Conspiracy Movie - Page 2

I found it enjoyable, but a lot of what it says is sensationalized and probably some of it completely false. Having said that, there is some truth to what it says, and if you disregard the entire thing as total bullshit you really have to open your eyes a bit imo.

I don't like how it tries to imply there is a small group of shady men controlling everything in this world for their own motives. While a lot of the things presented do seem uncannily orchestrated and masterfully planned, I honestly think it's just a phenomenon created by human nature itself. People do what they must to protect their own interests, and history repeats itself over and over. While the names and places and people change, the underlying human nature driving the events do not. Religion as a means to explain our existence, as a means to provide purpose to life...while there are many religions, many share a lot of similarities based in simple human moral values. Don't steal because you wouldn't like if you were stolen from. Don't kill others because you wouldn't like it if some one came and killed you, blah blah blah the list goes on and on.

The flipside of this coin (and also a result of human nature) is that there will always be people around trying to exploit the weak minded, to make their own lives easier. Bankers collecting interest, religious figures misinterpreting the bible to deliberately control people to do things they wish them to do, etc. These things have been happening for thousands of years, they happen today, and they will never ever stop happening because its human nature. It's not some conspiracy being controlled by 10 masked men who meet in a hidden room and discuss their plans for global domination.

I think the point was to get people to start critically thinking about the information they are given rather than just to blindly accept it. Obv some of the facts might be taken out of context or are from biased sources, but the point is there are a lot of unanswered questions that people have about these topics. If enough people start asking questions, maybe some get answered.

yes Zeitgeist has very dubious statements especially in the religion part, however the point is not to shallow it entirely, that would be the equivalent of being the people this movie tries to awake.

This movie is to awake people so they start judging things they gave as truths, its all about critical thinking.

Anyone saying Zeitgeist is bullshit because they have a few facts wrong is a retard.

On August 08 2008 07:52 Jelle wrote: I feel the way me and the overwhelming majority of other people decide on wether something is factual or not is by comparing it to something else that they've learned before.. but that thing you've learned before could easily be a mistruth also for example about the 9/11 stuff one side argues that "there were explosions" and "this isn't how a tower would collapse because of a fire, it's a controlled demolition" while the other side says "there's no evidence of any explosions" and "the fire interacts with all the flammable office chairs, computers etc" how the hell am I supposed to know who is telling the truth? am i supposed to make enough money so I can rebuild the wtc and hire planes to fly into them and see what happens?

Its common sense Jelle... Steel does NOT melt at the temperature jet fuel burns, yet you can see pictures of molten metal in ground zero, that is alone absolute proof of demolition, but an even bigger one is that the towers fell at nearly gravity acceleration, which is absolutely impossible to happen naturally unless all resistance in the lower floors are removed, a building collapsing naturally would never accelerate at such rate, also no buildling in the world has ever collapsed by a fire, buildings with lower building standards than the WTC that have burned for 100 times longer than the Twin towers did, how on earth are those not definite proof that it was a controlled demolition.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

lol... the steel doesn't need to melt for the building to collapse it just needs to be weakened which happens at lower temperatures

but the titanic

that's the real conspiracy

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

i linked it many times so u def go watch that short vid

haha yes that maddox shit is hilarious

When I first read the title, I thought to myself, "Not another one of those dumb spoof films..."

On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 08 2008 07:52 Jelle wrote: I feel the way me and the overwhelming majority of other people decide on wether something is factual or not is by comparing it to something else that they've learned before.. but that thing you've learned before could easily be a mistruth also for example about the 9/11 stuff one side argues that "there were explosions" and "this isn't how a tower would collapse because of a fire, it's a controlled demolition" while the other side says "there's no evidence of any explosions" and "the fire interacts with all the flammable office chairs, computers etc" how the hell am I supposed to know who is telling the truth? am i supposed to make enough money so I can rebuild the wtc and hire planes to fly into them and see what happens? Its common sense Jelle... Steel does NOT melt at the temperature jet fuel burns, yet you can see pictures of molten metal in ground zero, that is alone absolute proof of demolition, but an even bigger one is that the towers fell at nearly gravity acceleration, which is absolutely impossible to happen naturally unless all resistance in the lower floors are removed, a building collapsing naturally would never accelerate at such rate, also no buildling in the world has ever collapsed by a fire, buildings with lower building standards than the WTC that have burned for 100 times longer than the Twin towers did, how on earth are those not definite proof that it was a controlled demolition.

I found this while clicking one of the links above,it's pretty thorough
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 08 2008 07:52 Jelle wrote: I feel the way me and the overwhelming majority of other people decide on wether something is factual or not is by comparing it to something else that they've learned before.. but that thing you've learned before could easily be a mistruth also for example about the 9/11 stuff one side argues that "there were explosions" and "this isn't how a tower would collapse because of a fire, it's a controlled demolition" while the other side says "there's no evidence of any explosions" and "the fire interacts with all the flammable office chairs, computers etc" how the hell am I supposed to know who is telling the truth? am i supposed to make enough money so I can rebuild the wtc and hire planes to fly into them and see what happens? Its common sense Jelle... Steel does NOT melt at the temperature jet fuel burns, yet you can see pictures of molten metal in ground zero, that is alone absolute proof of demolition, but an even bigger one is that the towers fell at nearly gravity acceleration, which is absolutely impossible to happen naturally unless all resistance in the lower floors are removed, a building collapsing naturally would never accelerate at such rate, also no buildling in the world has ever collapsed by a fire, buildings with lower building standards than the WTC that have burned for 100 times longer than the Twin towers did, how on earth are those not definite proof that it was a controlled demolition.

what I don't understand about all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is this:

if the collapse of the towers were caused by controlled demolition, what are you claiming the timeline of events to be?

what I mean is, are you denying the planes struck the towers?

theyre obv saying the government flew the planes into the towers and then blew them up under the guise of a plane-induced demolition


and then they go on to claim to know more about the sciences than the phDs in Metallurgical Engineering, etc

On August 11 2008 18:17 SKoT wrote: and then they go on to claim to know more about the sciences than the phDs in Metallurgical Engineering, etc

Obviously the institutions of higher education are providing disinformation to us on behalf of the conspiracy.

On August 11 2008 18:17 SKoT wrote: and then they go on to claim to know more about the sciences than the phDs in Metallurgical Engineering, etc

Obviously the institutions of higher education are providing disinformation to us on behalf of the conspiracy.

what I hate about people is the fact that if they are presented with a list of facts, if one of them is disproven then they will too easily accept the rest of it as HAVING to be bullshit

one undeniable fact you guys need to think about wrt 9/11 - why the fuck are there no passenger windows on the planes?

I mean I for one would prefer not to be staring in the face of certain things that make me at least CONSIDER how fucked up the world is (as opposed to KNOWING how fucked up the world is) but I'm not 'stupid' enough to ignore it nor have I mastered the art of purposefully forgetting that sorta stuff.

There are a few hypothetical situations I could pose but I can't be bothered. Just accept that 'power' ('power' can grant you money but money can't necessarily grant you 'power', hence why I chose to not mention money/wealth at all) is the most devastatingly corrupting force there is.

On August 11 2008 18:17 SKoT wrote: theyre obv saying the government flew the planes into the towers and then blew them up under the guise of a plane-induced demolition and then they go on to claim to know more about the sciences than the phDs in Metallurgical Engineering, etc

are you claiming you know more about the differences in human races than those with PhD's in race studies or w/e from the Nazi regime?

yes this seems like an absolutely absurd comparison - but maybe 10-15years from now it'll seem far from absurd

edit - yes it's very abstract -_-; but try and think about it I guess

On August 08 2008 19:45 Steal City wrote: lol... the steel doesn't need to melt for the building to collapse it just needs to be weakened which happens at lower temperatures

MOLTEN steel... not collapsed steel, Jet fuel cannot melt steel, several patches of molten steel where found in Ground Zero, please explain.

i mean this beam pretty much clears everything up, as you can clearly see, this colum was cut (and melted as u can appreciate closely) in a perfect diagonal way (as they do on demolitions).

Please explain this colum and i will concede defeat:

On August 11 2008 14:55 Feiticeira wrote: Show nested quote + On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote:   On August 08 2008 07:52 Jelle wrote: I feel the way me and the overwhelming majority of other people decide on wether something is factual or not is by comparing it to something else that they've learned before.. but that thing you've learned before could easily be a mistruth also for example about the 9/11 stuff one side argues that "there were explosions" and "this isn't how a tower would collapse because of a fire, it's a controlled demolition" while the other side says "there's no evidence of any explosions" and "the fire interacts with all the flammable office chairs, computers etc" how the hell am I supposed to know who is telling the truth? am i supposed to make enough money so I can rebuild the wtc and hire planes to fly into them and see what happens? Its common sense Jelle... Steel does NOT melt at the temperature jet fuel burns, yet you can see pictures of molten metal in ground zero, that is alone absolute proof of demolition, but an even bigger one is that the towers fell at nearly gravity acceleration, which is absolutely impossible to happen naturally unless all resistance in the lower floors are removed, a building collapsing naturally would never accelerate at such rate, also no buildling in the world has ever collapsed by a fire, buildings with lower building standards than the WTC that have burned for 100 times longer than the Twin towers did, how on earth are those not definite proof that it was a controlled demolition. what I don't understand about all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is this: if the collapse of the towers were caused by controlled demolition, what are you claiming the timeline of events to be?

what do you mean with the timeline of events? please make your question more specific.