutation of pancake theory, including talks with the structural engineer(Les Robertson), and construction manager(Frank A. Demartini) of WTCs who say it cope with impact of Boeing 707 hitting at any location, and could probably sustain multiple impacts. The 47 steel columns will only fail simultaneously if cut, usually at an angle. This is how demolition experts do it, and it is how the columns are shown after collapse. This could not happen to so many columns by coincidence. There was also molten steel up to 5 weeks after the collapse. For steel to be molten, it must be, minimum, 500 fahrenheit hotter than jet fuel, which was the main source of heat. There were also sub-basement explosions, apparently, before even the first plane hit.

Scrabblers fail 4 times in one day, to bring down hijacked plane, even with a 100% accuracy before this day.

There is lots more...

[Gravy]

Same old claims, pandamonk, and all are false. Zeitgeist is WAY behind the times in terms of what 9/11 nuttery to promote. See what we deal with every day over in this corner of the JREF forum? :biggrin:

[pandamonk]

There must obviously be a lot of proof against thsee, please provide me with some links...

[T.A.M.]

Ok, from the documentary:

The FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers of 911. At least 6 of these men are still alive and have came forward. However, the list has not been revised...

At the pentagon, there was no evidence of a plane crash. (they claim that the entire plane vaporized by the burning of jet fuel :boggled: and yet they managed to get DNA and fingerprint evidence from non-vaporized people. If metal, aluminium, steel, etc, simply vaporizes, then so must flesh). They also covered the lawn with dirt and gravel, hiding any forensic evidence. The films from nearby security cameras, which would have seen the event, were confiscated immediately, and have not been released. These would undoubtedly be proof of the planes impact, and yet they are not released. Over 80 videos are being withheld by the FBI, apparently.

Refutation of pancake theory, including talks with the structural engineer(Les Robertson), and construction manager(Frank A. Demartini) of WTCs who say it cope with impact of Boeing 707 hitting at any location, and could probably sustain multiple impacts. The 47 steel columns will only fail simultaneously if cut, usually at an angle. This is how demolition experts do it, and it is how the columns are shown after collapse. This could not happen to so many columns by coincidence. There was also molten steel up to 5 weeks after the collapse. For steel to be molten, it must be, minimum, 500 fahrenheit hotter than jet fuel, which was the main source of heat. There were also sub-basement explosions, apparently, before even the first plane hit.

Scrabblers fail 4 times in one day, to bring down hijacked plane, even with a 100% accuracy before this day.

There is lots more...


the answers to all these questions, from reliable sources, can be found by going to the link in Gravy's signature, or by searching this site, or by going to 911myths.com

TAM:)

[Gravy]

There must obviously be a lot of proof against thsee, please provide me with some links...Correct. You can use the forum search function and/or check the links in my signature.

[beachnut]

Ok, from the documentary:

The FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers of 911. At least 6 of these men are still alive and have came forward. However, the list has not been revised...

At the pentagon, there was no evidence of a plane crash. (they claim that the entire plane vaporized by the burning of jet fuel :boggled: and yet they managed to get DNA and fingerprint evidence from non-vaporized people. If metal, aluminium, steel, etc, simply vaporizes, then so must flesh). They also covered the lawn with dirt and gravel, hiding any forensic evidence. The films from nearby security cameras, which would have seen the event, were confiscated immediately, and have not been released. These would undoubtedly be proof of the planes impact, and yet they are not released. Over 80 videos are being withheld by the FBI, apparently.

Refutation of pancake theory, including talks with the structural engineer(Les Robertson), and construction manager(Frank A. Demartini) of WTCs who say it cope with impact of Boeing 707 hitting at any location, and could probably sustain multiple impacts. The 47 steel columns will only fail simultaneously if cut, usually at an angle. This is how demolition experts do it, and it is how the columns are shown after collapse. This could not happen to so many columns by coincidence. There was also molten steel up to 5 weeks after the collapse. For steel to be molten, it must be, minimum, 500 fahrenheit hotter than jet fuel, which was the main source of heat. There were also sub-basement explosions, apparently, before even the first plane hit.

Scrabblers fail 4 times in one day, to bring down hijacked plane, even with a 100% accuracy before this day.

There is lots more...
Leslie Roberson has told everyone the planes their building was designed to withstand were slow moving planes. That makes the impacts on 9/11 7 to 11 times bigger than design. That is a big difference. The truth movement is based on lies.

[pandamonk]

Leslie Roberson has told everyone the planes their building was designed to withstand were slow moving planes. That makes the impacts on 9/11 7 to 11 times bigger than design. That is a big difference. The truth movement is based on lies.
There was a video on Zeitgeist, in which Les Roberson said that it was designed to cope with the impact of a Boeing 707. The 707, is only very slightly smaller than the 767 that hit. The 767 is slightky heavier, and the 707 is slightly faster.

[Gravy]

There was a video on Zeitgeist, in which Les Roberson said that it was designed to cope with the impact of a Boeing 707. The 707, is only very slightly smaller than the 767 that hit. The 767 is slightky heavier, and the 707 is slightly faster.The Robertson calculation was assuming a slow-moving aircraft, lost in the fog, looking for an airport. Of course, the towers did withstand the impacts. More importantly, the WTC engineers lacked the ability to calculate the damage that the resulting fires would cause, so they did not attempt such calculations.

[pandamonk]

"Never before or after 911, has any steel building collapsed from fire."

[Unfit4Command]

"Never before or after 911, has any steel building collapsed from fire."

I watched part of the 9/11 section of the movie, once the claim that Flight 77 vaporized came up, I quit watching the movie.

Anyways, here are a few examples of steel framed structures fully collapsing or partially collapsing due to fire, along with a bit of information:

"As Frank Brannigan states in his Building Construction for the Fire Service text there are still some misconceptions that steel construction and steel buildings are safe when attacked by fire. This is as far from the truth as you can imagine."
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148816

Three multi-storey buildings collapsed due to fire after burning less than two hours
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=1

The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain suffered a major fire in 2005, this resulted in the failure of the steel frame on the upper floors of the building, only the concrete core remained standing.
http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

The steel roof of a large exhibition hall quickly failed in a fire.
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

A toilet paper factory collapsed during a fire, “Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

The steel frame of the Site and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania weakened and partially collapsed due to fire.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

Debunking911.com takes some good excerpts from the report above and adds comments in []

“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
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

In 1991, a fire erupted in One Meridian Plaza, though the building suffered no impact damage like any of the collapsed structures on 9/11, firefighters feared that the building may collapse and halted firefighting operations in the building.

“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.dhs.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

The failure of a single column in the Parker Building fire caused a global collapse of section of the building from floor 20 to the basement. Another column also failed later in the fire causing another local collapse. Also, both the iron and steel structures in the building were warped and weakened due to the fire that commonly exceeded temperatures of 1800 degrees F, and peaked around 2000 degrees.
http://ia310920.us.archive.org/3/items/effectoffirerepo00britrich/effectoffirerepo00britrich.pdf

“Chief Edward Croker of the New York Fire Department had long sought improvements in the building codes and factory laws, because of such early fires as the Parker Building. Three firemen were killed in a massive collapse within this 20-story fireproof building.”
http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/american/disasters.html

Part of the roof of a steel framed building in Virginia collapsed after burning very shortly, once the flames were extinguished, the school was said to be a total loss.
“At 10:47 p.m., ten minutes after being dispatched, fire ground units were notified that the roof of Dogwood Elementary School had collapsed on Side Three of the building.”
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

On June 20th, 2007, a fire broke out in a furniture store and the roof quickly collapsed, killing nine firefighters.
“Capt. Ralph Linderman of the St. Andrews Fire Department said the blaze was the hottest he could recall in three decades of firefighting. "That fire bent steel like a wet noodle," he said...

Charleston Fire Capt. Jake Jenkins said the firefighters were spread out in teams when the roof - a steel truss system - collapsed. Other crews fought to get inside the building and rescue the fallen, but the conditions were too bad, he said.”
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/062007/nation_20070620021.php

A large portion of a steel deck roof collapsed in the fire of 205 West Jefferson Street.
http://www.fallschurchvfd.org/photos/photos.asp?event=42

A highway overpass with steel supports failed and collapsed in an intense fire.
“Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat and that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

In 2005, a ship collided with The Mumbai High North platform causing a fire to breakout resulting in the platform completely collapsing.

“Location: Mumbai offshore, India
Fire Event: 27 July 2005
A vessel collided with the offshore Mumbai High North platform, 160 km west of the Mumbai coast, causing a major fire, completely destroying the platform and resulting in 11 deaths and 11 others missing.
Fire duration = 2 hours
Fire Damage: Complete collapse of the platform
Construction Type: Steel
Fire Resistance: No information available
Function: Oil and natural gas processing platform
Dimensions: 7 storeys”
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/Other/default.htm

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Other%20Stuff/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm

[Gorgonian]

Ok, from the documentary:

The FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers of 911. At least 6 of these men are still alive and have came forward. However, the list has not been revised...

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



At the pentagon, there was no evidence of a plane crash. (they claim that the entire plane vaporized

strawman. There are many photos and videos of plane debris all over the pentagon lawn. A lot of the plane went into the pentagon as well.


They also covered the lawn with dirt and gravel, hiding any forensic evidence.


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


The films from nearby security cameras, which would have seen the event, were confiscated immediately, and have not been released.


It should not be surprising that they were confiscated. This is what usually happens with possible evidence in a case like this. The "have not been released" part is just flat out incorrect.


Refutation of pancake theory, including talks with the structural engineer(Les Robertson), and construction manager(Frank A. Demartini) of WTCs who say it cope with impact of Boeing 707 hitting at any location


You should read the NIST report and see what the theory of why the towers collapsed actually is. Hint: it is not the pancake theory. This is simply another strawman.


, and could probably sustain multiple impacts.


Probably. They were only hit once. What did he say about getting hit by a plane and having the structural steel heated by fire for an hour after the fireproofing was knocked loose? Hint: guess why there was fireproofing in the first place.



The 47 steel columns will only fail simultaneously if cut, usually at an angle.


Simultaneously is a very precise word.

This is how demolition experts do it, and it is how the columns are shown after collapse.


The cuts you are talking about were made during clean-up. Here is a good explanation http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm


There was also molten steel up to 5 weeks after the collapse. For steel to be molten, it must be, minimum, 500 fahrenheit hotter than jet fuel, which was the main source of heat. There were also sub-basement explosions, apparently, before even the first plane hit.


Molten metal and molten steel are not the same thing. They seem to be used interchangeably a lot. The explosions claim is quite dubious for many reasons (A-explsions does not equal explosives, B-how would someone in the basement know that an event was before the plane hit, etc.)


Scrabblers fail 4 times in one day, to bring down hijacked plane, even with a 100% accuracy before this day.

There is lots more...

I should really get back into Scrabble. I used to play all the time. I don't have the patience anymore.

By the way, your "lots more" is all trivial nonsense like what you have presented here. Fear not.

[T.A.M.]

"Never before or after 911, has any steel building collapsed from fire."

panda:

you have over 270 posts on this forum. All the things you are bringing up can be answered in the pages that Gravy has linked to in his signature, or from the web site...

www.911myths.com

Are you asking the questions (if so follow the links) are are you arguing the statements as truth?

the reason I am telling you this, is that ALL of these things have been discussed over and over here, and rather than rehash them, a guiding hand to the proper links is quicker and easier, and less stressful.

TAM:)

[pandamonk]

I've not ben here for a while, and when i was here, i mainly discussed with David Jay Jordan, if anyone remembers him, that crazy Christian guy who was banned. Anyway, i'm not presenting these arguments as true, or arguing for them. I'm simply providing a few of the main points of the video, like was asked earlier in this thread...

[T.A.M.]

ok...cool

kinda hard sometimes to figure out the motives in this forum...

TAM:)

[Gunner1888]

If u have only watched 6 mins of the film don't bother participating with the thread. The reason alot of people who see the film dislike is because it forces them to think in a different way. These questions are for the people who are against the film.Y are so many of religious leaders like jesus and buddha born on the 25th? How did world trade centre 7 come down? Y did america go to war with iraq?:jaw-dropp :eye-poppi

[Hokulele]

I've not ben here for a while, and when i was here, i mainly discussed with David Jay Jordan, if anyone remembers him, that crazy Christian guy who was banned. Anyway, i'm not presenting these arguments as true, or arguing for them. I'm simply providing a few of the main points of the video, like was asked earlier in this thread...


Hey pandamonk, I remember you from the DJJ threads (mostly over in R&P). The claims in that video really are a blob of claims made in many other videos, that have been discussed ad nauseum in this sub-forum. The easiest way I found to show people just how these types of videos work is to have them watch any conspiracy video (most of them promote the same claims), then the equivalent response video.

For example, someone my husband knows is really into all of the CT stuff, and told my husband to watch a particular video, I think it was 9/11 Mysteries (insert banging head on desk smiley here). I told my husband that he should watch Screw 9/11 Mysteries immediately after, and then decide what he thinks about the whole thing (I think those are the names of the videos, this was a while ago). Since then, he knows what types of tricks and false claims are made in this genre, so he pretty much ignores all of them.

And yes, my husband will never take my word on something being bunk, he has to go find out for himself. *Sigh*

[pandamonk]

And yes, my husband will never take my word on something being bunk, he has to go find out for himself. *Sigh*
That's exactly something like what my girlfriend would say about me, haha. Although, she is worse :D . I tell her something, and she doesn't even bother to go and look for herself. She just out and out denies it.

Also, the video is not just CT. It also has a whole section amount religion and astrology. I don't believe every part of that either, but it is quite interesting. It's a new slant, for me anyway, on looking at judeo-christian god/religions.

[T.A.M.]

If u have only watched 6 mins of the film don't bother participating with the thread. The reason alot of people who see the film dislike is because it forces them to think in a different way. These questions are for the people who are against the film.Y are so many of religious leaders like jesus and buddha born on the 25th? How did world trade centre 7 come down? Y did america go to war with iraq?:jaw-dropp :eye-poppi

1. Because they were not really born on those days, but the 25th likely has some significance within the religion's patriarchy...never gave it much thought, and dont really care.

2. WTC7 came down via a combination of severe damage to its south side from falling debris, and large scale, untreated fires, which burned for 7 hours.

3. America went to war with Iraq under the pretence (later found to be do to faulty intelligence) that the ruling party and their military were holding WMDs. The real reasons may or may not be related to the strategic importance of Iraq for the USA, within the middle east.

TAM:)

[Hokulele]

That's exactly something like what my girlfriend would say about me, haha. Although, she is worse :D . I tell her something, and she doesn't even bother to go and look for herself. She just out and out denies it.


Oh, I would never contradict my husband. :halo:


* Snork *

[Gunner1888]

i went and had a look at that website,what a joke it doesn't answer many questions and the ones it does answer are ridicilous. it tries to wash away the conspiracy theories about the pentagon. it never explains y the video footage of the "plane" hitting the building has not been released,the reason they didn't try answer this is because it's true!

[Hokulele]

1. Because they were not really born on those days, but the 25th likely has some significance within the religion's patriarchy...never gave it much thought, and dont really care.


Minor nitpick, most Buddhist holidays are determined by a lunar calendar (much like many Jewish and Muslim ones). If Vesak (Buddha Day) happens to fall on the 25th of May in any given year, it is by coincidence, not design.

[Par]

i went and had a look at that website,what a joke it doesn't answer many questions and the ones it does answer are ridicilous. it tries to wash away the conspiracy theories about the pentagon. it never explains y the video footage of the "plane" hitting the building has not been released,the reason they didn't try answer this is because it's true!



Who could even be bothered?

[Gorgonian]

i went and had a look at that website,what a joke it doesn't answer many questions and the ones it does answer are ridicilous. it tries to wash away the conspiracy theories about the pentagon. it never explains y the video footage of the "plane" hitting the building has not been released,the reason they didn't try answer this is because it's true!

What specific questions do you have that you have not had answered?

Which answers to which questions are ridiculous?

The only video footage of a plane hitting the pentagon has indeed released. If you have reason to believe there are videos that show the impact better that have not been released, please provide your evidence for this belief.

[Gravy]

If u have only watched 6 mins of the film don't bother participating with the thread. The reason alot of people who see the film dislike is because it forces them to think in a different way. These questions are for the people who are against the film.Y are so many of religious leaders like jesus and buddha born on the 25th? How did world trade centre 7 come down? Y did america go to war with iraq?:jaw-dropp :eye-poppiHello, Gunner. Welcome to the forums.

The reason people dislike this video and ones like it is that they are filled to the brim with 100% pure horsecrap. This is a forum for critical thinkers. We dislike lies, incompetence, shoddy research, and attempts to spread ignorance.

A friendly note: most people here are well into their adult years. Using abbreviations like Y and U are likely to make people think that you're a kid who has some growing up to do.

[Viper Daimao]

There was a video on Zeitgeist, in which Les Roberson said that it was designed to cope with the impact of a Boeing 707. The 707, is only very slightly smaller than the 767 that hit. The 767 is slightky heavier, and the 707 is slightly faster.

This is not exactly true. Read up at 911 myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html).

[Unfit4Command]

i went and had a look at that website,what a joke it doesn't answer many questions and the ones it does answer are ridicilous. it tries to wash away the conspiracy theories about the pentagon. it never explains y the video footage of the "plane" hitting the building has not been released,the reason they didn't try answer this is because it's true!

What do you believe struck the Pentagon?

[T.A.M.]

Minor nitpick, most Buddhist holidays are determined by a lunar calendar (much like many Jewish and Muslim ones). If Vesak (Buddha Day) happens to fall on the 25th of May in any given year, it is by coincidence, not design.

no doubt, and it is not a nitpick, as my statement was a purely speculative guess...

Cheers

TAM:)

[Agent : Orange]

Hi all...

Just wanted to get my $0.02 cents in on Zeitgeist: The Movie.

I wrote a detailed review of the first 1/3 of the film in a private blog. I spent the time doing the legwork and researching some of the religious topics in Part I of the film and learned quite a bit.
All of the new facts that I learned were from where the movie was wrong, not right.

Without doing any research, it's obvious to anyone who has any astronomy training that facts are right out the window here. They make mistakes that would make a first year student blush. Sirius aligns with the stars of Orion's belt only on the winter solstice? The constellations are NOT fixed relative to one another?

Maybe there is some truth to the movie but it's the rare fact that holds up. If you can't trust someone to check the facts on their basic astronomy why would you unquestioningly accept any of their "facts" on 9/11 or the world bank? Plus, most of these "facts" are thrown at you so fast you have to pause the movie after every few sentences just to check the validity of what you've just heard. The "truthiness" factor here is through the roof.

The film is designed for people who already buy into the message and are unlikely to check their sources. That's what makes this kind of disinformation so dangerous. The film can look legitimate at first glance and I guess that's enough for most. I'm shocked anyone could take this garbage seriously, let alone base their philosophies on it. I love the irony in that the quote they use to introduce the movie encourages viewers not to accept the truth from authority, and then the film has to twist facts and make up arguments to try to convince it's viewers.

If you watched this movie and it "changed your life" please PLEASE go and do the research yourself and then decide whether or not the message of the film is accurate. Don't just sit back and let them dump this crap into your brain.

[Agent : Orange]

On one of the Apollo flights, Buzz Aldrin used a star chart and an astrolabe to navigate the spacecraft after the computers failed. That guy was awesome.

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of "hard core" right there.

[Hokulele]

Welcome Agent : Orange! Thanks for showing people how simple research should be done on these types of films. Just curious, what made you decide to watch that film?

[Agent : Orange]

Welcome Agent : Orange! Thanks for showing people how simple research should be done on these types of films. Just curious, what made you decide to watch that film?

Hey, nice to meet you...

Two of my friends that are very into CT recommended it to me. They've tried to get me to watch these types of things more than once, and to be honest I haven't been able to really debate them regarding 9/11 CTs nor have I really tried. I generally have better things to do.

I watched this one because it seemed like CT that was not specifically aimed at 9/11 (how wrong I was!) and had some stuff that falls within my area of study, namely astronomy.

As I said, the information in the film is valuable for doing your own research on and finding out how much of the film is BS. I remain unconvinced, as should everyone else who sees the film and checks the facts. What I can't stand about it is that my friends still say that "There is still useful information in there" and that "some of it is still true". How could anyone possibly say that after glaring errors have been found? Why would anyone just accept these things in the face of the terrible distortions of fact in the film?

It makes me really angry that this is propagating around the internet!

[pandamonk]

Hi all...

Just wanted to get my $0.02 cents in on Zeitgeist: The Movie.

I wrote a detailed review of the first 1/3 of the film in a private blog. I spent the time doing the legwork and researching some of the religious topics in Part I of the film and learned quite a bit.
All of the new facts that I learned were from where the movie was wrong, not right.

Without doing any research, it's obvious to anyone who has any astronomy training that facts are right out the window here. They make mistakes that would make a first year student blush. Sirius aligns with the stars of Orion's belt only on the winter solstice? The constellations are NOT fixed relative to one another?I thought this too, however, i think what they meant was that these stars aline with our sun, ie they point towards where the sun will rise on the 25th. This is a mistake, i think.

This is the correct astrological event(which can be tested with YourSky (http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/)): "The virgin[Virgo] ascends at the first hour on December 25 ready to give birth. The sun is born at the crack of dawn[daylight hours start to increase from this time]", then "At four o’clock in the evening, on December 25, Sirius rises above the horizon in Jerusalem. This was the first such event in the Age of Pisces[new age]. The three stars on the belt of Orion point down towards Sirius[the brightest star]" as they always do, but sirius is usually below the horizon at this time.

You can read more about it here (http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/star_of_bethlehem.htm).

[T.A.M.]

Ext. A RURAL DIRT ROAD - DAY

Several people are gathering around a young man wearing a black T-shirt, a look of eternal angst on his face. Suddenly, as the crowd grows larger, his face changes, as his prey approaches.

TRUTHER TEEN
Ladies and gentlemen, step right up...for a limited time only I present to you "truther super tonic". yes indeed, it cures everything that ails you. Got the small pox, no problem, a single blind control trial proved that the tonic kills all forms of pox, chicken, small, large, hairy...Got Cancer, no problem, the HCI (Homeopathic Cancer Institute) has recently conducted a thorough questionaire on its patients, which conclusively proves they have no cancer after taking the tonic....You say you have AIDS, no problem, Truther Super Tonic will rid you of that government made virus before you can say "Neocon"....Step right up and get your fist bottle for only $199.00...step right up...

TAM;)

[sesshin]

Jay Kinney did an interesting review of the movie on Boing Boing. He seems pretty woo but then it appears the movie is even a little too woo for him.

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/06/jay_kinney_reviews_z.html

[Agent : Orange]

I thought this too, however, i think what they meant was that these stars aline with our sun, ie they point towards where the sun will rise on the 25th. This is a mistake, i think.

This is the correct astrological event(which can be tested with YourSky): "The virgin[Virgo] ascends at the first hour on December 25 ready to give birth. The sun is born at the crack of dawn[daylight hours start to increase from this time]", then "At four o’clock in the evening, on December 25, Sirius rises above the horizon in Jerusalem. This was the first such event in the Age of Pisces[new age]. The three stars on the belt of Orion point down towards Sirius[the brightest star]" as they always do, but sirius is usually below the horizon at this time.

You can read more about it here.

I haven't checked out your link (no time!) but this does strike me as strange.

First thing is that the winter solstice occurs between Dec 21 and Dec 23 of each year, and the daylight hours begin to increase immediately after this, not on the 25th. Also, the consensus among astrologers seems to be the age of Pisces started about 200 years before the birth of Christ, not coincident with it. I'm not sure whether Sirius was visible from Bethlehem during this time period.

I will check your link and get back to you when I'm more educated on the subject!

[pandamonk]

I haven't checked out your link (no time!) but this does strike me as strange.

First thing is that the winter solstice occurs between Dec 21 and Dec 23 of each year, and the daylight hours begin to increase immediately after this, not on the 25th. Also, the consensus among astrologers seems to be the age of Pisces started about 200 years before the birth of Christ, not coincident with it. I'm not sure whether Sirius was visible from Bethlehem during this time period.

I will check your link and get back to you when I'm more educated on the subject!Well you can check with YourSky (http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/), and find that Sirius was visible from Jerusalem at this time.

I actually wrote my post before i really read into it. I'm not really sure if they really meant that it marked a new age or whatever. However there sames to be quite a disagreement even now as to when the ages of pisces began.

I've read some sources which claim that it was 300BC, some that it was around the time of Christ, and some that it was 26AD. I think if we look at it as each age having the same amound of time, 2160 years, then yes, it is probably before. But i've read that Pisces is one of the shortest ages, at 1986 years.

I, however, think those in the ancient times would have looked to the sky instead of their watches/math books. They wouldn't have stuck rigidly to the 2160 year cycle, and really, there is no clearly defined line in the sky. So to some it would have happened before Christ, some at the time, and some after. But Sirius was visible around the time of Jesus from Jerusalem.

I checked out YourSky, first virgo (giving way to the "birth" of the sun at dawn), then sirius:

View toward horizon from 31°46'48"N 35°13'12"E, azimuth 90° (E)
Sat 25 Dec 1 1:00 UTC

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/8/21906053291.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6241154)

View toward horizon from 31°46'48"N 35°13'12"E, azimuth 110°
Sat 25 Dec 1 18:00 UTC

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/8/21906122995.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6241170)

[JWA]

I have a quick question. I looked at the "Debunking Federal Reserve CTs" link (sorry, not allowed to post links as yet), where the professor states that the Fed Board of Governors are "publicly appointed". I then read through the Fed's website that talks about how the Fed and it's components work, and it says that the Board of Governors is appointed by the President. Is this a contradiction, or is "publicly appointed" the same as appointed by the President in the professor's eyes?
I guess from a conspiracy believer's point of view, the BOG's being appointed by the President publicly wouldn't hold much water in the debunking dept.??

[Gravy]

Hello, JWA. Welcome to the forums. Potential Fed board members are nominated by the President and confirmed by the senate. The Chair and Vice-Chair are then selected by the President from among those approved members. So it's a bit of an incestuous process, and the appointments aren't truly "public" since only people nominated by the Pres can be selected.

[Anti-sophist]

Being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate is as public as it gets. In theory, they are our elected representatives.

A private appointment would be something very very different, akin to the CEO selection process of any corporation.

[dudalb]

God,"Zeitgeist" sounds like a wierd combination of The "Da VInci Code" Hidden Symbols Crap,the usual 9/11 CT crap,and that old Conspiracy theory reliable ,The World Bank. Kind of a something to appeal to every Kook effort.

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the Forum JWA and dudalb.

TAM:)

[CplFerro]

Dear brett,

Thanks for posting this. I went through most of it, skipping the chapter on the Sept. 11 attacks because it was going to go on and on about theories regarding how the event happened, and that is really besides the point. It doesn’t matter how it happened, it happened, and it served the strategic interests of the Anglo-American Imperial faction. So, this part was irrelevant.

Now, it’s never a good sign when a documentary starts off with a hectic montage. Television and movies have quit cuts because they’re not sure of anything, they’re not sure of themselves, except in their own ability to make a mess, to confuse people and create a hard to analyse impression. So this beginning implies hopelessness, and the documentary is indeed an expression of hopelessness. This is a dangerous type of documentary, one that inflames anarchist and similar sentiments. It builds a frustration in the breast that can’t be appeased because there are no truthful principles being expressed in it, only “connect the dots” kind of conspiratorial evidence. And being frustrated, and scared, the person feels hopeless, and they either get angry and fight some kind of substitute, or they get hedonistic and try to forget about it.

The relevant principle here is the principle of cognition, which defines man as man, and allows him to increase his mastery over the universe by discovering, transmitting, and assimilating universal physical principles. The enemy, the Imperialists, and kindred factions, want to suppress all potential for expressing it, in order to generate a worldwide Pax Americana of vastly reduced population in the charge of the Anglo-American Imperialists. Cognition is a threat to their power because it demands and amplifies freedom, high education, high standards of infrastructure, and continual improvement, which empires are not interested in.

The problem with the documentary as a whole, is that it doesn’t recognise power when it sees it, namely Christianity and FDR. Jesus obviously existed, because early Christianity was a political movement against Rome, the original fascist empire, and political movements need leaders. They don’t operate based on committees, they need a powerful leader to rally them and organise a consistent strategy. The strategy of Jesus turned out to be preaching to the people that they were made in the image of the Creator, that they had that creative power within them as a living potential, that they were fundamentally different from animals. A unique threat to the empire, Rome and the Jewish elite of the day had him destroyed, and his willingness to become immortal in terms of ongoing effective principle of action in the universe, at the cost of horrible torture and murder, set the Christian experiment in motion, the experiment without which we would not have seen the Renaissance, the birth of modern science with Nicolaus of Cusa (d.1464), and, ultimately the birth of the United States of America, the abolition of slavery, and the Apollo program. No Christianity, no science and art as we know it.

But, where it really gets turned on its head, is when the narrator accuses the powers that be of “playing both sides” even as he criticizes Franklin D. Roosevelt as being a part of those powers! How can this be? Hitler is shown as a menace to civilisation, very scary, but Roosevelt, who defeated Hitler is shown as being part of the international banking elite and thus just as bad as Hitler! His maneuverings to go to war against fascist Japan are listed as though they were acts of immorality. Fascist Japan! Rape-of-Nanking Japan! Yet America wasn’t supposed to go to war against the Axis, it was supposed to stay neutral and let fascism take the Earth. So, we have an absurdity here that begs addressing.

Roosevelt was a great leader in the tradition of the American System of economy, as an alternative to both Marxism and capitalism (both of British origin), and intrinsically opposed to the fascism that was originally represented by Napoleon I, and was reborn with Adolf Hitler and Bennito Mussolini, all forms of tyranny in express imitation of Imperial Rome. Roosevelt was the American human answer to Hitler’s werewolf. Roosevelt embodied a system capable of expressing and defending humanity qua humanity whereas Hitler created a system capable of maximal evil on both the individual and the economic level.

The true “man behind the curtain” to watch out for isn’t Mr. Wizard, it’s the elderly narrator talking about the way to destroy a nation, which is to either bomb it to ruin or, better, to get the populace to destroy itself. Namely, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.. I notice he was used without being quoted, nor was his picture given. That is a telling omission, because no one has a more optimistic view of the real situation than he does. He works within the American System as well, the Classical Humanist tradition, and operates on the basis of principle, not hectic montages or incoherent denunciations of great American leaders. He’s aware of the move to chip people, but the hidden card no one is looking at here is that the economy is precarious, it’s been punched full of huge holes for the past forty years, and this world empire the Anglo-American Imperalists are working on won’t last very long, if it were even possible to consolidate it, which it might not. The only question is whether we can rescue our heritage from sliding along down into destruction with them.

The final resolution? Instead of developing principles, we have, once again, no principles, just trite hippy nonsense about how we are all "one" and how "love" must conquer "power", in order to know (postcoital?) peace. This is something a Goddess worshipping lunatic from fascist imperial Rome might have said! The film proceeds to talk about how life is "just a ride" and isn't real and how people reincarnate from the Other Side to tell us this, for whatever reason. I mean, talk about coming full circle from debunking hokum religion to promoting hokum religion. People who are serious about civilisation should start with LaRouche, and develop a more appropriately human critical eye about these sorts of documentaries. They contain useful information, especially concerning the banking system and the like, but they embody powerlessness in their very method, because they give people nothing to hang on to except fear.

Cpl Ferro

See also, especially the following, discussing the $100 billion BAE arms trading scandal which is almost not being reported in America:

Lyndon LaRouche Webcast: The World's Biggest Loose End
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/audio_video_files/2007/070621_webcast.shtml

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Didn't Andreasz just show up out of the blue wanting to discuss this movie?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Well you can check with YourSky (http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/), and find that Sirius was visible from Jerusalem at this time.

I know this is getting sort of OT... But I seem to remember that if you calculate out Haley's Comet, it made a show around 6 BC (or 6 BCE if you want to call it that)

Kinda close enough that maybe 6 BC was really Year 0, and we're acutally in 2013! Wow! Time travel!

[andreasz]

Certain parts of it, yes... But far more than that... There are so many theories that are fitting in a certain way, as long as you ignore the crap.

I am pretty disappointed of this "truth movement", because it hasn't much to do with truth at all. Problem is, that many of these films and texts make good points but spoil the show with adding some crap to it which disqualifies the entire message.

That's why I opened a new thread, if that was what you are about to ask...

[warlexz53]

Hi everyone,

Im new to this site. I joined because I saw some intelligent debate and wanted to participate.

I saw this movie not too long ago. It seems many people are captivated by it while some just throw it out as junk. I will agree this movie is put together in such a way that it tends to our senses. I think it is designed to titilate us. I did not have a problem with part one, as I think that the information provided is already pretty well known. Part two was a little drab, but three key parts of it stood out to me as very interesting. The first was the diagonally cut steel beams. That to me is hard evidence of foul play. The second thing that stood out is how all the people in the basement heard and/or were even jolted by explosions before the first plane hit. The third is building 7. I think that one is self explanatory.

Part 3 hits close to home for me, because my dad is part of the tax truth movement and I saw first hand what the fascist SS like IRS did to him. My father broke no laws, but when he marched on Washington with about 2000 other people and demanded answers from our government, he along with numerous other people had all their assests seized and were told they owe the IRS a lot of money. This put them into submission. When they fought back and filed grievences their case was put on the back burner and remains in the lower courts to this day.

For all that think everything is ok in this country, I have bad news for you. This country is on a steep and fast decline. If it is ever proved that 9/11 was an inside job you can bet there will be a revolution. If it is proved, you can bet that almost every conspiracy theory you've ever heard is true.

I would love to debate with anyone that has differing opinions. I consider myself fairly well researched or at least aware of the research being done regarding this subject matter.

Very best,

Anthony

[Pardalis]

For all that think everything is ok in this country, I have bad news for you. This country is on a steep and fast decline. If it is ever proved that 9/11 was an inside job you can bet there will be a revolution. If it is proved, you can bet that almost every conspiracy theory you've ever heard is true.

What if it's not an inside job?

[warlexz53]

What if it's not an inside job?

If it is not an inside job then maybe the neo-cons are right and what we're doing in Iraq and soon to be Iran is justified. However, after reviewing the theories, seeing the evidence and knowing a little bit about human nature, I am leaning towards a conspiracy.

[Pardalis]

OK so you're not interested in an intelligent debate.

Goodbye.

[warlexz53]

OK so you're not interested in an intelligent debate.

Goodbye.

why is that?


Personal attacks removed.

[Gravy]

Hi everyone,Hi, warlex. Welcome to the forums.

[...]Part two was a little drab, but three key parts of it stood out to me as very interesting. The first was the diagonally cut steel beams. That to me is hard evidence of foul play. You've been lied to. That's how steel was often cut during the cleanup operation, and thermite/thermate cuts look nothing like that. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones%27thermitethermateclaims)

The second thing that stood out is how all the people in the basement heard and/or were even jolted by explosions before the first plane hit. You've been lied to. They didn't and they weren't (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home).

The third is building 7. I think that one is self explanatory. I agree.
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)

Part 3 hits close to home for me, because my dad is part of the tax truth movement and I saw first hand what the fascist SS like IRS did to him.Taxes are real.

I consider myself fairly well researched or at least aware of the research being done regarding this subject matter. Sorry, you are not even a little bit informed, but this is a great place to get informed.

[Slayhamlet]

Hi everyone,

Im new to this site. I joined because I saw some intelligent debate and wanted to participate.

I saw this movie not too long ago. It seems many people are captivated by it while some just throw it out as junk. I will agree this movie is put together in such a way that it tends to our senses. I think it is designed to titilate us. I did not have a problem with part one, as I think that the information provided is already pretty well known. Part two was a little drab, but three key parts of it stood out to me as very interesting. The first was the diagonally cut steel beams. That to me is hard evidence of foul play. The second thing that stood out is how all the people in the basement heard and/or were even jolted by explosions before the first plane hit. The third is building 7. I think that one is self explanatory.

Part 3 hits close to home for me, because my dad is part of the tax truth movement and I saw first hand what the fascist SS like IRS did to him. My father broke no laws, but when he marched on Washington with about 2000 other people and demanded answers from our government, he along with numerous other people had all their assests seized and were told they owe the IRS a lot of money. This put them into submission. When they fought back and filed grievences their case was put on the back burner and remains in the lower courts to this day.

For all that think everything is ok in this country, I have bad news for you. This country is on a steep and fast decline. If it is ever proved that 9/11 was an inside job you can bet there will be a revolution. If it is proved, you can bet that almost every conspiracy theory you've ever heard is true.

I would love to debate with anyone that has differing opinions. I consider myself fairly well researched or at least aware of the research being done regarding this subject matter.

Very best,

Anthony

That you're citing the diagonally cut beams as proof of an inside job shows just how little research you've really done. And mind you, that's only the most egregious example of conspiracist disinformation you've uncritically accepted as fact . Most of your other claims are similarly wrong, dreadfully wrong.

PS: Sorry that your dad got caught. Maybe he should pay his taxes next time?

[Dr Harry Rein]

If it is not an inside job then maybe the neo-cons are right and what we're doing in Iraq and soon to be Iran is justified. However, after reviewing the theories, seeing the evidence and knowing a little bit about human nature, I am leaning towards a conspiracy.

I think that I speak for at least a few other members of this forum that you can believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, and that our governments policy in Iraq was not not justified. One can disagree with one's government, and still not believe it is capable of murdering 3000 of it's own citizens.

[warlexz53]

Thank you for showing some interest in my inquiries. I looked through the links you provided. I wasnt aware that so much damage was done to building 7. However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down. First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced.

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.

[Slayhamlet]

Thank you for showing some interest in my inquiries. I looked through the links you provided. I wasnt aware that so much damage was done to building 7. However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down. First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced.

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.

Sigh

[Alt+F4]

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.

Hello new person, welcome. Ok, what's your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?

[warlexz53]

That you're citing the diagonally cut beams as proof of an inside job shows just how little research you've really done. And mind you, that's only the most egregious example of conspiracist disinformation you've uncritically accepted as fact . Most of your other claims are similarly wrong, dreadfully wrong.

PS: Sorry that your dad got caught. Maybe he should pay his taxes next time?


The tax thing is a whole other argument that should probably be talked about in another thread. If you want to make a thread about it I will participate.

[warlexz53]

Hello new person, welcome. Ok, what's your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7?

Im really not informed enough to tell you exactly what happened like some people on these sites claim to. Just by looking at it, and it seems many of the news commentators on 9/11 agree, it was brought down by demolition.

[Corsair 115]

However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down. Why? Can you articulate specific reasons why you don't think it was enough?

First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. First, what do blacksmiths do? Second, you don't have to melt steel into a liquid state for it to lose its structural strength, you need only heat it up. Steel will lose a significant portion of its structural strength long before it melts.

Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced. There is a world of difference in the relative strengths and capabilties between these materials.

[warlexz53]

Why? Can you articulate specific reasons why you don't think it was enough?

First, what do blacksmiths do? Second, you don't have to melt steel into a liquid state for it to lose its structural strength, you need only heat it up. Steel will lose a significant portion of its structural strength long before it melts.

There is a world of difference in the relative strengths and capabilties between these materials.

I know what blacksmiths do ;). If I'm correct jet fuel burns at about 1200 degrees and steel starts losing its integrety at about 1700 degrees. What could have brought the temperature of the fire to 1700 or above?

Let me clarify what I meant about erector sets and buidling 7. If I could build a structure with a bunch of columns and support beams and remove a small section of it and have it still stand up, why would building 7 fall? These buildings are built according to very strict engineering laws. I dont see how a small piece missing could make it fall.

[Pardalis]

Maybe you should let engineers decide how buildings are built and how they can fall down?

[warlexz53]

Maybe you should let engineers decide how buildings are built and how they can fall down?

The engineers of the architect and engineer truth movement seem to have the same questions I do. Their opinions and evidence can be found here:

w/w/w.ae911truth.c/o/m

apparently I cant post links yet

[Corsair 115]

If I'm correct jet fuel burns at about 1200 degrees and steel starts losing its integrety at about 1700 degrees. You are wildly incorrect with your latter figure; steel loses much of its strength long before that temperature. I am sure the resident engineers who post here will be by shortly to post the correct figures.

If you can't wait, try a search of the threads here because I know the information has been posted here before, and not that long ago either.

If I could build a structure with a bunch of columns and support beams and remove a small section of it and have it still stand up, why would building 7 fall? These buildings are built according to very strict engineering laws. I dont see how a small piece missing could make it fall.The materials in a toy construction set have a hugely different level of stength-to-weight ratios. In short, scaling issues. That's been posted about quite a bit here too not that long ago.

As a general thought, things which are seemingly counter-intuitive happen all the time. A quick example: during WWII, submarine hunting aircraft were made harder to spot by U-boat crews by hanging banks of lights on the plane. Sounds completely backwards, doesn't it? How could putting lights on an aircraft make it harder to see? The answer is actually fairly simple, and it worked well.

The engineers of the architect and engineer truth movement seem to have the same questions I do. Their opinions and evidence can be found here:

w/w/w.ae911truth.c/o/mThat site has been extensively debunked here. You should be easily able to find forum threads with the relevant material with some searches.

Incidentally, you can post links once you've reached 15 posts.

[Pardalis]

The engineers of the architect and engineer truth movement seem to have the same questions I do. Their opinions and evidence can be found here:

w/w/w.ae911truth.c/o/m

apparently I cant post links yet

OK, have they presented their research to the scientific community?

[warlexz53]

You are wildly incorrect with your latter figure; steel loses much of its strength long before that temperature. I am sure the resident engineers who post here will be by shortly to post the correct figures.

If you can't wait, try a search of the threads here because I know the information has been posted here before, and not that long ago either.

The materials in a toy construction set have a hugely different level of stength-to-weight ratios. In short, scaling issues. That's been posted about quite a bit here too not that long ago.

As a general thought, things which are seemingly counter-intuitive happen all the time. A quick example: during WWII, submarine hunting aircraft were made harder to spot by U-boat crews by hanging banks of lights on the plane. Sounds completely backwards, doesn't it? How could putting lights on an aircraft make it harder to see? The answer is actually fairly simple, and it worked well.

That site has been extensively debunked here. You should be easily able to find forum threads with the relevant material with some searches.

Incidentally, you can post links once you've reached 15 posts.

Alright, so I just checked out the NIST site and it says steel melts at 2800 degrees. It also says jet fuel burns at about 2000 degrees and that is enough to weaken the steal 90%. If some engineers on this site could confirm that it would be great.

Ok...so maybe the steel did weaken a lot. That would lead to the pancake theory. So if all the floors collapesed on one onther why were'nt they stacked on top of one another in the debri? It seems the were literally pulverized.

I sure have heard a lot of differing opinions. It seems at least the government should do another investigation. Why wont they?

[Pardalis]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

[warlexz53]

Also, this is just one part of the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory. What about no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon and in Penn.? What about NORAD flying 2 practice missions that involved the World Trade Center on the day of 9/11? There is so much conflicting stuff that happened that day. And then you look at the fall out of it all...illegal war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, the news channels putting fear into us, talks of going into Iran, RIFC chips, the North American Union. It just doest all add up.

[Pardalis]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
http://911guide.googlepages.com/

[Jonnyclueless]

Also, this is just one part of the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory. What about no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon and in Penn.? What about NORAD flying 2 practice missions that involved the World Trade Center on the day of 9/11? There is so much conflicting stuff that happened that day. And then you look at the fall out of it all...illegal war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, the news channels putting fear into us, talks of going into Iran, RIFC chips, the North American Union. It just doest all add up.

You're pretty new at this aren't ya? :-)

[warlexz53]

You're pretty new at this aren't ya? :-)

sorta ya

[Pardalis]

Happy reading. :)

[Slayhamlet]

Alright, so I just checked out the NIST site and it says steel melts at 2800 degrees. It also says jet fuel burns at about 2000 degrees and that is enough to weaken the steal 90%. If some engineers on this site could confirm that it would be great.

Ok...so maybe the steel did weaken a lot. That would lead to the pancake theory. So if all the floors collapesed on one onther why were'nt they stacked on top of one another in the debri? It seems the were literally pulverized.

It seems that way? And how do you figure that? Have you studied a good number of pictures of the WTC 7 rubble pile to determine this, or are you just saying that because you haven't come across any while perusing disreputable CT sites?

I sure have heard a lot of differing opinions. It seems at least the government should do another investigation. Why wont they?

Because there already is one, and it is a very good one. In fact, they should be coming out with the final report for WTC7 very soon. All of these "differing opinions" that challenge NIST's conclusions come from non-experts. I do not need my tax dollars wasted on a second investigation which attempts to satisfy a bunch of conspiracy kooks who will never be satisfied with a mundane explanation for the collapse anyway. If you are a tax protester and a CT, why don't you fund your own "new" investigation?

PS: "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" is a sham. They have no structural engineers or anybody else with the requisite experience to challenge NIST's conclusions. They don't even check the credentials of those who sign up.

[Arus808]

warlex, there's a sticky section on this forum that you should check out first,; formoest the Gravy website thread is a good place to get hte information from

also, read hte NIST report and the 911 commission report. I know that is asking alot, but what you are asking here, are the same questions that have asked before. by reading the links in the threads in the stick section and the reports, you'll have a better understanding of what happened.

please take this time to do so. its quite alot of reading; come back if you have specific questions.

[Gravy]

Thank you for showing some interest in my inquiries. I looked through the links you provided. I wasnt aware that so much damage was done to building 7. However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down.According to NIST's working hypothesis, the building was brought down by fire affecting crucial columns and transfer trusses on the lower floors, near the center of the building. No doubt the damage didn't help, but it is not considered to be the primary cause of collapse.

First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. Fire can of course melt steel, but no one is saying that's what happened here. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with what the engineering explanations are, before you attempt to critique them (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction).

Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced. Covered above.

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. You are wrong. The collapse is believed to have initiated in the area circled in red below. I'm sure you've seen videos of the east mechanical penthouse, above that area, collapsing about 8-9 seconds before the rest of the building visibly collapses. Remember, massive collapses are happening internally at that time.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b386eac9d95.jpg

Since the collapse initiated in center of the building, how should it have fallen? In your analysis you must address how this building was constructed and damaged. It was a unique building and it suffered unique damage and fires.

But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.You have to read and study engineering reports, not just look at them. Since you aren't aware of NIST's study, you have some reading to do. And had you read the 9/11 Commission report, you would know that it does not address engineering matters and does not give an "explanation" for building 7's collapse. NIST's interim report is linked in my document above. Their final report on building 7 will surely contain much more information than the public has seen so far.

[Slayhamlet]

Also, this is just one part of the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory. What about no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon and in Penn.? What about NORAD flying 2 practice missions that involved the World Trade Center on the day of 9/11? There is so much conflicting stuff that happened that day. And then you look at the fall out of it all...illegal war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, the news channels putting fear into us, talks of going into Iran, RIFC chips, the North American Union. It just doest all add up.

There is ample evidence, both physical and documentary, of planes having crashed into the Pentagon and the empty field in Shanksville, PA on 9/11. There were no "practice missions" carried out by NORAD involving the WTC, on 9/11 or at any other time. The "fall out" of the attacks is not pertinent to the question of whether there was an "inside job".

There is not going to be an invasion of Iran anytime in the near future, unless Iran strikes us or one of our allies first (which it won't). A tactical strike against Iranian nuclear assets is a bit more likely, but I'd bet against it. The North American Union is nothing but a conspiracist delusion/wet dream. I have no idea what RIFC chips are, but I'm guessing they're the same.

Hopefully I have allayed your fears.

[Gravy]

Also, this is just one part of the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory. What about no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon and in Penn.?What the hell are you talking about?

Flight 77 / Pentagon Summary of Evidence, many links (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary)

Flight 93 / Shanksville Summary of Evidence, many links (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence%2Cman)

What about NORAD flying 2 practice missions that involved the World Trade Center on the day of 9/11? NORAD did no such thing. You have swallowed lies without thinking.
NORAD, FAA, NTSB, Aircraft capabilities, Piloting issues, War games (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad%2Cfaa%2Cntsb%2Caircraftcapabilities%2Cpilo)
(http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad%2Cfaa%2Cntsb%2Caircraftcapabilities%2Cpilo)

There is so much conflicting stuff that happened that day. No, there isn't. As I said, this is good place to get informed. In the past few hours you've been given enough reading material for several months of full-time study. Please come back when you've made a serious effort to digest at least the basics. And if you spew "no-plane" nonsense again, you will be ignored by intelligent people.

RIFC chipsAt least try to get your acronyms right. And do not get your information from Alex Jones. In the year that I've been aware of him, he hasn't gotten a single thing right.

This is a great place to learn to think critically and to recognize when you are being lied to. But you must want to do that and be willing to work at it.

[Shrinker]

I sure have heard a lot of differing opinions. It seems at least the government should do another investigation. Why wont they?

There aren't that many differing opinions. There are a set of people who are mostly happy with the government's investigation, and there are a set who refuse to believe a single word of it because they are suspicious of the government.

The first group don't need a new investigation, and the second, wouldn't believe a word of it anyway.

The only people the second group will listen to are themselves, but they seem happy spending $22 million dollars making and hyping a movie, rather than spending it on an investigation.

Did you get that? Not a single truther complained about spending $22 million making and publicising Loose Change:Final Cut. Given the choice, the Truth movement will spend all their resources telling other people what to believe, rather than risk discovering a truth which conflicts with their own beliefs.

And welcome to the forum.

[Gravy]

Shrinker, Korey Rowe's fantasies aside, Loose Change's budget would be in the thousands, not millions. Do you really think those morons are capable of raising millions of dollars? They just had to hit their fans up for more money.

[Shrinker]

Shrinker, Korey Rowe's fantasies aside, Loose Change's budget would be in the thousands, not millions. Do you really think those morons are capable of raising millions of dollars? They just had to hit their fans up for more money.

It's okay Gravy, it's perfectly obvious the $22M never existed, but the point still stands. The fans thought it existed, and saw no problem in spending it this way.

[T.A.M.]

Were we not warned of arrivals on their best behaviour to the forum in the next few days...

TAM:)

[Gravy]

It's okay Gravy, it's perfectly obvious the $22M never existed, but the point still stands. The fans thought it existed, and saw no problem in spending it this way.Yes, it's a very good point. There's far more eager anticipation over this video than there is expectation that any actual investigating will be accomplished. Bermas recently said that the only person in the government he thinks could be held accountable for 9/11 is Dick Cheney – and that's based entirely on the Mineta nonsense! That's the sum total of all their "investigating."

Jimmy Walter is another good example. He did spend millions (so he says) calling for a new investigation, all of which could have gone towards a new investigation.

[sts60]

warlexz53: What about no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon and in Penn.?

Aircraft remains, as well as the remains of passengers, were recovered at both sites. I ride with firefighters who were at the Pentagon that day and recovered both types of evidence.

And then you look at the fall out of it all...illegal war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, the news channels putting fear into us, talks of going into Iran, RIFC chips, the North American Union.

The first few items are legitimate concerns and topics for debate even given the "mainstream" accounts of the 9/11/2001 attacks . RFID chips have been around for a while and are used in inventory control and freight tracking, and so has hysterical and unfounded talk of implanting them in the population at large, but that means nothing. As for "North American Union", I don't know anything about that.

It just doest all add up.

I agree that it doesn't add up to claims that the government somehow staged the crashes.

[sts60]

The other thing I meant to say was: as long as you're looking at the "fallout", be sure to look at all of it: no pipeline across Afghanistan. Oil production from Iraq very low. Extraordinarily low approval ratings for the Administration, daily ridicule and scorn for the architects of post-9/11 policy, loss of control of both chambers by the Administration's party. Oh, and public knowledge that no active WMD program existed in Iraq, and that there was basically no link between Iraq and global terrorism. Anyone wishing to claim that the gov't could stage 9/11 and fool people into thinking an airliner crashed into the Pentagon in broad daylight needs to explain why they couldn't plant a few shiny cannisters of VX or induce some guys to be the pre-invasion al-Qaeda in Iraq, as opposed to the ones that moved or joined there after the invasion.

[dudalb]

The other thing I meant to say was: as long as you're looking at the "fallout", be sure to look at all of it: no pipeline across Afghanistan. Oil production from Iraq very low. Extraordinarily low approval ratings for the Administration, daily ridicule and scorn for the architects of post-9/11 policy, loss of control of both chambers by the Administration's party. Oh, and public knowledge that no active WMD program existed in Iraq, and that there was basically no link between Iraq and global terrorism. Anyone wishing to claim that the gov't could stage 9/11 and fool people into thinking an airliner crashed into the Pentagon in broad daylight needs to explain why they couldn't plant a few shiny cannisters of VX or induce some guys to be the pre-invasion al-Qaeda in Iraq, as opposed to the ones that moved or joined there after the invasion.

Excellent Point. Sneaking in a few Chemical or Biological weapons..or even a Nuke,for Heaven's sake..into Iraq during Iraqi Freedom would have been easy. The Bush Adminsitration is incapable of doing that,but capable of pulling off a conspiracy mind boggling in the complexity required.
Yeah,Right.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

If this is considered a personal attack I apologize immensely.

Reading the past page and a half was like watching a guy armed with a knife try to rob a gun store full of off duty police officers.

[Jonnyclueless]

Maybe they spent the money on film.

[Corsair 115]

...the North American Union...This so-called North American Union is about nothing more than harmonizing certain rules and regulations between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. There are entirely valid reasons for wanting to do so given the amount of cross-border trade that the U.S. does with its northern and southern neighbours. Take a look at the dollar value of the goods the U.S. exports and imports from Canada and Mexico each year - it's substantial. Indeed, the U.S. does considerably more total trade with Canada each year than it does China.

Besides, the U.S. is by far the most powerful country economically of the three, so if anything it's Canada and Mexico which will be adapting their rules and regulations to American ones than it is the U.S. would be adopting its rules and regulations to Canadian or Mexican ones.

[beachnut]

The tax thing is a whole other argument that should probably be talked about in another thread. If you want to make a thread about it I will participate.
9/11 truth and this movie are total BS. Your dad should pay his taxes, they can take your assets when you do not pay your taxes. Like tax fraud, 9/11 truth is fraud.

[Viper Daimao]

yes, the tax thing is easier to debunk too. because well, I can just show you the law, even show you the vote totals.

[Drudgewire]

I'll give warlex his due. Despite some clear personal leanings, I get more of a feeling he's here looking for answers than I do from the bulk of twoofers who just come here to be adversarial... or have become so deluded (due to the only dissent to this nonsense they've seen is on pro-"truth" forums where comments containing evil denier tactics like as "logic" and "evidence" result in being shouted down and bannings) they've grown confident they can debunk any debunking. Really, it's sort of like reading a book on basketball and talking about it in sports forums and then thinking you can take Shaq in a game of one-on-one.

Keep digging dude. As a reformed CT nut (I'm not saying you are, only that I was), I can tell you there's nothing wrong with being suspicious of "official accounts" of anything. However there's a monstrous difference between that, and being so sure a conspiracy has taken place that every bit of scientific evidence to the contrary becomes part of said conspiracy.

What makes 9/11 theories so much more interesting than the rest of them is it was the first major earth-changing event to happen in an age where the majority of Americans had the Internet. It's not that it has any more legs than others before them that we all know are ridiculous, it simply has a medium that allows it to fester and infect more people than previous ones.

We're called "close-minded" by truthers for refusing to accept the possibility. I urge you to not take any side going in, and keep a truly open mind as you research. If you go in wanting to find a conspiracy, you'll find one every time. If you go in looking for proof of one, that's when you'll see which side relies on tangible evidence and which side pulls evidence out of their posteriors. :)

[warlexz53]

I'll give warlex his due. Despite some clear personal leanings, I get more of a feeling he's here looking for answers than I do from the bulk of twoofers who just come here to be adversarial... or have become so deluded (due to the only dissent to this nonsense they've seen is on pro-"truth" forums where comments containing evil denier tactics like as "logic" and "evidence" result in being shouted down and bannings) they've grown confident they can debunk any debunking. Really, it's sort of like reading a book on basketball and talking about it in sports forums and then thinking you can take Shaq in a game of one-on-one.

Keep digging dude. As a reformed CT nut (I'm not saying you are, only that I was), I can tell you there's nothing wrong with being suspicious of "official accounts" of anything. However there's a monstrous difference between that, and being so sure a conspiracy has taken place that every bit of scientific evidence to the contrary becomes part of said conspiracy.

What makes 9/11 theories so much more interesting than the rest of them is it was the first major earth-changing event to happen in an age where the majority of Americans had the Internet. It's not that it has any more legs than others before them that we all know are ridiculous, it simply has a medium that allows it to fester and infect more people than previous ones.

We're called "close-minded" by truthers for refusing to accept the possibility. I urge you to not take any side going in, and keep a truly open mind as you research. If you go in wanting to find a conspiracy, you'll find one every time. If you go in looking for proof of one, that's when you'll see which side relies on tangible evidence and which side pulls evidence out of their posteriors. :)

Yes I have a lot to look into, and you guys have already pointed me in some good directions and I appreciate that. I am open to both sides and I really want to make an informed decision for myself, so I will study up. For me it is hard to trust the government. I'm not saying the government was behind 9/11, but they did lie to us about the Gulf of Tonkin and then kill 3 million people. The CIA doesnt exactly have the greatest track record either. I think ourgovernment is too big and I truly believe what the founding father's taught and what our constitution stands for. I am only 22, but it seems our government is just out of control. I also believe there are powerful men in this world with too much power and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. You put the two together and you get history repeating itself. I wish I could trust the government, but I just cant. As such I take everything the government says about 9/11 with a grain of salt.

[Viper Daimao]

A lot of us share your views warlexz, (though I'm not as cavelier in saying "killed 3 million people", it's rather glib), but we're not trusting what the govt says about 9/11, we're trusting our eyes, our minds, and scientific experts say about 9/11.

[Drudgewire]

we're not trusting what the govt says about 9/11, we're trusting our eyes, our minds, and scientific experts say about 9/11.
Two words you'll see an awful lot here warlexz: "Peer review."

Both sides of the 9/11 "Truth" debate use an awful lot of sciency talk. I won't lie, I'm a right-brained kind of guy and while I understand the basics, the second math and chemical formulas show up in a report it becomes Greek to me. If I was just coming off the street and found something like "engineers for truth" and already had a bit of suspicion about the people running things, it would certainly sound good enough to me.

By being exposed to it here, I get the chance to see all this science stuff being countered by other science stuff... and while it pretty much always makes more sense after thinking about it, if I was under subpoena and forced to testify (hehe) I'd have to admit I wouldn't have any idea who was really right.

But the difference is "peer review." It isn't like there are equal numbers of scientists on either side of the debate. There are a very select few on the twoof side, and NONE who are considered experts in the specific field they're writing about. The reason is, when CT science is graded by other experts in these fields... not all of whom could possibly be part of any vast conspiracy... they all fail miserably. The official story, on the other, passes the muster.

But forget getting published in journals and all that, just look at the Internet. Like I said, I'm no science expert, but I am pretty good at reading people. When I come to a place where the leaders of the other side admit drives them up a wall, I expect to see some fighting back. If they had truth on their side, we'd be getting scientists in here out the wazoo that would be throwing numbers and periodic table thingys back and forth so fast it would one's head swim.

Who do we get? Kids. I don't mean that with any disrespect to the youth, but it's very telling when those are the only people that see any benefit of trying to argue science in here. Skeptics don't disbelieve the notion of conspiracies. If the official story doesn't make sense the skeptics will be the first ones calling it into doubt, not because of any political ideal or preconcieved notion of how things are, but simply because the numbers don't add up (btw, I stay out of religious debates here... but I'm certainly not a "full-bore" member of the society).

And in this particular conspiracy theory, once the numbers stop adding up the only argument that can be tossed back at the skeptics is that they're either too close-minded to see outside their box or they're consciously or subconsciously part of it either knowlingly or by being a brainwashed useful idiot. All of them...

...along with all the experts in the fields who the skeptics are siding with...

...along with every science geek in the country who would LOOOOOOOVE to prove their mental superiority over everyone else in the world by using his or her skills to prove it to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

Oh, and then there's the dishonesty. One side is littered with it top to bottom. I don't say that because I don't support their beliefs. I say that because, looking at it as objectively as humanly possible, it's honestly stunning to see how much lying, how much willingness to accept said lying, and how much accusations of lying towards people who have absolutely no reason to be comes from the Truthers.

It doesn't take a PhD to figure out who's right about 9/11, it only takes a very basic understanding of human psychology. One side is supported by science and reason. One side is supported by YouTube videos and baseless accusations (the funniest is that "accepted science" somehow equals "neo-con." Scientists aren't neo-cons... they're rule10ing weirdos).

Regardless of any paranoias about what COULD have happened on 9/11, the FACTS... not planted evidence, not lying eyewitnesses, not manufactured science in reports... prove it didn't.

[Pardalis]

Yes I have a lot to look into, and you guys have already pointed me in some good directions and I appreciate that. I am open to both sides and I really want to make an informed decision for myself, so I will study up.

I'm really glad to see you are willing to research this subject properly.

I apologize for my abruptness in our first exchange, but you have to know something about how you answered my question:

Since you seemed to favor the conspiracy, I asked you if you ever considered that there wasn't a conspiracy. My question was sort of a to test to figure out if you were open to the possibility that the "official story" might be true. A trully objective person who is genuinely interested in both sides of the debate should be able to accept such a possibility. Clearly, with your response to that question you weren't. It was exactly what I expected from a closed-minded truther, and it was quite insulting. You answered by a strawman, putting me and others who agree with the "official story" in an impossible position: According to you, either the Official story is false, or the war in Iraq is justified. I absolutely execrate being put in such a position. These two (the war in Iraq and 9/11) are completely different topics (not to mention the non existing war in Iran which is a non-topic). This shows that you are giving your own political spin to these events and are unwilling to see past it.

As Viper told you, you can agree with the official story and be pissed about the war in Iraq at the same time. Both are not mutually exclusive. If you really want to know the truth about 9/11, you should better leave your frustrations and hatred of the Bush administration and the war (which are both absolutely understandable sentiments and you will find that they are widely shared by many "debunkers" here), and focus on the facts, the real evidence, the real science. Leave your emotions at the door and try to look at it rationally.

Maybe it was an inside job, but don't start with your conclusion before you even started to research. Because you know what? The Official story could also be true, and the people who did this atrocity should not be left off the hook. The least you can do is to read the official reports to know for yourself what they are saying, instead of parroting conspiracy sites who are misrepresenting these very same reports. Read for yourself and make the choice yourself. Most truthers who say the NIST report is whitewash have not read the damned thing! You have the choice, to read both sides of the story and judge for yourself.

Also, be aware of the true believer syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_believer_syndrome), because once you deny yourself this choice, and willingly ignore reality, then you are lost.

[Brainster]

Canada's Globe & Mail covers Zeitgeist (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070817.WEB17/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Movies/). The most relevant passage to the forum is:

What troubles me the most is that, for all the talk of skepticism, conspiracy counterculture is really an anti-intellectual, populist movement - much like Intelligent Design. For all their absurdity, conspiracy theorists try to drag everything back to the level of common sense.

The rest of the article is just okay (his entire debunking consists of mentioning the Popular Mechanics and Scientific American Articles), but that's a pretty good paragraph.

[R.Mackey]

The "Zeitgeist" movie has just hit a lonely and relatively sane corner of paintball (http://www.network54.com/Forum/9013/message/1187401603/I+would+like+some+of+you+to+wach+this.Then+Id+like +to+disscus+it+with+you.%28if+you+care+to%29) on the 'net.

Submissions to engineering, science, or other scholarly journals? Still pegged at zero.

Publicity != Truth. Learn that lesson, then get back to me, but not before.

[Ultramedia]

Yeah I liked it a little too but most of it I had learned about (dare I say) in my search for the truth. :blush:

It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance of many in the so called intellectual elite that is JREF "duh-bunkers". So much prejudice and harsh criticism being made by so many that have seen so little of this movie to begin with.

Perhaps the label "Archie Debunker" is a suitable answer to those giggly anti-ct'ists who are so trapped in conventional thinking they mistake as critical thinking. The idea that ANYTHING a CT creates is ridiculed with extreme prejudice is one so often seen here.

The interesting thing is that none of that seems to stop them from watching it. I watched the entire video and albeit it's creators took more creative license with music and other areas of entertainment to stimulate multi-sensory impact then necessary, it was interesting.

I see how this will become yet another boorish CT bashing bake-off by those needing a candle to see the sun. From a historical standpoint the video is pretty accurate moreover many of the motives that were once those ideas that most of you would have scoffed as twoofers tricks back then, are the CT's of that era's vindication today.

I was once a conservative anti-CT who's angst aggression never quite reached the level of closing myself off to the idea that possibilities exist.

Galleleo was seen as CT'ist Isaac Newton, MLK spoke of a conspiracy to kill him and that he wouldn't live to age 40. He was 39 when he was murdered.

With all the lies of wmd's, CIA advising an administration that the wmd issue was in fact false, they got blamed for giving bad intel. The only one who had the class to resign was Powell, when his integrity was used to facilitate the agenda of yet another war. In the meantime, bin-laden is still in a cave somewhere, or so I'm told. Having served six years in the U.S. Navy I often like to play devils advocate regarding such heretical words like "controlled demolition." It is with as much drop dead honesty and introspection as I can muster in asking myself, could that have been done in the way some CT'ists are afraid it was done?

I certainly know the possibility exists moreover I know first hand that our Government has done some pretty nasty things and that it isn't as hard as you might think. There is some truth in much of what truthers believe without having to produce that pristine perfect evidence debunkers are blinded by there own convention to see.

I know that you can stand outside next to any CT'ist on a sunny Sunday afternoon and the sun is going to shine on both of you.

Just remember to wear your sun glasses, those tinfoil hats are murder on the eyes lol.

Zeitgeist wasn't so much about God as it is about how Religion preys on people (no pun). I would expect those atheists with there staggering intellect to have figured that out. Perhaps it was too tempting an opportunity to bash the bible believer regardless of the less then zero influence it would have in changing any opinions they hold so dear.

I don't know why I would consider this but I wonder if in that last ten minutes of life, they don't ask or at least say to themselves "Jeez I hope that god thing is really true after all" I mean what have you got to lose at that point? No one at JREF will say anything at a time like that.

Agnosticism notwithstanding the idea of atheism is a self refuting concept. Einstein himself never pushed the quality of humility over the cliff into humorous humiliation by judging the believer. He admitted believing in a God but was agnostic. To know unequivocally that there is in fact NO GOD, one would have to be all knowing omni present omnipotent i.e. , GOD

There's the rub.

- Ultramedia

Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? .

[Arus808]

welcome ultramedia, please refer to the links provided in this very thread that debunks every claim mentioned in Zeitgeist. If you have any questions, feel free to post.

[Ultramedia]

welcome ultramedia, please refer to the links provided in this very thread that debunks every claim mentioned in Zeitgeist. If you have any questions, feel free to post.

Don't be so presumptuous.

I have read them and they prove nothing.

Why that doesn't register with you I can only speculate. I knew back when they were making chips for dogs and cats that humans would follow regardless of any cloak and dagger reasons for doing it. It only makes sense to package something like that behind the guise of personal safety and security. The amber alert, Elizabeth Smart, John Walsh would make worthy a spokesman for it as Jordan did Nike.

You don't see that coming in the very near future?

Do you think it is even possible?

I have a series 6 securities license and a better then average grasp of investment strategies most of them will fail by design for the very reasons the movie says. The concept of Life Insurance and your privilege to borrow your own money or "cash value" has to be the biggest scam among many when it comes to money and who controls it.

I have seen our Government distribute counterfeit rubles to inflate an other economy in the late 70's (yes I am fifty*&%something)

It is clear to me that you have your mind made up,,

the LAST thing I'm going to do is,,

confuse you with the facts.

especially when ignored

- Ultramedia

[Ultramedia]

Pardalis in your post to warlexz53,,

What he do? set your house on fire?


I always find it a scandalous bit disingenuous for someone to accuse another of having there emotions get in the way of another persons view.

You apologize for your abruptness to him and are twice as abrupt afterward.

You want to say you were quite insulted by him and many other instances you give as "emotional" while at the same time request he become more "spock" like for you?

You test him in a maneuver to see if he "qualifies" as having an open mind using the prejudice that CT's usually don't and you don't see something wrong with that picture??

As for an open mind,, YOU are the one that subscribes to ONE theory and one alone.

Regardless of your assertion that other theories could be true, the fact is, the one you are quoting disagrees with ONE while you disagree with all others. You endorse ONE as the "official" theory having no more motivation to keep looking. So who is more likely to have an opened mind?

I make no apologies for my emotions as long as I am not getting into personal attacks. That depends on whether or not your self concept is one molecule away from being an eggshell. We all boil at different degrees.

Then in the same post you make the assertion that the NIST "Theory" could also be true. That is approximately 10,000 pages and with the exception of R. Makey, expecting anyone to read something like that AND understand it tells me that it is more then likely YOU haven't read it all yourself.

Parroting other ct'ists is yet another area of your own hypocrisy

Should I quote the posts you plagiarized yourself or did you actually author all of yours sighting all third party authors of those you have quoted?
I have seen this issue go on for many years and wonder how debunkers can make jokes in the name of superior intelligence using labels as tired as "politically correct".

They laugh at them saying they will be looking for truth years from now they are so ignorant. I got a wager that debunkers will still be there to make fun of them long after the NIST theory has been proven a one in a ten trillion chance in hell. Those are the same odds you will have in getting any CT's to even consider NIST, using reprisal to "open there mind"

sheesh

- Ultramedia

[QUOTE=Pardalis;2879905]I'm really glad to see you are willing to research this subject properly.

I apologize for my abruptness in our first exchange, but you have to know something about how you answered my question:

Since you seemed to favor the conspiracy, I asked you if you ever considered that there wasn't a conspiracy. My question was sort of a to test to figure out if you were open to the possibility that the "official story" might be true. A trully objective person who is genuinely interested in both sides of the debate should be able to accept such a possibility. Clearly, with your response to that question you weren't. It was exactly what I expected from a closed-minded truther, and it was quite insulting. You answered by a strawman, putting me and others who agree with the "official story" in an impossible position: According to you, either the Official story is false, or the war in Iraq is justified. I absolutely execrate being put in such a position. These two (the war in Iraq and 9/11) are completely different topics (not to mention the non existing war in Iran which is a non-topic). This shows that you are giving your own political spin to these events and are unwilling to see past it.

As Viper told you, you can agree with the official story and be pissed about the war in Iraq at the same time. Both are not mutually exclusive. If you really want to know the truth about 9/11, you should better leave your frustrations and hatred of the Bush administration and the war (which are both absolutely understandable sentiments and you will find that they are widely shared by many "debunkers" here), and focus on the facts, the real evidence, the real science. Leave your emotions at the door and try to look at it rationally.

Maybe it was an inside job, but don't start with your conclusion before you even started to research. Because you know what? The Official story could also be true, and the people who did this atrocity should not be left off the hook. The least you can do is to read the official reports to know for yourself what they are saying, instead of parroting conspiracy sites who are misrepresenting these very same reports. Read for yourself and make the choice yourself. Most truthers who say the NIST report is whitewash have not read the damned thing! You have the choice, to read both sides of the story and judge for yourself.

[Ultramedia]

Shrinker, Korey Rowe's fantasies aside, Loose Change's budget would be in the thousands, not millions. Do you really think those morons are capable of raising millions of dollars? They just had to hit their fans up for more money.

Rosie O'donnel is investing a million

hee hee

[calebprime]

Ultramedia, if you can show that early Christian practices are related to the Federal Reserve, all of which is related to the events of 9/11, you'd be making a case for watching Zeitgeist carefully.

It wouldn't be hard to persuade me that the U.S. is going to go through some rough times financially, but that's a different issue.

[Drudgewire]

Zeitgeist wasn't so much about God as it is about how Religion preys on people (no pun). I would expect those atheists with there staggering intellect to have figured that out. Perhaps it was too tempting an opportunity to bash the bible believer regardless of the less then zero influence it would have in changing any opinions they hold so dear.

I don't know why I would consider this but I wonder if in that last ten minutes of life, they don't ask or at least say to themselves "Jeez I hope that god thing is really true after all" I mean what have you got to lose at that point? No one at JREF will say anything at a time like that.

Agnosticism notwithstanding the idea of atheism is a self refuting concept. Einstein himself never pushed the quality of humility over the cliff into humorous humiliation by judging the believer. He admitted believing in a God but was agnostic. To know unequivocally that there is in fact NO GOD, one would have to be all knowing omni present omnipotent i.e. , GOD

I believe in God. I believe He gave us the power to use reason and intelligence.

Both of which tell me Zeigeist is one of the most retarded things I've ever tried to sit through. :p

[tsig]

Thank you for showing some interest in my inquiries. I looked through the links you provided. I wasnt aware that so much damage was done to building 7. However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down. First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced.

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.

Why did they use fireproofing?

[twinstead]

Who said anything about fire melting steel?

[tsig]

Yeah I liked it a little too but most of it I had learned about (dare I say) in my search for the truth. :blush:

It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance of many in the so called intellectual elite that is JREF "duh-bunkers". So much prejudice and harsh criticism being made by so many that have seen so little of this movie to begin with.

Perhaps the label "Archie Debunker" is a suitable answer to those giggly anti-ct'ists who are so trapped in conventional thinking they mistake as critical thinking. The idea that ANYTHING a CT creates is ridiculed with extreme prejudice is one so often seen here.

The interesting thing is that none of that seems to stop them from watching it. I watched the entire video and albeit it's creators took more creative license with music and other areas of entertainment to stimulate multi-sensory impact then necessary, it was interesting.

I see how this will become yet another boorish CT bashing bake-off by those needing a candle to see the sun. From a historical standpoint the video is pretty accurate moreover many of the motives that were once those ideas that most of you would have scoffed as twoofers tricks back then, are the CT's of that era's vindication today.

I was once a conservative anti-CT who's angst aggression never quite reached the level of closing myself off to the idea that possibilities exist.

Galleleo was seen as CT'ist Isaac Newton, MLK spoke of a conspiracy to kill him and that he wouldn't live to age 40. He was 39 when he was murdered.

With all the lies of wmd's, CIA advising an administration that the wmd issue was in fact false, they got blamed for giving bad intel. The only one who had the class to resign was Powell, when his integrity was used to facilitate the agenda of yet another war. In the meantime, bin-laden is still in a cave somewhere, or so I'm told. Having served six years in the U.S. Navy I often like to play devils advocate regarding such heretical words like "controlled demolition." It is with as much drop dead honesty and introspection as I can muster in asking myself, could that have been done in the way some CT'ists are afraid it was done?

I certainly know the possibility exists moreover I know first hand that our Government has done some pretty nasty things and that it isn't as hard as you might think. There is some truth in much of what truthers believe without having to produce that pristine perfect evidence debunkers are blinded by there own convention to see.

I know that you can stand outside next to any CT'ist on a sunny Sunday afternoon and the sun is going to shine on both of you.

Just remember to wear your sun glasses, those tinfoil hats are murder on the eyes lol.

Zeitgeist wasn't so much about God as it is about how Religion preys on people (no pun). I would expect those atheists with there staggering intellect to have figured that out. Perhaps it was too tempting an opportunity to bash the bible believer regardless of the less then zero influence it would have in changing any opinions they hold so dear.

I don't know why I would consider this but I wonder if in that last ten minutes of life, they don't ask or at least say to themselves "Jeez I hope that god thing is really true after all" I mean what have you got to lose at that point? No one at JREF will say anything at a time like that.

Agnosticism notwithstanding the idea of atheism is a self refuting concept. Einstein himself never pushed the quality of humility over the cliff into humorous humiliation by judging the believer. He admitted believing in a God but was agnostic. To know unequivocally that there is in fact NO GOD, one would have to be all knowing omni present omnipotent i.e. , GOD

There's the rub.

- Ultramedia

Why was there fireproofing on the beams?

God refutes itself.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Ultramedia: First prove to us that you know the difference between a Conspiracy and a Conspiracy Theory.

You seem to use evidence of Conspiracies to commit a crime in the past as proof that a Conspiracy Theory is true. This is completely illogical.

[The Almond]

As for an open mind,, YOU are the one that subscribes to ONE theory and one alone.

Why does open mindedness imply that one should accept a myriad of theories regardless of their technical veracity? I think it's rather presumptuous of you to assume that any of us here have rejected alternative theories outright. I personally studied three alternative theories (to the NIST progressive collapse theory) in detail, and found them all to be utter gibberish.

Regardless of your assertion that other theories could be true, the fact is, the one you are quoting disagrees with ONE while you disagree with all others. You endorse ONE as the "official" theory having no more motivation to keep looking. So who is more likely to have an opened mind?

The impetus and inspiration to "keep looking" needs to come from the ones proposing alternative theories. Specifically they would need to:
1) Make claims and assertions that are not demonstrably false
2) Show how their theories encompass more of the available evidence than the NIST theory does.

As such, every competing theory thus far has failed at step 1. I don't intend to hold as equally plausible all theories simply because they oppose each other. That's not open mindedness, that's stupidity.

I make no apologies for my emotions as long as I am not getting into personal attacks. That depends on whether or not your self concept is one molecule away from being an eggshell. We all boil at different degrees.

Then in the same post you make the assertion that the NIST "Theory" could also be true. That is approximately 10,000 pages and with the exception of R. Makey, expecting anyone to read something like that AND understand it tells me that it is more then likely YOU haven't read it all yourself.

Actually, the first report NCSTAR 1, is written in layman's terms. Following Hawking's suggestion, the writers have eliminated equations from the entirety of the text, relegating them to appendices and companion reports. NCSTAR 1 is about 300 pages long and can be read in an afternoon.

The frustration around here is that most conspiracy theorists have not even bothered to do that. They misquote, misrepresent and lie about the contents and context of the NCSTAR. That being said, anyone who wishes to debate on an evenly mildly technical level should at least read the NCSTAR and be capable of understanding it.


Parroting other ct'ists is yet another area of your own hypocrisy

Should I quote the posts you plagiarized yourself or did you actually author all of yours sighting all third party authors of those you have quoted?
I have seen this issue go on for many years and wonder how debunkers can make jokes in the name of superior intelligence using labels as tired as "politically correct".

They laugh at them saying they will be looking for truth years from now they are so ignorant. I got a wager that debunkers will still be there to make fun of them long after the NIST theory has been proven a one in a ten trillion chance in hell. Those are the same odds you will have in getting any CT's to even consider NIST, using reprisal to "open there mind"

sheesh

- Ultramedia


I've noticed that you spent an awful lot of time insulting and criticizing a poster on this forum, but not his arguments. Would you care to engage in a debate on the facts and not on the style and candor of other posters?

[T.A.M.]

Theories that make sense and have evidence to back them up...
1. Official account of 9/11

Theories that are speculative, with no evidence to back them up...
1. CD of towers
2. Missile at Pentagon
3. No Plane at Shanksville
4. Plane at shanksville shot down.
5. No hijackers on planes
6. Star Wars Beam Weapons used to bring down towers
7. Leprachauns brought down towers
8. Aliens brought down towers.

TAM;)

[JimBenArm]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an increase in the number of posters who just show up to say "You're all a bunch of close-minded poopyheads, and I hate you!" in the last few weeks? None of them really have anything to say, just a big tantrum, and then they disappear!
Pretty pathetic, actually.

[Sergio Agüero]

Show's nicely who's winning the "debate" doesn't it?

[HyJinX]

Theories that make sense and have evidence to back them up...
1. Official account of 9/11

Theories that are speculative, with no evidence to back them up...
1. CD of towers
2. Missile at Pentagon
3. No Plane at Shanksville
4. Plane at shanksville shot down.
5. No hijackers on planes
6. Star Wars Beam Weapons used to bring down towers
7. Leprachauns brought down towers
8. Aliens brought down towers.

TAM;)

9. Flyover :rolleyes:

[HyJinX]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an increase in the number of posters who just show up to say "You're all a bunch of close-minded poopyheads, and I hate you!" in the last few weeks? None of them really have anything to say, just a big tantrum, and then they disappear!
Pretty pathetic, actually.

Summer vacation, methinks. Don't kids play outside anymore?

[calebprime]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an increase in the number of posters who just show up to say "You're all a bunch of close-minded poopyheads, and I hate you!" in the last few weeks? None of them really have anything to say, just a big tantrum, and then they disappear!
Pretty pathetic, actually.

I've noticed the same thing. But it's not just kiddies. There's Plumjam, OldSchool, g4mcdad, etc. (pardon wrong spellings.)

[Drudgewire]

I've noticed the same thing. But it's not just kiddies. There's Plumjam, OldSchool, g4mcdad, etc. (pardon wrong spellings.)
I'm already prepared for an onslaught tomorrow. Twoofers are going to be feeling extra defensive after the Discovery Channel show airs tonight. :)

[T.A.M.]

Yes the intellectual age of the truther posters here recently has been very young. Given the average mental capacity of a given truther is low anyway, it is not all that surprising.

TAM;)

[warlexz53]

There is a special on the history channel tonight (8/20) about 9/11 conspiracies. This will be interesting to watch. From the commercial it looked like there was a guy that was really pissed off about all the theories. Its like a real life JREF forum!

[Pardalis]

Galleleo was seen as CT'ist Isaac Newton, MLK spoke of a conspiracy to kill him and that he wouldn't live to age 40. He was 39 when he was murdered.

Not Galileo again. Why don't you use Jor-El next time?

Pardalis in your post to warlexz53,,

What he do? set your house on fire?


I always find it a scandalous bit disingenuous for someone to accuse another of having there emotions get in the way of another persons view.

We're talking about facts here, objective rational facts. Anger is a bad way to approach any subject, especially 9/11.

You apologize for your abruptness to him and are twice as abrupt afterward.What do you care?

You want to say you were quite insulted by him and many other instances you give as "emotional" while at the same time request he become more "spock" like for you?This is a critical thinking forum.

You test him in a maneuver to see if he "qualifies" as having an open mind using the prejudice that CT's usually don't and you don't see something wrong with that picture??Nope.

As for an open mind,, YOU are the one that subscribes to ONE theory and one alone. Well, CTists subscribe to many theories, all at once, and none of them make any sense and none are based on fact. So sue me for supporting the only coherent and substanciated theory about 9/11.

Regardless of your assertion that other theories could be true, the fact is, the one you are quoting disagrees with ONE while you disagree with all others. You endorse ONE as the "official" theory having no more motivation to keep looking. So who is more likely to have an opened mind?I am confronted everyday with alternate theories which contradict the Official theory, so everyday I expect one of those theories to come up with some kind of evidence. I am still waiting.

Then in the same post you make the assertion that the NIST "Theory" could also be true. That is approximately 10,000 pages and with the exception of R. Makey, expecting anyone to read something like that AND understand it tells me that it is more then likely YOU haven't read it all yourself.I read this one:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

and some of these:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Should I quote the posts you plagiarized yourself or did you actually author all of yours sighting all third party authors of those you have quoted?Feel free to do so. I haven't parroted anything.

I have seen this issue go on for many years and wonder how debunkers can make jokes in the name of superior intelligence using labels as tired as "politically correct". I have no idea what you mean.

They laugh at them saying they will be looking for truth years from now they are so ignorant. I got a wager that debunkers will still be there to make fun of them long after the NIST theory has been proven a one in a ten trillion chance in hell. Those are the same odds you will have in getting any CT's to even consider NIST, using reprisal to "open there mind"What's wrong with the NIST report?

I await your critique.

[Alt+F4]

Summer vacation, methinks.

Back to school will see most of these teenagers gone, here and at the LCF. The real hard core one who say they will be coming to NYC for 9/11 will be sorely disappointed to know that Dylan has scheduled his "truthfest" in large NYC nightclubs.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an increase in the number of posters who just show up to say "You're all a bunch of close-minded poopyheads, and I hate you!" in the last few weeks? None of them really have anything to say, just a big tantrum, and then they disappear!
Pretty pathetic, actually.

As a noob, it looks like a lot of Pro-troofer threads are started by newbie troofers saying:

"Hi, I'm new here, and I just happened to watch xyz video and it raised some questions for me. I'm not sure what to believe, what do you all think?"

and within 3 posts, they're refusing to listen to our side and they're showing themselves to be a full blown truther in the cult of truthiness.

[JimBenArm]

As a noob, it looks like a lot of Pro-troofer threads are started by newbie troofers saying:

"Hi, I'm new here, and I just happened to watch xyz video and it raised some questions for me. I'm not sure what to believe, what do you all think?"

and within 3 posts, they're refusing to listen to our side and they're showing themselves to be a full blown truther in the cult of truthiness.
Yep, that's how they normally go about it. But recently, it seems like we've gotten a lot of the ones who don't even bother with that, it's full-on woo from the first post. But they don't stick around for more than two or three posts, just stir things up and disappear!

[Ultramedia]

I've noticed that you spent an awful lot of time insulting and criticizing a poster on this forum, but not his arguments. Would you care to engage in a debate on the facts and not on the style and candor of other posters?

Are you serious? PROVING anything here seems to be an exercise in futility. I have seen for months now the same cliques say the same thing over and over in response to anything ever said here.

I would have better luck proving a thing if we all agreed on the same stable datum. The fact is we don't. Debunking CT's one always points to the NISTIAN BIBLE and Ill no more believe that then an atheist would use the Bible as his stable datum.

There are things in the movie anyone can disagree with it isn't perfect, has strange music blah blah blah Get Over it. Someone doesn't agree with the NIST Report they are customarily advised to see this link that link as if reading that information a second third time is going to make any more sense then it did the first time we disagree with it.

Then the same old accusation about NOT reading all of it persists. This entire forum is so saturated with it's traditional patterns and protocols I could have predicted most of your response verbatim because they are always the same.

Rather then test your skills of debate or argue with a terminally self righteous group of know-it-all in one clique or the other, Ill express myself in the way I want following MY OWN protocol whether you like it or not whether you agree or not.

Ill direct you to the Jay Howard vs R. Makey discussion where again,, a lot of time and typing done by two obviously very intelligent people. It would have been refreshing to see if once a dialogue like that concluded in the transformation of ones fixed opinions to those of his "opponent" .

You see it as a game with no middle ground someone wins someone loses but neither one has learned a damn thing more then they were willing to accept at the start. Since we have these discussions with the allies of our cliques watching, accepting anything less then what you started with results in more of the same.

It begins to degrade into a meticulously executed act of splitting hairs in the name of "straw man" or the ever popular and even more juvenile name calling use of the word "twoofer".

example: R. Makey who worked very hard to educate us the virtues of the NIST report as his stable datum was why I could have predicted his giving up on Jay Howard. Obviously R. Makey has a superior knowledge of engineering and much education which I assume was the reason he saw himself as the "teacher" and Howard as the unwilling student. The questions Jay had that were never addressed went unanswered by using the same tactics traditionally used here. Accusations that he didn't understand the report and claims that his questions were answered where it never occurred to him that perhaps it wasn't.

No one likes repeating themselves and as much as I was intrigued with that discussion, I sure didn't see it either.

It wasn't R Makey's knowledge of the NIST report but the art of persuasion that was lacking skill. I admit I marveled at his intelligence but like him I won't ignore what I know about fighting a fire or my experience with steel's incredible ability to withstand a Jet crashing through steel compartments and NOT SOFTENING.

His comments about CT'rs come from the same prejudice that wouldn't allow him to listen hard enough to the very valid points Jay was making. Jay had doubt, reasonable doubt that was easy to see. He also has very impressive powers of persuasion. Another words if that doubt can influence me that doubt exists then those arguments he had also have possibilities which were more then sufficient for me to agree on.

Perhaps all that engineering education is too much to write off having invested so much time and money. It is the same reason my years and education fighting Jet Aircraft fires in an all steel environment aboard Aircraft Carriers won't allow me to buy the NIST report as anything more then JUST another THEORY and its proponents JUST another kind of CT'ist.

The science of fire and the many personalities it takes on when JP-5 is added is one thing but Jet fuel is Jet fuel. You can add anti icing, lubricity changes can alter it considerably.

Removing the postulate of explosives being used as part of that destruction is and always will be a moot subject.

The idea and the odds that BOTH those towers fell the way NIST theorizes is a hard pill for me to swallow. As for WTC7 heh I won't even go there.

Until I have seen something that makes more sense, then the NIST report is all we have got and I will always doubt it. Many of the same reasons Jay Howards questions went unanswered to his satisfaction only confirmed them for me.

He had a very impressive argument and one that brought much of my experience to mind. I write software these days but grew up the son of one of the chief investigators for the FBI, I served on board the USS Saratoga CV-60 Forrestal class carrier task-force 6th fleet. I was in a Division called the "Nucleus Fire Party" a mixed group of UDT S.E.A.L and firefighter team. I am a Card Carrying member of the NRA a past conservative republican turned what ever isn't in the two party system we have now.

I no more follow the so called loose change crowd as I do the debunkers, those debunking debunkers OR (in case) the debunkers debunking for debunction sake. I want solid Proof as much as anyone else. I have no preconceived notions about terrorist Muslims etc. I also know our Government is not above using such tragic events as pretext for wars whether the involvement directly or indirectly carried out.

I think wasting time dissecting posts looking for angles to attack your opponent while missing the point or central message is as dumb as dumb gets but that's just me. I think Zeitgeist was an interesting movie and as I said much of the historical issues it makes are in fact NOT THEORY NOT A REPORT but FACT. The spin they want to put on that history is and will continue to be up for debate. That debate I assume I would do no better then R Makey or Jay Howard in the conclusion of beta theory.

Not that I didn't learn something there or have nothing to contribute.

I simply don't have the time

- Ultramedia

[Arus808]

Are you serious? PROVING anything here seems to be an exercise in futility. I have seen for months now the same cliques say the same thing over and over in response to anything ever said here.


thats 100% false. We go by what is supported by evidence and science. To this date, not one single person from the 911 liar's movement has provided such. Not one.

Please list the names of those who have submitted their research and reports to reputable scientific and engineering journals and was accepted and published.

If you have the proof, then we will look into what your proof states.

Other than, what we've been getting is speculation, conjecture and numerous exercises in incredulity.



the rest of your rant has nothing to do with the movie or the claims within, which have been touched upon and debunked, even before it came out (because the subjects ARE old) Care to provide proof that everythng stated in that movie is 100% correct?

[Drudgewire]

I have no preconceived notions about terrorist Muslims etc.
Maybe if you'd extend that same courtesy to our Government when looking for "the truth," you'd have less trouble overlooking the real facts and more trouble digesting supposition, innuendo, and distortions. ;)

[Pardalis]

I simply don't have the time

But you do have the time to post lengthy rants that don't say much nor add anything.

Your objection has been noted.

[Ultramedia]

I believe in God. I believe He gave us the power to use reason and intelligence.

Both of which tell me Zeigeist is one of the most retarded things I've ever tried to sit through. :p

Opinions Vary

- Ultra

[Ultramedia]

But you do have the time to post lengthy rants that don't say much nor add anything.

Your objection has been noted.

I only have one question for you paradalis

Did the bag say "Paint Chips?"

- Ultra

[JimBenArm]

Opinions Vary

- Ultra
Opinions may vary, but facts don't. I think this is where your problem begins.
Learn to differentiate between the two, and your problem will clear right up.

[Pardalis]

I only have one question for you paradalis

Did the bag say "Paint Chips?"

- Ultra

Uh?

[Ultramedia]

[QUOTE=Arus808;2887463]thats 100% false. We go by what is supported by evidence and science.

QUOTE]

100% false? You just made my point 100%

Nothing like contradicting yourself eh

- Ultra

[Ultramedia]

Opinions may vary, but facts don't. I think this is where your problem begins.
Learn to differentiate between the two, and your problem will clear right up.

Then I take it the existence of God is a fact since you say so and
your assertion that the movie is BS is yet another fact?

Predicated on what? I suggest that was also your opinion which again VARIES from others and that my freinds

IS A FACT

- Ultra

[Arus808]

100% false? You just made my point 100%

Nothing like contradicting yourself eh

- Ultra

excuse me? i didn't contradict myself, you just proved yet again, you dont know what you are talking about and are only here to be a bellyaching whiner.

iF you have the proof, provide it. All you've done is whine.

[Arus808]

Then I take it the existence of God is a fact since you say so and
your assertion that the movie is BS is yet another fact?

that isn't what he said. Failed reading comprehension, I see. There is no evidence to a "God", its all based in faith.

Much like the entire 911 Liar movement.

[JimBenArm]

Then I take it the existence of God is a fact since you say so and
your assertion that the movie is BS is yet another fact?

Predicated on what? I suggest that was also your opinion which again VARIES from others and that my freinds

IS A FACT

- Ultra
Say what? Where did I say anything about God? And what movie did I say was BS, again? I sure don't remember. Oh, yeah, I didn't.
So again, you've confused your opinion with fact, and gotten it all wrong. Please try again.

[Ultramedia]

Maybe if you'd extend that same courtesy to our Government when looking for "the truth," you'd have less trouble overlooking the real facts and more trouble digesting supposition, innuendo, and distortions. ;)

Spare me your mundane platitudes about supposition and innuendo. I haven't distorted a damn thing I am merely posting what I think and my experience where if I were to compare it to yours, it wouldn't amount to a pimple on my intellectual ass. If you want to dress up your knowledge of covert ops with my real experience, please do. Matching wits with you on that subject would be like boxing a paraplegic.

Science? Evidence as fact established by hypothesis and rests as a theory?

The Law Of Gravity is Law because it is past being a theory

Nist's Law?

That isn't fact son

It's conjecture

- Ultra

Please bear in mind our rules on civility.

[Arus808]

and that post amounts to gibberish

[Pardalis]

What are paint chips?

[JimBenArm]

What are paint chips?
Basically, it's peeling paint. Leaded paint causes developmental problems in children who eat the paint chips (lead poisining).
It's a round-about way of saying you're retarded.

[Pardalis]

That wasn't nice.

[Drudgewire]

a pimple on my intellectual ass.
They have creams for that, you know. :p

[tsig]

Are you serious? PROVING anything here seems to be an exercise in futility. I have seen for months now the same cliques say the same thing over and over in response to anything ever said here.

I would have better luck proving a thing if we all agreed on the same stable datum. The fact is we don't. Debunking CT's one always points to the NISTIAN BIBLE and Ill no more believe that then an atheist would use the Bible as his stable datum.

There are things in the movie anyone can disagree with it isn't perfect, has strange music blah blah blah Get Over it. Someone doesn't agree with the NIST Report they are customarily advised to see this link that link as if reading that information a second third time is going to make any more sense then it did the first time we disagree with it.

Then the same old accusation about NOT reading all of it persists. This entire forum is so saturated with it's traditional patterns and protocols I could have predicted most of your response verbatim because they are always the same.

Rather then test your skills of debate or argue with a terminally self righteous group of know-it-all in one clique or the other, Ill express myself in the way I want following MY OWN protocol whether you like it or not whether you agree or not.

Ill direct you to the Jay Howard vs R. Makey discussion where again,, a lot of time and typing done by two obviously very intelligent people. It would have been refreshing to see if once a dialogue like that concluded in the transformation of ones fixed opinions to those of his "opponent" .

You see it as a game with no middle ground someone wins someone loses but neither one has learned a damn thing more then they were willing to accept at the start. Since we have these discussions with the allies of our cliques watching, accepting anything less then what you started with results in more of the same.

It begins to degrade into a meticulously executed act of splitting hairs in the name of "straw man" or the ever popular and even more juvenile name calling use of the word "twoofer".

example: R. Makey who worked very hard to educate us the virtues of the NIST report as his stable datum was why I could have predicted his giving up on Jay Howard. Obviously R. Makey has a superior knowledge of engineering and much education which I assume was the reason he saw himself as the "teacher" and Howard as the unwilling student. The questions Jay had that were never addressed went unanswered by using the same tactics traditionally used here. Accusations that he didn't understand the report and claims that his questions were answered where it never occurred to him that perhaps it wasn't.

No one likes repeating themselves and as much as I was intrigued with that discussion, I sure didn't see it either.

It wasn't R Makey's knowledge of the NIST report but the art of persuasion that was lacking skill. I admit I marveled at his intelligence but like him I won't ignore what I know about fighting a fire or my experience with steel's incredible ability to withstand a Jet crashing through steel compartments and NOT SOFTENING.

His comments about CT'rs come from the same prejudice that wouldn't allow him to listen hard enough to the very valid points Jay was making. Jay had doubt, reasonable doubt that was easy to see. He also has very impressive powers of persuasion. Another words if that doubt can influence me that doubt exists then those arguments he had also have possibilities which were more then sufficient for me to agree on.

Perhaps all that engineering education is too much to write off having invested so much time and money. It is the same reason my years and education fighting Jet Aircraft fires in an all steel environment aboard Aircraft Carriers won't allow me to buy the NIST report as anything more then JUST another THEORY and its proponents JUST another kind of CT'ist.

The science of fire and the many personalities it takes on when JP-5 is added is one thing but Jet fuel is Jet fuel. You can add anti icing, lubricity changes can alter it considerably.

Removing the postulate of explosives being used as part of that destruction is and always will be a moot subject.

The idea and the odds that BOTH those towers fell the way NIST theorizes is a hard pill for me to swallow. As for WTC7 heh I won't even go there.

Until I have seen something that makes more sense, then the NIST report is all we have got and I will always doubt it. Many of the same reasons Jay Howards questions went unanswered to his satisfaction only confirmed them for me.

He had a very impressive argument and one that brought much of my experience to mind. I write software these days but grew up the son of one of the chief investigators for the FBI, I served on board the USS Saratoga CV-60 Forrestal class carrier task-force 6th fleet. I was in a Division called the "Nucleus Fire Party" a mixed group of UDT S.E.A.L and firefighter team. I am a Card Carrying member of the NRA a past conservative republican turned what ever isn't in the two party system we have now.

I no more follow the so called loose change crowd as I do the debunkers, those debunking debunkers OR (in case) the debunkers debunking for debunction sake. I want solid Proof as much as anyone else. I have no preconceived notions about terrorist Muslims etc. I also know our Government is not above using such tragic events as pretext for wars whether the involvement directly or indirectly carried out.

I think wasting time dissecting posts looking for angles to attack your opponent while missing the point or central message is as dumb as dumb gets but that's just me. I think Zeitgeist was an interesting movie and as I said much of the historical issues it makes are in fact NOT THEORY NOT A REPORT but FACT. The spin they want to put on that history is and will continue to be up for debate. That debate I assume I would do no better then R Makey or Jay Howard in the conclusion of beta theory.

Not that I didn't learn something there or have nothing to contribute.

I simply don't have the time

- Ultramedia

Gravity!!!

[Brainster]

I haven't distorted a damn thing I am merely posting what I think and my experience where if I were to compare it to yours, it wouldn't amount to a pimple on my intellectual ass.

Yep, your experience compared to his doesn't amount to a pimple.

:pythonfoot:

[Drudgewire]

Yep, your experience compared to his doesn't amount to a pimple.

:pythonfoot:
Bottom line, Ultra, I take you LESS seriously than the 15-year olds that usually spew the nonsense you are. You've never advanced one theory, you've only come in to attempt to prove your intellectual superiority over people that actually know what they're talking about.

And how do you do it? By debate? By factually disproving what is being tossed back at you? No, by regurgitating pithy nonsense that uses meaningless words to bring moral relativism to groups that flat-out lie and toss about half-hearted "evidence" with no support to those who seek to correct them with science and reason.

You're not an intellectual, you're a narcissist... and not a very good one. No wonder you have such a low opinion of debunkers... all you spout is bunk. You've brought nothing new to the table, only the same garbage we see here every day... except a little more long-winded.

-The Pimple :)

[T.A.M.]

he is like mjd in that regard.

TAM:)

[warlexz53]

9/11 truth and this movie are total BS. Your dad should pay his taxes, they can take your assets when you do not pay your taxes. Like tax fraud, 9/11 truth is fraud.

I dont appreciate you telling me what happened to my dad when you dont have a clue what the hell happened. Typical of this group it seems. There are a lot of self-righteous people here. The tax truth movement mostly focuses on the income tax. Before you guys start getting link crazy, I'll save you the trouble.

I dont need you to post links directing me to proof that the law exists and that the 16th ammendment was actually ratified. I have seen the law and I know that it exists and I've seen the report done by Secretary Knox. There are better arguments to use.

Personally I believe that the founding fathers would not have wanted an income tax on our wages. We work 4 months out of the year to pay our governemnt (or so we think). That is wrong to me. The reason I think the income tax should be removed and the federal reserve system either abolished or completely redone is because 1.) The Fed is too private, for the most part it does not answer to anybody but itself. 2.) The Grace Commision found that almost all of our income tax goes to pay interest on what the government borrows from the Fed. You can find the entire report here

h.t.t.p://w.w.w.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html (sorry still cant post links yet)

Why do we need an income tax? It is slavery and it makes these bankers more powerful. Of all the things in the Zeitgeist movie, I think this was the most credible and quite scary. That and the fact that Bush's grandad supported the Nazi's in a big way. Also that Standard Oil gave additives to the Nazi's. That is just messed up.

[T.A.M.]

here we go...

TAM

[Arus808]

:rolleyes: the issue of why taxes are needed have been covered ad nauseum. You wouldn't be enjoying what you take for granted, if it weren't for the programs that are subsidized by the taxes collected.

[T.A.M.]

Rev, is that you???

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

It is slavery and it makes these bankers more powerful. Of all the things in the Zeitgeist movie, I think this was the most credible and quite scary. That and the fact that Bush's grandad supported the Nazi's in a big way. Also that Standard Oil gave additives to the Nazi's. That is just messed up.
Most of our grandfathers probably have views which horrify us, simply because they come from a different time. And SLAVERY?? Please take a trip out of this country one day and see just how free you really are.

That said, I don't take back a word of what I said about you earlier in this thread. You don't strike me as someone who's easily led, just someone who questions everything. Eventually that will mature into the right kind of skepticism, the kind that allows you to still question everything without giving equal weight to every side of every argument regardless of their validity. :)

[warlexz53]

:rolleyes: the issue of why taxes are needed have been covered ad nauseum. You wouldn't be enjoying what you take for granted, if it weren't for the programs that are subsidized by the taxes collected.

You must have overlooked everything I wrote and especially the link I posted. Our income tax doesnt give us anything, so I really dont have anything to take for granted. The services we get from our government do not come from the income tax. They come from the gas tax, property tax, alcohol and tobacco tax, etc. I have no problem with these taxes, I have a problem with the income tax.

[T.A.M.]

and if you took away income tax, how would the USA govt pay back the Fed? They would have to increase the other taxes, would they not?

TAM:)

[warlexz53]

Most of our grandfathers probably have views which horrify us, simply because they come from a different time. And SLAVERY?? Please take a trip out of this country one day and see just how free you really are.

That said, I don't take back a word of what I said about you earlier in this thread. You don't strike me as someone who's easily led, just someone who questions everything. Eventually that will mature into the right kind of skepticism, the kind that allows you to still question everything without giving equal weight to every side of every argument regardless of their validity. :)


Yes slavery. I know we are way better off here than in other countries. But if you look at how much debt the average american is in it is scary. When you get a loan for a house, you dont own that house the bank does. Just like your car or something else you put on credit. Debt is slavery.

[Drudgewire]

and if you took away income tax, how would the USA govt pay back the Fed? They would have to increase the other taxes, would they not?

TAM:)
Not only that... how would they be able to afford a new investigation into 9/11? :D

[warlexz53]

and if you took away income tax, how would the USA govt pay back the Fed? They would have to increase the other taxes, would they not?

TAM:)

They arent paying back the Fed. That is the problem here. They are paying the interest only. That is why our national debt keeps going up.

[warlexz53]

Not only that... how would they be able to afford a new investigation into 9/11? :D

cute...

[Drudgewire]

Debt is slavery.
Alright, let's say I agree with that. It's SELF-IMPOSED slavery. Does the government force anyone to get a credit card? Does it demand a single one of its citizenry live outside their means? No, borrowing is a choice to give one a better lifestyle than they could have afforded without it, and that's nothing more than a personal choice.

And even if you're drowning in debt, at the end of the day unless you've committed fraud to get around it you still get to go home and live your life any damn way you want to. I can guarantee you that if I had slaves, they'd never get that opportunity.

[T.A.M.]

whether they are paying back the principle or the interest only, it still has to be paid back. If you take away Income Tax, who will pay the interest and/or the principle on the debt to the Fed?

TAM:)

[warlexz53]

Also... the bigger problem is that the government has to borrow so much in the first place. Government is too big and we shouldnt be going to war all the time for no reason. If you think about it this is exactly what I would want to happen if I was an evil banker. Bigger government, lots of wars.

[T.A.M.]

Complaining about the problem is the easy part. If you don't have a solution, and the ability to implement it, than your vocalization and complaints are useless.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

Government is too big
Then vote Republican. ;)

[warlexz53]

Alright, let's say I agree with that. It's SELF-IMPOSED slavery. Does the government force anyone to get a credit card? Does it demand a single one of its citizenry live outside their means? No, borrowing is a choice to give one a better lifestyle than they could have afforded without it, and that's nothing more than a personal choice.

And even if you're drowning in debt, at the end of the day unless you've committed fraud to get around it you still get to go home and live your life any damn way you want to. I can guarantee you that if I had slaves, they'd never get that opportunity.

Yes I agree it is a choice. I guess this makes most Americans dumb-****'n retarded. We live in a culture that encourages this type of borrowing. Young kids especially want to live the life style they see on tv.

[warlexz53]

Then vote Republican. ;)

Haha. It doesnt matter anymore.