The Zeitgeist

[Falcon]

I remember when I watched this movie for this time. I actually watched it with the mindset of debating against it. After watching it, there isn't a whole lot to debate against. There are of course some debatable parts, but the movie itself is very well put together.

My advice for people who haven't watched it. Just watch it. No one is making you believe it. I mean, if you were going to go in a debate against it, wouldn't it be wise to know the other side's argument in detail? This movie lays out the details well for the other side of the debate. There are good conspiracy theories and bad conspiracy theories.

 

[BlackJackal]

So what is the logic or reason?

 

[hope7]

What would convince you? Honestly. If you honestly believe an elaborate plot by the U.S. government to blow up the towers in order to have an excuse to go to war with Iraq is more likely than Middle Eastern terrorists attacking Americans (their #1 target), then I believe I would be hard pressed to find any evidence that would convince an individual with that mindset.

Please read my posts more carefully when you respond. I stated atleast twice by now that I am not convinced by the issues brought by the movie, included the post you just responded too. I just feel that its important that the issues are looked into and that the general public has better knowledge regarding the events of 9/11.

If you have research on the issues raised in the movie, I think its your duty to show it. If everyone was 100% aware of all the facts regarding 9/11, there would be no bad conspiracy theories. People will just debunk all the bad theories because they already know what happened. Maybe you can't convince some 'crazy hippies', but you can help an average joe who finds out about some of the events brought up by the movie.

Why fight with labels? Fight with facts. Fight the very foundation that gives rise to unfactual conspiracy theories, which is false information. Fight using corect and more detailed information.

 

[BlackJackal]

In this case? Experts and years of research and study that explains the reasoning behind every 9/11 conspiracy theory. WTC 7, the Lone Spire, lack of Pentagon Debris, hijacker sightings, etc. etc. None of it has been backed by a credible source. Occam's razor. Only someone with a specific agenda or an axe to grind would try to go against FACTS.

I see. Well in regards to WTC 7, demolition experts claim that the building fell demolitioned manner. Otherwise the the fall of the building would cause extra damage to other propertise in its surrounding areas. Plus it had no reason to fall at all. Me personally I didn't even know WTC 7 fell until it was pointed out.

How would you explain any of that as far as WTC 7 is concerned? Just an honest respectable question.

 

[Falcon]

Is there a difference? You're maintaining a view that goes against every ounce of logic and reason, either way.

Yes, there is a difference. This isn't your "I was kidnapped by some men in black claiming they were government agents and had things done against my will in a spaceship" accusation. This is a theory backed by a lot of facts, quotes, news clips, history, etc. Deus, can you give me an honest answer, have you seen the movie? It's kind of hard to communicate with someone who hasn't.

What I find surprising is how this whole thread seems to be centered around the 9/11 part. That part only accounts for 1/3 of the movie. I found the other two parts to be even more eye-opening and discussion worthy.

 

[BlackJackal]

Yes, there is a difference. This isn't your "I was kidnapped by some men in black claiming they were government agents and had things done against my will in a spaceship" accusation. This is a theory backed by a lot of facts, quotes, news clips, history, etc. Deus, can you give me an honest answer, have you seen the movie? It's kind of hard to communicate with someone who hasn't.

What I find surprising is how this whole thread seems to be centered around the 9/11 part. That part only accounts for 1/3 of the movie. I found the other two parts to be even more eye-opening and discussion worthy.

Especially Federal Reserve.

 

[speakeasy]

I see. Well in regards to WTC 7, demolition experts claim that the building fell demolitioned manner. Otherwise the the fall of the building would cause extra damage to other propertise in its surrounding areas. Plus it had no reason to fall at all. Me personally I didn't even know WTC 7 fell until it was pointed out.

How would you explain any of that as far as WTC 7 is concerned? Just an honest respectable question.

Footage I saw of WTC7 before the collapse showed heavy damage to the building. I mean jeez, it was basically sitting right next to a 110 story tower that collapse.

As for the "pull it" comment, he was obviously saying that they would need to pull the building as it was unsalvagable. That doesn't mean he was giving the firemen orders to set off demolition bombs. Plus how in the f*ck is anyone going to have an office building full of demolition bombs without any office worker noticing all these bombs sitting around. Gimme a break people!

 

[BlackJackal]

Footage I saw of WTC7 before the collapse showed heavy damage to the building. I mean jeez, it was basically sitting right next to a 110 story tower that collapse.

As for the "pull it" comment, he was obviously saying that they would need to pull the building as it was unsalvagable. That doesn't mean he was giving the firemen orders to set off demolition bombs. Plus how in the f*ck is anyone going to have an office building full of demolition bombs without any office worker noticing all these bombs sitting around. Gimme a break people!

Hey you tell me. The info came from those who look into the design of those building, and demolition experts. Let them tell it, the way those buildings did collapse goes against how they were damaged.

 

[spesmilitis]

Alan Greenspan talks about the Federal Reserve with Jon Stewart:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=102970

Talks about the gold standard and the federal reserve.

 

[Last Man Standing]

Deus's truth = falsehood! He is a disinfo agent!

Greenspan said we wouldn't need private bankers control of our money and policy if we had a GOLD standard - it would be market driven and not fiat!! We are being set up for a fall!!! Super inflation/dollar devaluation here we come!!

 

[Charm&Style]

the american government had it coming, they shouldn't have done business in the first place with terrorists.



(i love watching rumsfield shaking saddams hand)

By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (source: TNSA)

btw i remember watching a documentary about oil and how 7% of the US is ownd by the Devilish Saud Family--because of a contract signed during their first oil trade-- (any1 heard about this) ??

seriously i dont get it, i have never seen the US enforcing restrictions on saudia arabia with all the terrorist wahabis that come from that country.

why the silence?

 

[Deep Dish]

Uh oh, I am starting to feel the urge to write an essay.

(P.S. Conspiracy theorists are full of questions but are characteristically short on answers. It's one thing to ask questions, but asking questions isn't enough.)

 

[stronglifts]

As for you, A-Unit and your myriad of standard 9/11 conspiracy theorist talking points...check out the Popular Mechanics "Debunking 9/11 Myths" issue. There you will find all your answers from top scientists around the world. That is of course, if you're willing to set down the Kool-Aid for a moment and think rationally instead of buying into all the garbage that the far-left is peddling.

I do believe that 9/11 is a joke. But I'm going to take a look at what you suggest. Just because I'm open minded & want to see the other side of the story. Who knows, maybe it changes my mind.

 

[jonwon]

so i have read the site, populer mechanics.

No coverage of the 3rd building that fell, which fell in the same manner of the other two.

I nice thoery on how a steel structure like WTC tower would collapse on itself;

so lets assume the first ever tower downed by a plane, was downed in the fashion suggested, i cant help to think, the only tower in history was downed by burning jet fuel was then occompanied by another tower next door to it, a few minutes later, demolished in the EXACT same fashion.

It also does not talk about the plumes of smoke that are common with a demolition or a volcano eruption, plumes of smoke, that are totally ignored.

It mentions nothing about the hijackers and the fact most are STILL ALIVE.

Mentions little about a pilot who could not fly making manouviours to land a plane in the pentagon, i guess whilst he was taking charge of the plane, he made a perfect strike onto a part of the building that just happened to be under renovation.

Transponders on the plane where removed to stop the planes being tracked, so they had other blip to account for, the deley was due to the defence not getting a phone call; sorry but the airline would have seen the planes being hijacked, when they went immediatly of course or there transponders where removed, in that a good estimation of there current flight path, that theory is bolloc*s, transponders removed, if that is true it shows complete and total incompitance in your defence force.

The whole thing is a joke, i need more proof then an biased report that skits over 50% of the issues, includes no background debunking and only makes stupid elaborate claim's that are not only 'impossible' if they did just happen to happen, then these events happened 'twice' in the SAME fashion.

If Ozma was guilty why did the government ship there families out of the country a few hours after? would you not want to interogate them to find out the truth?

Why declare war on IRAQ? when it happened, IRAQ posed no threat.

You think your government is not capable of lying to you?

Your a fool.

There where no WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION in IRAQ, Hence a LIE.

Just that should be enough to convince you, your govenrment has there own agenda, and dont tell me there could have been, IRAQ officials allowed inspections e.t.c to go on.

The videos of osm-bin are clearly fakes, anyone can see that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTF_y247tiA

I like this piss take^^


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY2Yj9wm7zI&mode=related&search=

^^ enjoy

http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/many_faces_of_osama_bin_laden.htm

 

[Falcon]

A conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. So yes, when I hear people try to spew random crap like "Controlled demolition!" or "Bush did 9/11!", it's the same as telling me "I was kidnapped by some men in black claiming they were government agents and had things done against my will in a spaceship." Moon landing conspiracy theorists, JFK conspiracy theorists, and now 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

...

No, I haven't. I've had enough of the "9/11 inside job" bullѕhit. You say it's tough to communicate with me about the conspiracy theories outlined in the movie since I haven't seen it...I challenge you to bring up a single theory that was in the movie that I haven't heard of. I'm a strong believer in "know thy enemy", so I'm pretty well versed in this filth. To me, conspiracy theorists lack in the logic and reason part of the brain, so if anyone should be complaining about difficulties communicating it should be me.

Well since you haven't seen the movie, the format is laid out like this: Part 1: Religion. Part 2: 9/11. Part 3: History of our government and the interest of private banking. There's no way I'm going to take the time typing out a whole summary of the viewpoints that the movie brings just for you. It's kind of sad that you choose to practice intentional ignorance. You really think your an expert on all three parts of the movie?... So much that you don't have to watch it? Take a look at what your saying man. It's hard to communicate because you aren't respecting the other side's view in the debate. You choose to ignore it. We're all a bunch of crazy people so we must be wrong? You call that logic? That's sound reasoning to you? Deus, we're not here to gang up on you either, we're here to discuss the movie. It's kind of hard to discuss a movie if the people discussing it haven't even seen it, don't you think?

 

[jonwon]

I already told you that I'm not ignorant to the 9/11 conspiracy theories floating around. I doubt they're going to say anything that I haven't heard from thousands of far-left Internet bloggers prior.



Correct. I don't respect the views of Holocaust deniers, either. I don't respect the views of racists, either. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are no different.



No, you're not wrong because you're crazy. You're wrong because you choose to ignore proven facts and instead opt for repeating what you read on far-left websites and saw in "documentaries" directed by Americans that are carrying the water FOR the far-left.



No, not at all. The movie presents nothing new. Standard radical liberal extremism at its worst, presenting the same, tired conspiracy theorist talking points. "Bush lied, they died", "Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world", "9/11 was an inside job", "Osama doesn't exist", "Guys that live in caves could never pull this off", "Towers could never fall like that", "There was no debris in front of the Pentagon", and it goes on, and on, and on, and on. I'm betting that this movie never uses the term "conspiracy theory", am I right? Why is that? Random House dictionary defines this as:

1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

The definition fits this silliness quite neatly, don't you think? So why is it that they don't use the phrase? Same reason you will never hear a far-left American describe themselves as far-left. Same reason you will never hear a racist describe themselves as racist. Truth hurts.

Its a shame you dont even take the time to review the full story.

No problem each to there own.

 

[Falcon]

I already told you that I'm not ignorant to the 9/11 conspiracy theories floating around. I doubt they're going to say anything that I haven't heard from thousands of far-left Internet bloggers prior.

Honestly, looking from a unbiased perspective, I find the evidence from both sides about 9/11 to be strong. Both sides have a variety of experts making great cases. It is truly one of the most debatable subjects of our time. That's why I want this thread to talk more about the other points of the movie that are beyond just 9/11.

Correct. I don't respect the views of Holocaust deniers, either. I don't respect the views of racists, either. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are no different.

What I mean by respect is that you fail to acknowledge it even exists, like the movie made up things out of thin air. It doesn't mean you have to agree or believe in those views. Also, the movie has nothing to do with racism. Using the Holocaust and racists as comparisons is very off-base here.

No, you're not wrong because you're crazy. You're wrong because you choose to ignore proven facts and instead opt for repeating what you read on far-left websites and saw in "documentaries" directed by Americans that are carrying the water FOR the far-left.

No, not at all. The movie presents nothing new. Standard radical liberal extremism at its worst, presenting the same, tired conspiracy theorist talking points. "Bush lied, they died", "Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world", "9/11 was an inside job", "Osama doesn't exist", "Guys that live in caves could never pull this off", "Towers could never fall like that", "There was no debris in front of the Pentagon", and it goes on, and on, and on, and on. I'm betting that this movie never uses the term "conspiracy theory", am I right? Why is that? Random House dictionary defines this as:

1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

The definition fits this silliness quite neatly, don't you think? So why is it that they don't use the phrase? Same reason you will never hear a far-left American describe themselves as far-left. Same reason you will never hear a racist describe themselves as racist. Truth hurts.

Since you keep trying to put people into groups and using stereotypes to define them, you leave me with no choice. Far-left? Conspiracy theories? Completely irrelevant. If you really want to know how far off track our government (USA) is, I suggest people read up on these:

Plato's Republic, Politics (Aristotle), The Federalist Papers, and obviously the constitution and the history of it and it's changes.

I wonder if you're going to accuse these people above of 'Standard radical liberal extremism'. It's sad, because if you look at the patterns of history, we are repeating the same mistakes over. Luckily, we had very wise founding fathers who were able to fight it off and at least delay what is now happening. James Madison, along with Thomas Jefferson, understood these issues very well.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy”
- James Madison

If you look into more recent history, there are some scary things that you will find.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
- Goering (Nuremberg Trials)

Besides, this whole problem you have of 9/11 conspirators disrespecting the people who died is so far off-base it's almost offensive. You try to paint the picture like we are laughing at the people who died or something. That is not the case at all. Many of us are pissed that people had to die for all the wrong reasons. We wished those events would've never happened. The only thing different is that we have different ideas of tackling the problem and a different perspective of what happened. We, like you, are probably just as patriotic if not more.

 

[g g g unit]

I think they tried to focus on the main talking points of the conspiracy theorists. Since this garbage is propagated mainly on the Internet, people keep adding new outlandish scenarios. I'm sure I could find a few sites that say that space aliens abducted the 9/11 victims and used their photon death rays to detonate the towers.

I love how you completely avoided the issue by talking about some silly spacealien bullcrap.

 

[hope7]

You don't see prominent physicist coming up with moon landing or holocaust conspiracies. I doubt the people who designed the tallest buildings in the world (at their time) were loony left wing liberals.

No doubt, the loony left wing will believe anything regardless of evidence. And they will probably come up crazy-ass stories. However, you shouldn't let a few crazies stop you from looking at well documented evidence and opinions of top scientists. There are bad 9/11 documentaries, but The Zeitgeist is defiantly a good one.

The popular mechanics issue (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel)
Did not cover a lot of the questions raised and, in my opinion, did not debunk most of the conspiracy claims sufficiently. Check it out for yourself and compare the arguments.

The physics of 9/11 site, goes into lots of detail: http://physics911.net/.

I doubt the families of victims of 9/11 would be angry at finding out everything they could about that tragedy. The pushed for the 9/11 commission even after Bush repeatedly tried to stop its creation. They also did not seem too happy that Bush would only talk to them only with Cheney ( the commission wanted to talk to them seperatly) and refused to testify under oath.

I can understand why some of the events brought up in the movie might anger some people. Those people seem to have an emotional connection with Bush that most people could only establish after knowing someone personally.
For those people, I recommend to looking into the events brought up by the movie further instead of telling people to shut up, ingore, and forget about those events. In my opinion, that shows a lack of confidence those people have in their president. If their president is everything they believe he is, research and debate will only support their conceptions, not debunk them.

Debate and research can only lead to truth. Maybe it'll take a few turns, but it will lead to truth eventually.

 

[wolf116]

This thread is about The Zeitgeist. If you do not wish to watch it, do not comment. You have no idea what you're talking about and you ask questions that are answered in the film.

Your views are worth nothing because you have only seen one side of the story.