Conspiracy Movie

First 10 or 15 minutes I didn't really pay attention, but the rest was really insightful, and some of the stuff was mind blowing. Basically covered 3 parts: Religion, 9/11, and Federal Banking System of the US Gov.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

Enjoy (pav style)

older than t-rex

t-rexs are an even bigger conspiracy imo

intresting, but i don't have so much free time.
Summary anyone?

On August 08 2008 00:13 Bigbobm wrote: First 10 or 15 minutes I didn't really pay attention, but the rest was really insightful, and some of the stuff was mind blowing. Basically covered 3 parts: Religion, 9/11, and Federal Banking System of the US Gov. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm Enjoy (pav style)

LOL. I was exactly the opposite. I was intrigued for the first 30 minutes or so on the religion part, but the other stuff was eh... already knew about the banking system from Macro Econ.

I love this stuff!


And LOL, beer T-Rex

On August 08 2008 00:30 vegable wrote:

ROFL turkey rex

dunno if its gonna be any good but i might check it out later^^

thx

many of the "facts" presented in this movie have been unsubstantiated, etc but w/e give it a watch most people can see the huge facts discrepancy

On August 08 2008 06:38 SKoT wrote: most people can see the huge facts discrepancy

I feel like I can't..

what i've learned from this is that i'm easy to manipulate.. I watched an episode of penn&teller: bullshit! about conspiracy theories that argued the exact opposite of this (about 9/11 at least) and felt 100% agreeing with it, but while watching this i felt sympathetic as well

particularly the first part about religion i really feel is correct

but anyways they can just present a bunch of facts (?) in these documentaries and I just utterly fail to see when they're facts and when they're not, and how can u? I feel like u need to study something for years to get the answer to some of these things for yourself

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?

and this thing also uses the annoying technique of showing so many facts (?) in such short periods of time that u have no way to verify or even critically think about them.. it's more like "dude, did u know this? and this? and this? and that? and that? see, I can list a whole bunch of reasons why I'm right, I must be right!" I don't need 50 arguments in 30 seconds, if they disprove one of ur 50 arguments no one will believe u anymore anyway...

Jelle I think the answer to your problem is Reason and Logic.

Fioravanti (4 days ago) Show Hide +1 Poor comment Good comment Marked as spam Reply | Spam It's an attempt of the Central Bank(which is ruled by greedy bastards the same bastards responsible for the 1929's,WWI,WWII,911's, an others catastrophes) to in a long term build a one government world witch is equal to slavery.

I just looked up "amerro" on youtube and found a video, this was a comment I found there and it illustrates exactly what I mean

people (including me i admit i have the same tendency) are just super eager to accept this type of conspiracy theory stuff as the truth because they now feel more knowledgable than others and can't wait to show off their "knowledge".. this guy's comment makes it sound like he's studied the subject extensively but he really just watched one docufilm and has no real clue whatsoever

On August 08 2008 07:55 Jelle wrote: and this thing also uses the annoying technique of showing so many facts (?) in such short periods of time that u have no way to verify or even critically think about them.. it's more like "dude, did u know this? and this? and this? and that? and that? see, I can list a whole bunch of reasons why I'm right, I must be right!" I don't need 50 arguments in 30 seconds, if they disprove one of ur 50 arguments no one will believe u anymore anyway...

so fucking true!
exactly!
it would be better to take 3-4 points and actually do some work to prove them instead of presenting 1542534646 "facts" the way they did. A small, seriously approached truth is worth a million stupidly presented/argued over ones.
I don't know if what they say is true -or how much of it is, but the way they do it makes them lose credibility.

Penn and Teller BS is one of the stupidest shows on television. They are always biased and usually incorrect in their arguments. It's really stupid.

of course they're biased, they have a strong opinion.. isn't that the point? I like the show

join zeitgeist group on facebook those guys doin some crazy shit.

theres heaps discussions about it proving/disproving it and heaps of other videos

i sort of hated the parts where the guy said 'heres the similarities between jesus and ...' then he just insta scrolled through 2 pages of WTF and said 'the list goes on and on i dont think i need to really go over it' YES MOTHERFUCKER U do need to go over it

other than that though it was an enjoyable movie
thanks

decent movie

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.

On August 11 2008 14:38 lebowski 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. I found this while clicking one of the links above,it's pretty thorough http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

ROFL are you seriously quoting the NIST as a rebuttal? you realize that is the most idiotic report ever witten in history right?....

When they answer the question "why did it fall nearly at free fall speed?" the pancake effect innertia was too great for the lower floors to stop its fall... LOL.

Thats like saying "i doubt santa claus exists" and they reply, No santa does exist... im sure of it ignoring all the fucking common sense in the world dictates its impossible for it to fall at that speed regarless of any inertia effect.

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 u dumb? you demolish 2 huge buildings and kill thousands to get the war machine going and you think they cant get a few PhDs to claim it was a legit terrorist attack? ROFL.


I can get you several PhDs in structural engeneering that claim it was a controlled demolition, actually i just saw a couple from japan talking about it.

For every PhD claiming that it was a controlled demolition, there are a hundred rebutting his arguments.

On August 12 2008 00:11 dongcopter wrote: For every PhD claiming that it was a controlled demolition, there are a hundred rebutting his arguments.

no that is not true and stop pulling facts out of your ass like a kid unless u can back it up some way.

also nice way to throw an absolutely retarded one liner withouth even reading the thread and totally ignoring the melted beam i just posted... USA FUCK YEAH!

So for the minimum of thousands of people that had to be "in on it", not ONE has come forward nor has any legitimate government evidence been leaked or anything. Yet this all-powerful super-controlling executive branch allows videos like loose change and zeitgeist to be on the internet? Also, why blow up two towers? Why hit the pentagon? Why crash a plane in the middle of fucking nowhere? We would have EASILY gone to war for one twin tower being knocked down. Would also mean less than half the people involved, less chance for people switching sides, etc.

Baal you're the one making the accusations, how about you show me some substantiated proof that I cant easily refute with HIGHLY regarded publications like Popular Mechanis, Scientific American, etc. Oh that's right, you wont trust anyone that disagrees with you because "the govt got to them". Just go bury your head in the sand with the rest of the conspiracy theorists.

the pancake effect innertia was too great for the lower floors to stop its fall... LOL.

Stop pulling facts out of your ass like a kid unless u can back it up some way.

On August 11 2008 23:48 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 11 2008 14:38 lebowski wrote:   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. I found this while clicking one of the links above,it's pretty thorough http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm ROFL are you seriously quoting the NIST as a rebuttal? you realize that is the most idiotic report ever witten in history right?.... When they answer the question "why did it fall nearly at free fall speed?" the pancake effect innertia was too great for the lower floors to stop its fall... LOL. Thats like saying "i doubt santa claus exists" and they reply, No santa does exist... im sure of it ignoring all the fucking common sense in the world dictates its impossible for it to fall at that speed regarless of any inertia effect.

what I'm saying is that I'm not capable of questioning the answers NIST is giving because it's not my field, trying to see things differently is one thing but coming to premature conclusions is another.
It's not like they answer "no it wasn't a demolition",they give facts about melting steel etc that I'm sure you too aren't qualified to evaluate,so this is obviously not a matter of common sense as you said earlier

How fast did the towers exactly fall?

On August 12 2008 00:17 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 00:11 dongcopter wrote: For every PhD claiming that it was a controlled demolition, there are a hundred rebutting his arguments. no that is not true and stop pulling facts out of your ass like a kid unless u can back it up some way. also nice way to throw an absolutely retarded one liner withouth even reading the thread and totally ignoring the melted beam i just posted... USA FUCK YEAH!

Actually, I've already read the entire thread, so your personal attack failed pretty badly there. And even though my quote clearly wasn't meant to be taken literally, it has a lot more fact to it than the completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

explain the steel column i posted or get the fuck out

in case you missed it

On August 11 2008 14:38 lebowski wrote: I found this while clicking one of the links above,it's pretty thorough http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Was interesting to read some of that, thanks lebowski

It made me wonder if the bad guys were actually pretty lucky to cause as much damage as they did? I get the idea from the report that the towers were a big favourite but didn't hold.. I wonder if a scenario was possible where they fly a plane into a building but cause limited damage (no collapse) and if the world would have changed as much

oh god here we go again


why did bin laden and his organisation admit to be behind those attacks?

as for the steel column, how can u even prove it's from WTC?

I strongly belief there was use of explosives by demolition teams.
America not so evil= try to keep the area of destruction controlled and save lives.
America evil= To fill the peasants with hate and get a green light to scoop some oil.

My guess its somewhere in between.

On August 12 2008 05:41 SneakrFreakr wrote: why did bin laden and his organisation admit to be behind those attacks? as for the steel column, how can u even prove it's from WTC?

1.- Isnt it ridiculously obvious?, u get the chance to declare the biggest attack to "western infidels" as your creation, making your "movement" much stronger recruiting thousands thus become much more powerful... not many people knew Bin Laden before that... now i guarantee you he is 100 times stronger than he was before, so taking credit for those is the best thing he could have done, plus he had close ties with the CIA many years before its likely he was told to take credit before it even happened.


2.- because its a close-up from this picture




any more questions?

1- ok u convinced me

2- how can u prove the 2nd picture is from WTC as well? could've been taken during any controlled demolition. firefighters are always present during those

another question - how do u know that demolition wasn't executed by terrorists?

2.- because its a well known WTC picture, also the firefighter's numbers on the helmet proves they were firefighters in 9/11

extra - because the possibilities that they could have infiltrated so many demolition devices in the WTC withouth the government knowledge is nearly impossible, but even more important, even if they managed to do that, why would they need 2 planes to crash into them?.

----------

If a guy with a 10million dollar insurance dies falling from the stairs and her new wife is the beneficiary she become the main suspect because in every scenario you gotta keep thinking "ok who won the most in this situation"... think about it, George Bush approval rating skyrocketed, it got him re-elected, he passed unconstitutional laws (patriot act), he got the war machine going, inading Afghanistan, then randomly Iraq, and now they even considered Iran ffs, 9/11 is the best thing that happened to George Bush as a president.

If you think for a second that they give a shit about the life of a couple of thousand innocents above their multi billion profit then you my friend are gullible and you should study history harder.

So for all the thousands upon thousands of scientists in these field(s), not one of them saw that OUTRAGEOUS(as you claim) picture(well known picture you said) and decided to make it their mission to alert the world that it had to be a demolition?

Dont you think that if that picture provided indisputable proof that it was a demolition that the scientific community would be up in arms? Ive seen that picture on the news and shit before, and yet still no organization or reputable scientific body has made any attempt at claiming it was a demolition. I could easily think of one way that beam got sheared and then melted or looked like it melted. The building is falling at magnificent speeds and with tremendous force. As its approaching the ground, the mass of all the weights of the floor tilts a little for whatever reason about 5 stories off the ground. The beam in question is rooted probably 100ft into reinforced concrete and bolted into it, so the base isnt going anywhere. The mass of all the weight slightly tilting in that one area just pulls the beam apart at that angle and some burning insulation/etc falls on top of it and *slightly* melts the middle of the beam that hasnt had fire-treated, etc because the steel INSIDE the beam itself was never expected to actually have burning stuff on it.

Does that sound more outrageous than a giant thousands of people conspiracy to murder thousands of their countrymen/women just to get us "to get oil" and yet it doesnt seem like a huge priority for our administration to get the wells off the ground? hmm...

On August 12 2008 09:18 SKoT wrote: So for all the thousands upon thousands of scientists in these field(s), not one of them saw that OUTRAGEOUS(as you claim) picture(well known picture you said) and decided to make it their mission to alert the world that it had to be a demolition? Dont you think that if that picture provided indisputable proof that it was a demolition that the scientific community would be up in arms? Ive seen that picture on the news and shit before, and yet still no organization or reputable scientific body has made any attempt at claiming it was a demolition.

Again stop pulling stupid facts out of your ass unless you can back it up or i will have the need to bitch slap you with actual facts, god u make it too easy.

Many scientists believe its a demolition, there are hundreds of sites, videos and even movies devoted to spread the truth and you dont think people are "alerting the world"? are you insane thousands are trying to.

You say there is not a reputable scientific body that made an attempt to claim it was a demolition? If i show you even more than one scientific body claiming it was a demolition you will shut up and admitt it is a demolition or not?, because you are listing your reasons why you believe this, so if i prove them wrong you must aknowledge you were mistaken, otherwise you are just throwing random trash to justify your blind belief... so are you up to change ur mind if i debunk this false statement you just made?

I could easily think of one way that beam got sheared and then melted or looked like it melted. The building is falling at magnificent speeds and with tremendous force. As its approaching the ground, the mass of all the weights of the floor tilts a little for whatever reason about 5 stories off the ground. The beam in question is rooted probably 100ft into reinforced concrete and bolted into it, so the base isnt going anywhere. The mass of all the weight slightly tilting in that one area just pulls the beam apart at that angle and some burning insulation/etc falls on top of it and *slightly* melts the middle of the beam that hasnt had fire-treated, etc because the steel INSIDE the beam itself was never expected to actually have burning stuff on it. Does that sound more outrageous than a giant thousands of people conspiracy to murder thousands of their countrymen/women just to get us "to get oil" and yet it doesnt seem like a huge priority for our administration to get the wells off the ground? hmm..

Yes that theory is very very unlikely (breaking the column withouth bending it at a perfect angle with melted metal arround it), it is MUCH more reasonable to believe that column was cut.

However Skot its not about setting your mind because of 1 "very suspicious metal beam", its about the evidence as a whole, which the stupid report failed in an epic way to debunk, things like:

1.- "puffs" of debris flying out of windows from even 40 stories BELOW the collapsing building.

The report says it was compressed air breaking the window and sending stuff out of the window.

common sense says: The air being compressed would find a way out of the building much sooner than 40 mother fucking floors below, it would blow all the window in the floors right blow the collapsing buldings, not leaving them inact and blowing a random window ridiculously much more low.

2.- Actual flashbangs coming out of the windows, clear sign of detonations

The report didnt even adress those

3.- A substance looking like thermite (substance used to cut metal beams in demolitions) pouring out of the bulding in several spots

The reports says: Thermite is very unlikely for demolition, so WE DIDNT TEST FOR TERMITE RESIDUES

common sense says: You didnt fucking test a single beam for thermite? what? isnt that test like 25 bucks?

4.- A collapsing buildnig cannot fall at "free fall" speed

the report says: The momentum of the fall was too strong for the lower floors to put any resistance.

common sense says: wait... you dindt even fucking disprove what i just said, you just NEGATED what i said by saying YES IT CAN!!!.... which is ridiculous.

5.- There were found beams stuck in adjacent buildings with a force that a jet colliding or jet fuel explosión cannot generate.

the report doesnt adress that

6.- There are HUNDREDS of testimonies claiming that there were previous explosions

the report doesnt adress that

7.- The WTC building 7 didnt recieve an impact of a plane yet it was bought down in an alike implosion manner

the report says it fell from damage from the other towers falling

common sense says: what?, an adjacent huge building IMPLODED in a demolition fashion only because of flying debris from the other towers collapsing and minor fires? lol

8.- The Pentagon doesnt have any rests of a plane, the hole in the wall is not consistent witht he size of the fuselage of the boeing, there is no bodies, seats or even wings in the crash site.

the report says: YES it was a boeing we swear!

common sens says: omg, not even the most fanaticall gullible person will believe that was caused by a plane

9.- After the 9/11 incident George Bush approval ratio skyrocketed, it was a primary factor of his re-election, he went to two wars increasing the national debt with the central bank (which his familie has ties with), invaded iraq and there has been a huge chane in oil price because of this event and he established a base in the middle east.

blind people say: Muslims hate our freedom!!! we must fight for it and stop the terrorists who randomly hates us, and make women cover their face omg!

smart people say: George Bush obviously benefited from all this chain of events, thinking they just happened because evil people hate us is gullible.

On August 12 2008 09:18 SKoT wrote: Does that sound more outrageous than a giant thousands of people conspiracy to murder thousands of their countrymen/women just to get us "to get oil" and yet it doesnt seem like a huge priority for our administration to get the wells off the ground? hmm...

Yes it does mainly because you dont need thousands to pull this off, just hundreds which most of them are in high political, CIA and military rankings and obviously are by no means any liability or risk of information infiltration.

Second, you dont know history at all if you believe the leaders of empires give a shit about sacrificing a few country men to go to war for economical reasons, it happened in almost every single way int he world, even germany did it, hitler burnt his parlament claiming it was a terrorist attack and that they had to defend the nation....

actually even mother fucking Mexico did it in WW2, yes mexico joined the allies when two mexican ships were sunk in the mexican Gulf, politicians claimed it was a German submarine in mexican waters (LOL wtf) that sunk the "Faja de Oro" and the "Potrero de Llano".... that alone caried mexico to support the united states (with oil obv) and even send troops to fight in WW2 (yes we fought lol).

Amazingly people at the time actually believe a fucking germany submarine sunk our damn ships... gullible? yes... mirror mirror... oh and for the record that is how USA joined the WW1, evil germans sunk an american ship (killing thousands of civilians), mmm... dejavu.

i want to be george bushs chef so i can pee in his cereal every morning

I want to be his proctologist

Oh man I feel a huge reply boiling over, sorry. I just watched it and liked it a lot, and gotta reply to a bunch of people here now.

On August 08 2008 07:48 Jelle wrote: Show nested quote + On August 08 2008 06:38 SKoT wrote: most people can see the huge facts discrepancy I feel like I can't.. what i've learned from this is that i'm easy to manipulate.. I watched an episode of penn&teller: bullshit! about conspiracy theories that argued the exact opposite of this (about 9/11 at least) and felt 100% agreeing with it, but while watching this i felt sympathetic as well particularly the first part about religion i really feel is correct but anyways they can just present a bunch of facts (?) in these documentaries and I just utterly fail to see when they're facts and when they're not, and how can u? I feel like u need to study something for years to get the answer to some of these things for yourself

I hear ya jelle, same shit happened to me. I've been back and forth on the 9/11 shit for a long time, but I do feel like while I'm not sure what happened, a lot of shit is inadequately explained. As far as the facts in this movie, they do a great job of sourcing everything: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

I feel like the religion part is the strongest and I've spent the last hour doing a bit of research and I'm still feeling confident about the religion part. The other 2 parts get a bit harder to stomach, especially cause they leave so many unanswered questions (like what happened to the people on the plane for the pentagon?). But they also bring up a lot of good questions that raise a lot of doubt (like why they won't release the independent security video from gas stations/hotels in front of the pentagon which would show the airplane).

Pokerdoc made a good point that I agree with, which is that the attempt to say a small group of powerful people are controlling everything really didn't convince me. I do think they make a good case for the idea that people have been manipulating events for personal gain, but I am not convinced it's just one group of powerful guys on a plan for world domination. I think there's lots of separate powerful guys who are selfish and they go and screw people over, sometimes they work together.

On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote: 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.

This is the big thing that gets me with the 9/11 shit. the problem is that there seem to be 2 conflicting "experts" on this, some saying it was hot enough and some saying it wasn't. How do we tell which expert is telling the fucking truth? that's what I hate.

Though I have to say I'm with Baal here overall and think he's making a good argument. Keep going man =)

On August 12 2008 17:40 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 09:18 SKoT wrote: Does that sound more outrageous than a giant thousands of people conspiracy to murder thousands of their countrymen/women just to get us "to get oil" and yet it doesnt seem like a huge priority for our administration to get the wells off the ground? hmm... Yes it does mainly because you dont need thousands to pull this off, just hundreds which most of them are in high political, CIA and military rankings and obviously are by no means any liability or risk of information infiltration. Second, you dont know history at all if you believe the leaders of empires give a shit about sacrificing a few country men to go to war for economical reasons, it happened in almost every single way int he world, even germany did it, hitler burnt his parlament claiming it was a terrorist attack and that they had to defend the nation.... .

Totally agreed. I don't know where this "thousands" number keeps coming from, but I have a hard time imagining it's much more than 100 people involved and much less than that who know the full story. I'm sure there was plenty of disinformation going on and false stories being given out. And people HAVE come out to talk about shit they've seen, but also been silenced by gag orders and ignored in the 9/11 hearings (their info doesn't make it into the final report).

On August 12 2008 18:07 k2o4 wrote: Oh man I feel a huge reply boiling over, sorry. I just watched it and liked it a lot, and gotta reply to a bunch of people here now. Show nested quote + On August 08 2008 07:48 Jelle wrote:   On August 08 2008 06:38 SKoT wrote: most people can see the huge facts discrepancy I feel like I can't.. what i've learned from this is that i'm easy to manipulate.. I watched an episode of penn&teller: bullshit! about conspiracy theories that argued the exact opposite of this (about 9/11 at least) and felt 100% agreeing with it, but while watching this i felt sympathetic as well particularly the first part about religion i really feel is correct but anyways they can just present a bunch of facts (?) in these documentaries and I just utterly fail to see when they're facts and when they're not, and how can u? I feel like u need to study something for years to get the answer to some of these things for yourself I hear ya jelle, same shit happened to me. I've been back and forth on the 9/11 shit for a long time, but I do feel like while I'm not sure what happened, a lot of shit is inadequately explained. As far as the facts in this movie, they do a great job of sourcing everything: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm I feel like the religion part is the strongest and I've spent the last hour doing a bit of research and I'm still feeling confident about the religion part. The other 2 parts get a bit harder to stomach, especially cause they leave so many unanswered questions (like what happened to the people on the plane for the pentagon?). But they also bring up a lot of good questions that raise a lot of doubt (like why they won't release the independent security video from gas stations/hotels in front of the pentagon which would show the airplane). Pokerdoc made a good point that I agree with, which is that the attempt to say a small group of powerful people are controlling everything really didn't convince me. I do think they make a good case for the idea that people have been manipulating events for personal gain, but I am not convinced it's just one group of powerful guys on a plan for world domination. I think there's lots of separate powerful guys who are selfish and they go and screw people over, sometimes they work together.   On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote: 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. This is the big thing that gets me with the 9/11 shit. the problem is that there seem to be 2 conflicting "experts" on this, some saying it was hot enough and some saying it wasn't. How do we tell which expert is telling the fucking truth? that's what I hate. Though I have to say I'm with Baal here overall and think he's making a good argument. Keep going man =)

Its not if its HOT enough or not... no scientist claims that Jet Fuel melts steel... and there is molten steel, GG no RE. i just listed a fuckoad of reasons why this is an obvious demolition dont ignore them :<

Also anybody can get an "expert" to say anything, its independant research what matters, and its your COMMON SENSE what matters, no fucking steel framed building has ever collapsed by fire, NO BUILDING EVER FALLS AT FREE FALL SPEED UNLESS ITS DEMOLISHED... for fucks sake, even in controlled demolitions buildings go sideways or fail to collapse completely.

On August 12 2008 18:25 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 18:07 k2o4 wrote: Oh man I feel a huge reply boiling over, sorry. I just watched it and liked it a lot, and gotta reply to a bunch of people here now.   On August 08 2008 07:48 Jelle wrote:   On August 08 2008 06:38 SKoT wrote: most people can see the huge facts discrepancy I feel like I can't.. what i've learned from this is that i'm easy to manipulate.. I watched an episode of penn&teller: bullshit! about conspiracy theories that argued the exact opposite of this (about 9/11 at least) and felt 100% agreeing with it, but while watching this i felt sympathetic as well particularly the first part about religion i really feel is correct but anyways they can just present a bunch of facts (?) in these documentaries and I just utterly fail to see when they're facts and when they're not, and how can u? I feel like u need to study something for years to get the answer to some of these things for yourself I hear ya jelle, same shit happened to me. I've been back and forth on the 9/11 shit for a long time, but I do feel like while I'm not sure what happened, a lot of shit is inadequately explained. As far as the facts in this movie, they do a great job of sourcing everything: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm I feel like the religion part is the strongest and I've spent the last hour doing a bit of research and I'm still feeling confident about the religion part. The other 2 parts get a bit harder to stomach, especially cause they leave so many unanswered questions (like what happened to the people on the plane for the pentagon?). But they also bring up a lot of good questions that raise a lot of doubt (like why they won't release the independent security video from gas stations/hotels in front of the pentagon which would show the airplane). Pokerdoc made a good point that I agree with, which is that the attempt to say a small group of powerful people are controlling everything really didn't convince me. I do think they make a good case for the idea that people have been manipulating events for personal gain, but I am not convinced it's just one group of powerful guys on a plan for world domination. I think there's lots of separate powerful guys who are selfish and they go and screw people over, sometimes they work together.   On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote: 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. This is the big thing that gets me with the 9/11 shit. the problem is that there seem to be 2 conflicting "experts" on this, some saying it was hot enough and some saying it wasn't. How do we tell which expert is telling the fucking truth? that's what I hate. Though I have to say I'm with Baal here overall and think he's making a good argument. Keep going man =) Its not if its HOT enough or not... no scientist claims that Jet Fuel melts steel... and there is molten steel, GG no RE. i just listed a fuckoad of reasons why this is an obvious demolition dont ignore them :< Also anybody can get an "expert" to say anything, its independant research what matters, and its your COMMON SENSE what matters, no fucking steel framed building has ever collapsed by fire, NO BUILDING EVER FALLS AT FREE FALL SPEED UNLESS ITS DEMOLISHED... for fucks sake, even in controlled demolitions buildings go sideways or fail to collapse completely.

Rofl I'm with you man, don't need to convince me. The molten steel doesn't make any sense by the mainstream explanations. And the way they fell doesn't fit either, especially #7.

Just taking a step back on this thread and the arguments being made by both sides, firstly I'd like to mention a few observations:

1. I agree with Baal, but your method of discussion (I prefer the word discussion to argument, because argument implies there must be a victor and a defeated) does put people who don't currently believe in your point of view on the defensive. Knowledge is power, and in any instance where some new evidence or fact or suggestion comes your way which questions what you previously knew, human nature is to choose to remain ignorant rather than confront the fear and loss of empowerment of your current knowledge.

2. Everyone has the freedom to form their own opinions and believe in what they want. When we can all agree upon this fact, then we can begin to move away from 'argument' and move towards 'discussion'. Discussion is a vital part of scientific method, and this is the primary method we use to expand our horizons about what we know. This following statement may sound abstract, but it is true and should help illustrate the necessity to always keep an open mind: "We know 100% of what we already know, but what we know may only be 0.001% of what may actually be known".

3. Everyone has what I like to call a 'belief box'. This box may be divided into numerous sections: Essentially, this belief box is where we draw our certainty when we say "I believe in math, I believe in Catholicism, I don't believe men are born equal" etc. It is human nature to observe a new phenomenon and then try and make them fit into our current belief box. How ever, this is a trap. What is more important, is to be able to break the walls of our belief box, and instead of trying to make our new observation fit our existing box, we expand our box to fit and encompass our new observation.

Now, hopefully reading the above statements we can all agree that none of us will share entirely the same point of view, but that the more important thing is to be able to take in relevant information and not shut it out merely because it doesn't agree with what we already THINK we know.

Moving back to conspiracy movies etc., here are links to a few movies and things of the sorts I have been watching in the past week. Remember, as you watch and read the following, keep in mind those 3 previous points I mentioned.

1. "Hidden symbology of the US $1 bill": A short 5 minute video where a guy discusses hidden symbols in the US $1 bill, with Illuminati and Free Masonic origins.



2. "Thirst for Justice": A series of articles discussing current conspiracy theories, how banks work, the history of current central banking system, etc. Quite a lot of useful information to be read and found here

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/eng.htm

3. "Ring of Power": A look at religion throughout history, 9/11 attacks, and some other things. There are interesting theories such as the current British Royalty are descendants of Jesus Christ who themselves are descendants of Hebrew migrants into Egypt 4000 years ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8250619454941053618

4. "EndGame". A basic look at whether or not secret societies such as the Illuminati exist, and what their goals and agenda of a NYO are:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

5. "Bohemian grove exposed!" Linked here is the 1st of a 7 part documentary on youtube, which looks at the Bohemian Grove, other secret societies, etc.



6. "Dajjal Illuminati Satanism": the 1st of a 8 part series of audio recordings on youtube, discussing the illuminati, origin of the great wars of our previous 300 years, and other such things. Images have been added by some body else, although I think the commentator made these recordings during the time of the Vietnam war.



7. "The Illuminati": A brief discussion of the Illuminati, as well as a 134-page long english translation of a document written by Adam Weishapt in 1793, detailing the creation of the Illuminati as well as other philosophical discussions about the position of the Free Masons, their duty and place in society etc.

http://www.bilderberg.org/lucis.htm#CH2

As well as these conspiracy oriented movies, here are some others I think that should be watched so people gain a better understanding of how the world works, particularly with regards to banks and money.

1. "Money as Debt". A cartoon which explains what money is, where it comes from, how banks control the money supply of our nations, etc. (To give credit, I originally stumbled onto this movie because some one here on LP made a thread called "Banks. You".)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

2. "FIAT empire": Another movie which explains the nature of money, power of banks etc.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531&hl=en

Now, these are all sources of information I have looked to during the past 5 days or so since watching Zeitgeist. I don't pretend to believe I know everything there is to know about these things. I am still looking and researching new things to expand my understanding of these subjects. I've read a lot of other extraneous stuff too: To be able to link and list everything I have come across would be too difficult. Having said that, some topics I think you would do well to learn about would be:

1. American war of independence: What caused it, who was involved, why it happened.
2. Banks (as previously mentioned). I think you really really REALLY need to know how they work.
3. Families of extreme wealth and infleunce in our society today, particularly the Rothschild families, where they originated, and how they seized control of the British economy following the French revolution (war between France and Britain, led by Napoleon on Frances' side).
4. The skull and bones fraternity of Yael: Another secret society. There are videos on youtube of both George Bush and John Kerry where they are asked about the nature of S&B, and they don't deny its existence at all: They merely state that its too secret for them to talk about.

errrrr "There are interesting theories such as the current British Royalty are descendants of Jesus Christ who themselves are descendants of Hebrew migrants into Egypt 4000 years ago." that is just plain retarded......

but lets not de-rail the ongoing discussion

Baal did you even read my original post? Sure the likelyhood of British Royalty being descents of Jesus Christ is small, but until you admit there is a small possibility then you can never begin to search for relevant facts to either prove or disprove your initial assumption. Here is a fact that might pique your interest and lend SOME credibility to the statement: The bloodline of the British Royal family is actually German in origin .

btw i'm not derailing the discussion, a lot of what I posted makes reference to and provides additional information about 9/11 attacks. And the extra info I give is not exactly derailment, I like to think of it as more of an expansion, because much of it is related.

No, those retarded theories (like UFOs and other shit) just weaken information confronting "common" knowledge that expose the fucking bullshit in this plan (like bush's administration and the central bank system) and this real information is just written off as "another conspiracy looney".

It is retarded to believe that the english monarchy is decendant from an imaginary cock sucking carpenter who lived over 2,000 years ago... there is not even fucking evidence than a carpenter named Jesus even existed, and now you are trying to link it 2,000 years ago even when the ONLY book that claims its existance says he didnt have any heir.

This thread is not to discuss the existance of the Jetti, we are discussing real world issuse here, so please stop -.-

read kids, READ ^^

Whatever Baal, the title of the thread is called "Conspiracy Movie", and the movie which is linked in the original post spends approximately 40 minutes discussing whether or not religion is real or not. Just because YOU don't want to talk about Jesus, doesn't mean others might not want to know. You can choose to completely ignore the fact that one of the videos I linked to references this theory (as well as information relevant to what you deem is the only discussion occurring here), and let others decide whether or not they wish to discuss the movie.

You sound quite hypocritical, raving about evil central banks and corrupt governments as having tyrannical power. I see you emulating the same thing here when you say things like
"This thread is not to discuss the existance of the Jetti, we are discussing real world issuse here, so please stop -.-".

I won't make another post discussing this, because this post (and the reply it will probably receive from you) are derailing the thread, and aren't relevant to the discussion.

In fact, the movie I linked "Rings of Power" also discusses things that aren't mentioned in any of my other movies, which ARE very relevant to your discussion, such as how the State of Columbia, the Vatican, and Central England (IIRC these are the correct names, I may be wrong though), are all essentially separate from the country they 'exist' in. ie. The Vatican is its own country, as is the State of Columbia in Washington. It talks about how America is actually not a sovereignty, but in reality it is a corporation as designated by the Queen (I'm a bit unsure of the exact details of how this is so, so I suggest you watch the movie and perhaps you'll understand better than I do what it is saying).

god i love baal
its so beautiful
why cant it be like this every single day

Kerosene (the fuel used in the jet planes) does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel, not even close

That simple, undeniable fact (prove me wrong if you disagree) at the very worst, suggests that the portrayal of events by the US Government, Media e.t.c was not the exact reality of what happened and begs the question what did melt the steel?

At worst George Bush got drunk and pressed the tewwowize button on his fisher price laptop, and when he woke up next morning, with dog breath and a headache, decided to cover up the whole thing.

On August 13 2008 09:46 XeliN wrote: Kerosene (the fuel used in the jet planes) does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel, not even close That simple, undeniable fact (prove me wrong if you disagree) at the very worst, suggests that the portrayal of events by the US Government, Media e.t.c was not the exact reality of what happened and begs the question what did melt the steel? At worst George Bush got drunk and pressed the tewwowize button on his fisher price laptop, and when he woke up next morning, with dog breath and a headache, decided to cover up the whole thing.

Just a thought, energy is also added by million of tons of building material falling down. I have no idea if it's enough to melt steel but it shouldn't be discarded.

Loved the movie and it's seems very fishy, if a few americans lean to think objectively I guess it served it's purpose.

PokerDoc88 what if some things are so unlikely that they're not worth investigating

On August 13 2008 10:29 TheGuru wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 09:46 XeliN wrote: Kerosene (the fuel used in the jet planes) does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel, not even close That simple, undeniable fact (prove me wrong if you disagree) at the very worst, suggests that the portrayal of events by the US Government, Media e.t.c was not the exact reality of what happened and begs the question what did melt the steel? At worst George Bush got drunk and pressed the tewwowize button on his fisher price laptop, and when he woke up next morning, with dog breath and a headache, decided to cover up the whole thing. Just a thought, energy is also added by million of tons of building material falling down. I have no idea if it's enough to melt steel but it shouldn't be discarded. Loved the movie and it's seems very fishy, if a few americans lean to think objectively I guess it served it's purpose.

omg did you even take physics 101 on highschool?

a Tsunami has thousands of times more energy than the towers falling they it doesnt melt steel lol.

energy =/= heat, momentum, inertia or acceleration does not randomly convert to heat melting steel what in the fuck...

This movie was the biggest shitload of crap Ive ever seen. This movie fails on so many levels on its own logic.
To whoever wants to think that 911 was US plan. I have a few questions to be answered.

1: If the EVIL goverment and bush want the people's sopport to attack and control oil wealthy places
why not just get a bunch of brain washed morons and drive planes into buildings? Why the goverment need to carefully and secretly plan tons and tons of explosives in WTO buildings. Why they need to blow up the freaking WTC 7 building?

If there was no plane going into Pentagon. Then what happened to that missing plane?

2:Why the goverment sooo fuckin evil has to stage all this crap when they can just at least throw a freaking plane into pentagon? I mean its harder to plant bombs into pentagon. Then remove all the video tapes and creat a huge fuckin deal about it. When they can just stage a flight going into pentagon?

So on and so on. The arguments are soo fuckin retarded. The goverment is either behind all this or its not. If it is why are they going into such lengthy non-sense methods faking stuff while doing it for them is easier?


These nutheads are there for moonlanding as well. But over there the science is soo strong that within 2 min everyone understand how retarded these people are. It is actually easier to send a 3 people to moon than to do the retarded stuff these people say to fake moon landing.




And to answer the picture question. I dont even know where to begin. Baal do you know how the column should fail if it was a controled demolition? Do you know how it should have failed if there was no controled demolition? Is that picture with firefighters even real? How many columns like that was found in WTC site? How many should have been found if there was/wasnt control explosion? But there is no point in arguing. Cause like I said it sooo fuckin retarded to stage an explosion when they could just hijack planes and ram it into buildings. If one plane wasnt doing it then they could hijack 10 and then ram those.
This is beyond retarded.

And about the tax and finance laws and stuff in the movie they are all fuckin lies. same goes for their religion facts. Their explanation and facts citings is just sooo bad and fake that IMO thats enough to discredit anything that follows in a movie.

BTW are you kidding me? Who said steel doesnt melt in a building fire? Just put a steel in a BBQ and you see that it softens. You put that under a HUGE stress and you get a failure.

But like I said there is no point arguing these minor details. Cause there are MAJOR MAJOR flaws in arguments that need to be addressed before we start on arguing technical details.

On August 13 2008 17:53 capaneo wrote: This movie was the biggest shitload of crap Ive ever seen. This movie fails on so many levels on its own logic. To whoever wants to think that 911 was US plan. I have a few questions to be answered. 1: If the EVIL goverment and bush want the people's sopport to attack and control oil wealthy places why not just get a bunch of brain washed morons and drive planes into buildings? Why the goverment need to carefully and secretly plan tons and tons of explosives in WTO buildings. Why they need to blow up the freaking WTC 7 building? If there was no plane going into Pentagon. Then what happened to that missing plane? 2:Why the goverment sooo fuckin evil has to stage all this crap when they can just at least throw a freaking plane into pentagon? I mean its harder to plant bombs into pentagon. Then remove all the video tapes and creat a huge fuckin deal about it. When they can just stage a flight going into pentagon? So on and so on. The arguments are soo fuckin retarded. The goverment is either behind all this or its not. If it is why are they going into such lengthy non-sense methods faking stuff while doing it for them is easier? These nutheads are there for moonlanding as well. But over there the science is soo strong that within 2 min everyone understand how retarded these people are. It is actually easier to send a 3 people to moon than to do the retarded stuff these people say to fake moon landing. And to answer the picture question. I dont even know where to begin. Baal do you know how the column should fail if it was a controled demolition? Do you know how it should have failed if there was no controled demolition? Is that picture with firefighters even real? How many columns like that was found in WTC site? How many should have been found if there was/wasnt control explosion? But there is no point in arguing. Cause like I said it sooo fuckin retarded to stage an explosion when they could just hijack planes and ram it into buildings. If one plane wasnt doing it then they could hijack 10 and then ram those. This is beyond retarded. And about the tax and finance laws and stuff in the movie they are all fuckin lies. same goes for their religion facts. Their explanation and facts citings is just sooo bad and fake that IMO thats enough to discredit anything that follows in a movie.

Capaneo you are a moron read the thread before asking dumb questions that have been answered before:

1.- Because maniacs driving planes wouldnt bring down twin towers, and a bunch of people dead wont send you to 2 (or more) wars, you need the towers to fall, and that can only be archieved with explosives, and WTC 7 was an exclusively government building (that fell with no fucking plane hitting it lol ooops), that contained CIA, Departament of Defense and IRS offices, you cant picture a reason why some people would like those buildings gone when they carried investigations?.

2.- Because terrorists planting a fucking bomb in the pentagon? lol think about it more than 3 secodns before saying dumb shit... that would be like saying "we are the most incompetent departament of defense ever, terrorists can plant bombs in our fucking noses".

No its not the same than the moonlanding idioticy... if your way to disprove this is to linking it with another lunatics then im done talking with you, there is no correlation whatsoever so drop moonlanding that nobody has said shit about it.


Yes i know how a demolition column looks like, its cut in a degree obviously so it can "slide", the cut looks very precise (like the picture), a column that naturally fails looks torn, usually bent or with extremely rough edges and its never MELTED in the edges, never.


So you are suggesting its easier to literally kidnapp and fly 20 planes into the towers than simply plant explosives? are you an idiot? also letting the towers fall naturally would create an inmeasurable mess probably killing dozens more of deaths and 50% of newyork would be covered in rubble if they just fall sideways.

On August 13 2008 18:19 capaneo wrote: BTW are you kidding me? Who said steel doesnt melt in a building fire? Just put a steel in a BBQ and you see that it softens. You put that under a HUGE stress and you get a failure. But like I said there is no point arguing these minor details. Cause there are MAJOR MAJOR flaws in arguments that need to be addressed before we start on arguing technical details.

OH for fucks sake dont post until you read the thread moron -.-, MELTING.... MELTING steel dumbass... we are not talking about steel failing but about steel MELTING.

You didnt get what I said. Im saying WHY the goverment need to do all these in a very very complex way when they could achive the same goels doing stuff in a MUCH MUCH simpler ways?

Why they need to ram planes into WTC AND plant explosives?

Also another question for you

How many low level people were at this and for how long? From the people who planted the explosives to the people who bought them. and the ones who drove the trucks full of explisives. The guards who were paid to ignore the whole damn thing while at planning stages?

On August 13 2008 19:04 capaneo wrote: You didnt get what I said. Im saying WHY the goverment need to do all these in a very very complex way when they could achive the same goels doing stuff in a MUCH MUCH simpler ways? Why they need to ram planes into WTC AND plant explosives? Also another question for you How many low level people were at this and for how long? From the people who planted the explosives to the people who bought them. and the ones who drove the trucks full of explisives. The guards who were paid to ignore the whole damn thing while at planning stages?

1.- because planes alone wouldnt bring the towers down, and they cant justify how could terrorists plant hundreds or thousands of explosive charges without anybody noticing, the sophistication of a terrorist operation of that complexity is far far far more unlikely than just a few guys kidnapping planes with $1 cutters.

2.- how on earth would i know man, im not bush... you want my uninformed estimate? its really hard to tell becaue we dont know how long it took them to plan all the devices, it could have been a "long" process of setting them on the main columns stealthy and setting the majority at the previous night, or all in 1 night who knows, but you only need a couple of dozen demolition experts in the military and CIA to plant them and execute this.

wow

wtf

there's really a lot of substantiation and citation in this video. really surprising that they actually back up a good % of the claims they make, and support a good % of the interpretations they have. it's not like the be-all/end-all of truth-seeking, but it's very good and completely worth watching

i learned a lot from the banking section at least

reading capaneo's refutations now, thx cap for posting but dunno what you said yet

k after reading thread i'm clearly not as "shocked" and "wowed" as before

but few things

cap i respect your opinions on the 9/11 part and am with you

but can you provide citation or evidence that says the banking citations/quotes and the religious evidences are "just lies"?

gna go back and see if i can research their facts now, but i mean did they really just completely make up all the facts they cited about the formation of the US federal reserve bank...?

also in response to the claim that our education sucks because conspirators want us to be stupid:

cmon, we WANT to be dumber. it's SO much easier to just gobble up entertainment and be too cool for school. that's just the natural submission to vice and laziness, which is why we (americans) are fat too. we are wealthy so we're fat, lazy and stupid because it's easy (and fun) to be fat, lazy and stupid.

On August 13 2008 19:52 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 19:04 capaneo wrote: You didnt get what I said. Im saying WHY the goverment need to do all these in a very very complex way when they could achive the same goels doing stuff in a MUCH MUCH simpler ways? Why they need to ram planes into WTC AND plant explosives? Also another question for you How many low level people were at this and for how long? From the people who planted the explosives to the people who bought them. and the ones who drove the trucks full of explisives. The guards who were paid to ignore the whole damn thing while at planning stages? 1.- because planes alone wouldnt bring the towers down, and they cant justify how could terrorists plant hundreds or thousands of explosive charges without anybody noticing, the sophistication of a terrorist operation of that complexity is far far far more unlikely than just a few guys kidnapping planes with $1 cutters. 2.- how on earth would i know man, im not bush... you want my uninformed estimate? its really hard to tell becaue we dont know how long it took them to plan all the devices, it could have been a "long" process of setting them on the main columns stealthy and setting the majority at the previous night, or all in 1 night who knows, but you only need a couple of dozen demolition experts in the military and CIA to plant them and execute this.

DUDE answer the question. You know exactly what Im asking and you know its not that.
Im asking WHY THE GOVERMENT NEEDED TO BRING THE BUILDINGS DOWN TO ACHIVE THEIR GOAL??

Also on 2nd question. It takes way more than a dozen people to set explosives on 220 floors of WTC in secrecy THAT AND the WTC7 building. I hope you understand how naive it sounds to have probably weeks of times ahead and hundreds of people involved to bring down WTC in middle of day and NOBODY ever talked about it.
Or are you about to tell me that a bunch of global billioner bankers walked in WTC with explosives and planted everything?


But please answer the first question.
WHY the goverment needs to bring down the buildings?
I mean lets say hijackers would hit the buildings and 1500 would die insted of 3000. How would that in any way effect bush's goals of world domination?

On August 13 2008 22:07 [vital]Myth wrote: k after reading thread i'm clearly not as "shocked" and "wowed" as before but few things cap i respect your opinions on the 9/11 part and am with you but can you provide citation or evidence that says the banking citations/quotes and the religious evidences are "just lies"? gna go back and see if i can research their facts now, but i mean did they really just completely make up all the facts they cited about the formation of the US federal reserve bank...?

After watching the movie i did some research and i didnt find any matches on some of their claims, like claims of Horus being born from a virgin, or Mythra being bla bla bla, i couldnt find all the matches, however there is a huge resemblance in all the world's deities.

Also a couple of innacurancies like saying HORUS is the god of Sun, and he isnt, the egyptian god of the sun is Ra (amun-ra).

However imo its the least important part of the movie, its interesting in the way of all the matches but where is the importance in proving a random carpenter existed or not 2,000 years ago there is no possible way to prove it or to disprove it, but why even bother, its not relevant unless you are a catholic, and if you are a catholic that probably wont make u stop believe anyway.

I also researched about the banking institution and i couldnt find a single inaccurancy, and the most scary of all is that before watching the movie i knew about IG Farben and American Oil Standard because my dad is like the sickest WW2 encyclopedia so i know a lot of it, i also verified that scary quote from Woodrow wilson admitting that he sold the country to a few dominant men.

so it looks like the only important thing to learn from this movie (which appears to be true) is that the Fed is a completely unconstitutional entity and all the US money is controlled by a single private corporation

still that's a really major fact

On August 13 2008 22:11 [vital]Myth wrote: also in response to the claim that our education sucks because conspirators want us to be stupid: cmon, we WANT to be dumber. it's SO much easier to just gobble up entertainment and be too cool for school. that's just the natural submission to vice and laziness, which is why we (americans) are fat too. we are wealthy so we're fat, lazy and stupid because it's easy (and fun) to be fat, lazy and stupid.

But why countries like Norway, Sweden etc dont follow this pattern? people are richier than america but they have superb educational systems and the media is not a circus like its in america.

Dont get me wrong i dont swallow it completely, i think its also very likely it sucks because it just simply sucks and its not a machiavelic manipulation, but i think its necessary to question these things and well actually question everything.


There is one quote i love from one of those movies that says something like: Since the beggining of time, history has taught us that our leaders, Kings, Emperors, senates and all of them have taken advantage of the people to pursue their own goals, they have declared countless wars and they have mankind has shedded seas of blood because of these few in power, yet we stand today thinking that for any reason our current leaders are different, that we and only we are the exeption of thousands years of history, and this kind of obediant sheep behavior is only going to lead us to repeat history once again.

On the banking facts.
That thing about income tax in unconstitutional is a lie.
Also incoming tax is not a very mysterious way. Its all over the whole world. So I dont know how that makes the US goverment Evil. Or these global bankers are working all over the world?


And on FEDs. We all know it is created after the great depression because of the panic. I read the story of banking in US. And trust me before the FEDs it was a total chaos. And I feel much safter with FEDs than without feds.


Also quoting charles lindbergh on banking??!!!! give me a break. He was the first guy who crossed Atlantic and got famous. Ok his dad was congressman. But I dont know why someone would refer to him for banking system in US.
edit: OK I did a littel research and it looks like they are actually talking about his dad not himself. Which again tells you how stupid this movie is. Its like I quote geroge bush in some way and then I refrence this guy George Bush


I dont know. If america is soo Evil and if the system there is so corrupt and it sucks so much. Why US is the most powerfull country in the world? Why average people here live such a great life? Why everyone here can say/do anything they want without being afraid of THE POWERFULL EVIL GOVERMENT.

If education system in US is so bad why out of 777 nobel prize 300 was given to americans? Why about everything you see was invented in America?

Why this movie calling FDR a traitor and then it is quoting JFK on how we should live our lives??!!!!!


Why in this HUGE HUGE theories of conspiracy and anti american people movments there is no words of well known alive people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?



@Myth there is ZERO source in this movie. In the real world when you say something (like the origin of Jesus and Horus or the stars) You cite the source with page number and exact details and words.

I can go on and on and I bet money that I can investigate and debunk about everything they say in this movie.

On August 12 2008 04:41 Baal wrote: in case you missed it

Here in case you are wondering how that cut was created.
This photo was taken during the clean up of the site.

As a matter of fact I did a little research and IF columns were cut using thermite they wouldn't look like a clean at all. The edges would be rounded and molten. Not a clean cut like this. But like I said these very minor details are insignificant. Im just very intrested in you answeing a bunch of my very core questions of WHY the goverment has to do all these?
WHY they need a fat/darker/bigger nose Binladen in their videos? Cant they just get a better model? Or isnt binladen family having lunch in the morning with them? couldn't they just ask him to do this one video like the other many videos he has done? No the goverment had to go to a fat/dark man with a bigger nose for this one video!

cap dont bother man, unless this is just entertainment to you like it is to me

logic defies certain people

On August 13 2008 23:09 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 22:07 [vital]Myth wrote: k after reading thread i'm clearly not as "shocked" and "wowed" as before but few things cap i respect your opinions on the 9/11 part and am with you but can you provide citation or evidence that says the banking citations/quotes and the religious evidences are "just lies"? gna go back and see if i can research their facts now, but i mean did they really just completely make up all the facts they cited about the formation of the US federal reserve bank...? After watching the movie i did some research and i didnt find any matches on some of their claims, like claims of Horus being born from a virgin, or Mythra being bla bla bla, i couldnt find all the matches, however there is a huge resemblance in all the world's deities. Also a couple of innacurancies like saying HORUS is the god of Sun, and he isnt, the egyptian god of the sun is Ra (amun-ra). However imo its the least important part of the movie, its interesting in the way of all the matches but where is the importance in proving a random carpenter existed or not 2,000 years ago there is no possible way to prove it or to disprove it, but why even bother, its not relevant unless you are a catholic, and if you are a catholic that probably wont make u stop believe anyway. I also researched about the banking institution and i couldnt find a single inaccurancy, and the most scary of all is that before watching the movie i knew about IG Farben and American Oil Standard because my dad is like the sickest WW2 encyclopedia so i know a lot of it, i also verified that scary quote from Woodrow wilson admitting that he sold the country to a few dominant men.

What you didnt find out is that Woodrow said those stuff in 1912! source Feds act was signed DEC 1913. So right there you should just get a copy of the movie and throw it down the toilet.

Also on American Oil and IGfarben. When there is war there is STILL trade going on. So who cares if they were selling stuff to germany?

Also on Vietnam war part. Are you telling me Rockfeller owned factories in COMUNIST soviet union in the middle of the cold war?? If thats not enough it came as a bonus that they happen to be weapons and military equipment factories?? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!

The lies in this movie is just sooo clear that people fail to see it.

On August 13 2008 23:25 capaneo wrote: On the banking facts. That thing about income tax in unconstitutional is a lie. Also incoming tax is not a very mysterious way. Its all over the whole world. So I dont know how that makes the US goverment Evil. Or these global bankers are working all over the world? And on FEDs. We all know it is created after the great depression because of the panic. I read the story of banking in US. And trust me before the FEDs it was a total chaos. And I feel much safter with FEDs than without feds. Also quoting charles lindbergh on banking??!!!! give me a break. He was the first guy who crossed Atlantic and got famous. Ok his dad was congressman. But I dont know why someone would refer to him for banking system in US. I dont know. If america is soo Evil and if the system there is so corrupt and it sucks so much. Why US is the most powerfull country in the world? Why average people here live such a great life? Why everyone here can say/do anything they want without being afraid of THE POWERFULL EVIL GOVERMENT. If education system in US is so bad why out of 777 nobel prize 300 was given to americans? Why about everything you see was invented in America? Why this movie calling FDR a traitor and then it is quoting JFK on how we should live our lives??!!!!! Why in this HUGE HUGE theories of conspiracy and anti american people movments there is no words of well known alive people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? @Myth there is ZERO source in this movie. In the real world when you say something (like the origin of Jesus and Horus or the stars) You cite the source with page number and exact details and words. I can go on and on and I bet money that I can investigate and debunk about everything they say in this movie.

Again, you are a retard capaneo, i will answer your questions in numbers cuz i think the bitchslapping is more organized that way.

1.- Yes dumbass, central Banks are spread all over the world do you think USA is the only country working under a central bank model?, they even mention how the ENGLISH central bank wanted to establish one in the united states implying england works the same way.

2.- LOL so you think because USA is powerful therefore its leader must be honest? i dont see the correlation at all.... So you believe honesty and rectitude generates POWER? god u have as much clue about how the world works as floofy.

Oh and you think because you can diss the goverment you have freedom of speech?... you believe you are the exeption or something?, here in Mexico a country FAR more corrupt and shittier we can say whatever we want about our goverment, we actually do and they mock the president on daily basis like in USA and it doesnt make us any less corrupt.

3.- Because american basica educational system suck, nobody is saying that the MIT, Harvard or Yale are trying to keep people dumb... and you dont win nobel prizes by going to primary schools, you dont give a fuck about a handful of intelectuals, you care about the ignorance of the masses.

Also you are implying you believe that the US educational system doesnt suck compared to the rest of the world.... so do you want me to quote numbers in several test scores here so i can bitch slap u harder?, US educational system is falling behind the rest of the world very quickly and its not even at the top of the list.

This movie doesnt adress Bill Gates or Buffet but others do, and to be honest i saw outrageous claims about their philantrophy, but to be honest even if those claims are true it doesnt matter because they wouldnt even big big gears in this machinery, do you really think David Rockefeller gives a flying fuck about Gate's fortue? its pocket change, these people dont give a shit about money, they have all the money in the world, its all about power.

I know I've said this before but I'm almost convinced Baal is like the most elaborate troll ever.

On August 14 2008 00:13 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 23:25 capaneo wrote: On the banking facts. That thing about income tax in unconstitutional is a lie. Also incoming tax is not a very mysterious way. Its all over the whole world. So I dont know how that makes the US goverment Evil. Or these global bankers are working all over the world? And on FEDs. We all know it is created after the great depression because of the panic. I read the story of banking in US. And trust me before the FEDs it was a total chaos. And I feel much safter with FEDs than without feds. Also quoting charles lindbergh on banking??!!!! give me a break. He was the first guy who crossed Atlantic and got famous. Ok his dad was congressman. But I dont know why someone would refer to him for banking system in US. I dont know. If america is soo Evil and if the system there is so corrupt and it sucks so much. Why US is the most powerfull country in the world? Why average people here live such a great life? Why everyone here can say/do anything they want without being afraid of THE POWERFULL EVIL GOVERMENT. If education system in US is so bad why out of 777 nobel prize 300 was given to americans? Why about everything you see was invented in America? Why this movie calling FDR a traitor and then it is quoting JFK on how we should live our lives??!!!!! Why in this HUGE HUGE theories of conspiracy and anti american people movments there is no words of well known alive people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? @Myth there is ZERO source in this movie. In the real world when you say something (like the origin of Jesus and Horus or the stars) You cite the source with page number and exact details and words. I can go on and on and I bet money that I can investigate and debunk about everything they say in this movie. Again, you are a retard capaneo, i will answer your questions in numbers cuz i think the bitchslapping is more organized that way. 1.- Yes dumbass, central Banks are spread all over the world do you think USA is the only country working under a central bank model?, they even mention how the ENGLISH central bank wanted to establish one in the united states implying england works the same way. 2.- LOL so you think because USA is powerful therefore its leader must be honest? i dont see the correlation at all.... So you believe honesty and rectitude generates POWER? god u have as much clue about how the world works as floofy. Oh and you think because you can diss the goverment you have freedom of speech?... you believe you are the exeption or something?, here in Mexico a country FAR more corrupt and shittier we can say whatever we want about our goverment, we actually do and they mock the president on daily basis like in USA and it doesnt make us any less corrupt. 3.- Because american basica educational system suck, nobody is saying that the MIT, Harvard or Yale are trying to keep people dumb... and you dont win nobel prizes by going to primary schools, you dont give a fuck about a handful of intelectuals, you care about the ignorance of the masses. Also you are implying you believe that the US educational system doesnt suck compared to the rest of the world.... so do you want me to quote numbers in several test scores here so i can bitch slap u harder?, US educational system is falling behind the rest of the world very quickly and its not even at the top of the list. This movie doesnt adress Bill Gates or Buffet but others do, and to be honest i saw outrageous claims about their philantrophy, but to be honest even if those claims are true it doesnt matter because they wouldnt even big big gears in this machinery, do you really think David Rockefeller gives a flying fuck about Gate's fortue? its pocket change, these people dont give a shit about money, they have all the money in the world, its all about power.

1:Whats the goal of these central bankers?

2: I never said US leaders are honest. But I know that being corupted in such a fucked up way you cannot last in power. Im comming from a revolution not 30 years ago for the same exact reason. Coruption in power while people have money and time and having a good life never lasts. It can last if you have the people grabbed by the balls like in comunist countries but in places like this you can not be sooooooo corupted and last.

3: Enlighten me on what exactly defines a better education system?

4: Who is David Rockefeller? You telling me a 93 year old man is behind all these?? And how much money you think he has? Forbes says 2.7Bil. How much you beilve he has?


Just bitch slap me by answering this plz
In case you missed

DUDE answer the question. You know exactly what Im asking and you know its not that. Im asking WHY THE GOVERMENT NEEDED TO BRING THE BUILDINGS DOWN TO ACHIVE THEIR GOAL?? Also on 2nd question. It takes way more than a dozen people to set explosives on 220 floors of WTC in secrecy THAT AND the WTC7 building. I hope you understand how naive it sounds to have probably weeks of times ahead and hundreds of people involved to bring down WTC in middle of day and NOBODY ever talked about it. Or are you about to tell me that a bunch of global billioner bankers walked in WTC with explosives and planted everything? But please answer the first question. WHY the goverment needs to bring down the buildings? I mean lets say hijackers would hit the buildings and 1500 would die insted of 3000. How would that in any way effect bush's goals of world domination?

lol, the picture capaneo just take a second look at my picture, Firemen, dust flying everywhere... do you think this picture was taken after the clean-up job? LOL

On August 13 2008 17:22 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 10:29 TheGuru wrote:   On August 13 2008 09:46 XeliN wrote: Kerosene (the fuel used in the jet planes) does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel, not even close That simple, undeniable fact (prove me wrong if you disagree) at the very worst, suggests that the portrayal of events by the US Government, Media e.t.c was not the exact reality of what happened and begs the question what did melt the steel? At worst George Bush got drunk and pressed the tewwowize button on his fisher price laptop, and when he woke up next morning, with dog breath and a headache, decided to cover up the whole thing. Just a thought, energy is also added by million of tons of building material falling down. I have no idea if it's enough to melt steel but it shouldn't be discarded. Loved the movie and it's seems very fishy, if a few americans lean to think objectively I guess it served it's purpose. omg did you even take physics 101 on highschool? a Tsunami has thousands of times more energy than the towers falling they it doesnt melt steel lol. energy =/= heat, momentum, inertia or acceleration does not randomly convert to heat melting steel what in the fuck...

I'm actually a mechanical engineer thnx for asking, and I didn't claim that this was the explanation, comparing to the Tsunami is not smart though. A Tsunami is water which is very good at leading away energy/heat, air is not. The Tsunami had a lot more total energy of course but also distributed over a much larger area.

Your last comment is really interesting, where exactly is the energy going if it doesn't transform to heat? I would claim the opposite, all energy from the "crash" would be converted to heat, if it is enough to melt steel I have no idea.

On August 14 2008 00:11 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 23:09 Baal wrote:   On August 13 2008 22:07 [vital]Myth wrote: k after reading thread i'm clearly not as "shocked" and "wowed" as before but few things cap i respect your opinions on the 9/11 part and am with you but can you provide citation or evidence that says the banking citations/quotes and the religious evidences are "just lies"? gna go back and see if i can research their facts now, but i mean did they really just completely make up all the facts they cited about the formation of the US federal reserve bank...? After watching the movie i did some research and i didnt find any matches on some of their claims, like claims of Horus being born from a virgin, or Mythra being bla bla bla, i couldnt find all the matches, however there is a huge resemblance in all the world's deities. Also a couple of innacurancies like saying HORUS is the god of Sun, and he isnt, the egyptian god of the sun is Ra (amun-ra). However imo its the least important part of the movie, its interesting in the way of all the matches but where is the importance in proving a random carpenter existed or not 2,000 years ago there is no possible way to prove it or to disprove it, but why even bother, its not relevant unless you are a catholic, and if you are a catholic that probably wont make u stop believe anyway. I also researched about the banking institution and i couldnt find a single inaccurancy, and the most scary of all is that before watching the movie i knew about IG Farben and American Oil Standard because my dad is like the sickest WW2 encyclopedia so i know a lot of it, i also verified that scary quote from Woodrow wilson admitting that he sold the country to a few dominant men. What you didnt find out is that Woodrow said those stuff in 1912! source Feds act was signed DEC 1913. So right there you should just get a copy of the movie and throw it down the toilet. Also on American Oil and IGfarben. When there is war there is STILL trade going on. So who cares if they were selling stuff to germany? Also on Vietnam war part. Are you telling me Rockfeller owned factories in COMUNIST soviet union in the middle of the cold war?? If thats not enough it came as a bonus that they happen to be weapons and military equipment factories?? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! The lies in this movie is just sooo clear that people fail to see it.

Are you serious? you dont see anything wrong with Rockefeller providing resources to Nazi Germany when they were in war against the united states?!?!?!?!?!?! that is ok with you?

I never claimed Rockefeller had factories in the soviet union, nor the movie does.... Rockefeller forms part of the Central bank and any kind of war forces the government to loan hundreds of thousands of billions from the Central Bank increasing the national debt (curently at over 3 TRILLION), making them even richier, when theres war, rockefeller and his buddies dance.

On August 14 2008 00:27 Baal wrote: lol, the picture capaneo just take a second look at my picture, Firemen, dust flying everywhere... do you think this picture was taken after the clean-up job? LOL

OK so there is zero dust over Mexico city at night since there is no car moving?
Dust of such events such as huge building colapsing stay on the site for weeks. But even that is not irrelevant? Im showing you a picture of fireman doing the same EXACT cutting at some point after the collapse and you are saying that the picture you have shown was right after the collapse because there are dust in the air? Its new york for Gods sake!??

Also who said there was molten steel in WTC site? BTW why are you avoiding my two main starting questions?

not sure if this was in the movie (watched it a long time a go), but wasnt there some talk about a passport from one of the suspected terrorist landing on the streetside in New York city?

also i would not want to play hide and seek with Osama cuz that muthafucka can hide...

On August 14 2008 00:11 capaneo wrote: What you didnt find out is that Woodrow said those stuff in 1912! source Feds act was signed DEC 1913. So right there you should just get a copy of the movie and throw it down the toilet.

And im going to reply this alone cuz it deserves it...

""We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men." Excerpt frpm 1912 campaign speech "

Woodrow Wilson promised to sign the act in exchange of economical support in his campaign obviously before he was elected, he realized the dimensions of what he had promised to do and said that a campaign speech, way after he agreed with them for their support (his campaign was already in motion and funded by the Federal Bankers).

On August 14 2008 00:30 TheGuru wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 17:22 Baal wrote:   On August 13 2008 10:29 TheGuru wrote:   On August 13 2008 09:46 XeliN wrote: Kerosene (the fuel used in the jet planes) does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel, not even close That simple, undeniable fact (prove me wrong if you disagree) at the very worst, suggests that the portrayal of events by the US Government, Media e.t.c was not the exact reality of what happened and begs the question what did melt the steel? At worst George Bush got drunk and pressed the tewwowize button on his fisher price laptop, and when he woke up next morning, with dog breath and a headache, decided to cover up the whole thing. Just a thought, energy is also added by million of tons of building material falling down. I have no idea if it's enough to melt steel but it shouldn't be discarded. Loved the movie and it's seems very fishy, if a few americans lean to think objectively I guess it served it's purpose. omg did you even take physics 101 on highschool? a Tsunami has thousands of times more energy than the towers falling they it doesnt melt steel lol. energy =/= heat, momentum, inertia or acceleration does not randomly convert to heat melting steel what in the fuck... I'm actually a mechanical engineer thnx for asking, and I didn't claim that this was the explanation, comparing to the Tsunami is not smart though. A Tsunami is water which is very good at leading away energy/heat, air is not. The Tsunami had a lot more total energy of course but also distributed over a much larger area. Your last comment is really interesting, where exactly is the energy going if it doesn't transform to heat? I would claim the opposite, all energy from the "crash" would be converted to heat, if it is enough to melt steel I have no idea.

Im also a mechanical engineer thx for not asking , concrete and steel impact and friction generate very little to no heat at all, it even wouldnt cause a simple fire if there were not fuels presents, let alone melt steel, when a steel beam is torn into pieces the broken tips will be hot but not even at 5% of their melting temperature.

On August 14 2008 00:42 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 14 2008 00:11 capaneo wrote:   On August 13 2008 23:09 Baal wrote:   On August 13 2008 22:07 [vital]Myth wrote: k after reading thread i'm clearly not as "shocked" and "wowed" as before but few things cap i respect your opinions on the 9/11 part and am with you but can you provide citation or evidence that says the banking citations/quotes and the religious evidences are "just lies"? gna go back and see if i can research their facts now, but i mean did they really just completely make up all the facts they cited about the formation of the US federal reserve bank...? After watching the movie i did some research and i didnt find any matches on some of their claims, like claims of Horus being born from a virgin, or Mythra being bla bla bla, i couldnt find all the matches, however there is a huge resemblance in all the world's deities. Also a couple of innacurancies like saying HORUS is the god of Sun, and he isnt, the egyptian god of the sun is Ra (amun-ra). However imo its the least important part of the movie, its interesting in the way of all the matches but where is the importance in proving a random carpenter existed or not 2,000 years ago there is no possible way to prove it or to disprove it, but why even bother, its not relevant unless you are a catholic, and if you are a catholic that probably wont make u stop believe anyway. I also researched about the banking institution and i couldnt find a single inaccurancy, and the most scary of all is that before watching the movie i knew about IG Farben and American Oil Standard because my dad is like the sickest WW2 encyclopedia so i know a lot of it, i also verified that scary quote from Woodrow wilson admitting that he sold the country to a few dominant men. What you didnt find out is that Woodrow said those stuff in 1912! source Feds act was signed DEC 1913. So right there you should just get a copy of the movie and throw it down the toilet. Also on American Oil and IGfarben. When there is war there is STILL trade going on. So who cares if they were selling stuff to germany? Also on Vietnam war part. Are you telling me Rockfeller owned factories in COMUNIST soviet union in the middle of the cold war?? If thats not enough it came as a bonus that they happen to be weapons and military equipment factories?? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! The lies in this movie is just sooo clear that people fail to see it. Are you serious? you dont see anything wrong with Rockefeller providing resources to Nazi Germany when they were in war against the united states?!?!?!?!?!?! that is ok with you? I never claimed Rockefeller had factories in the soviet union, nor the movie does.... Rockefeller forms part of the Central bank and any kind of war forces the government to loan hundreds of thousands of billions from the Central Bank increasing the national debt (curently at over 3 TRILLION), making them even richier, when theres war, rockefeller and his buddies dance.

"Rockefeller had factories in the soviet union, nor the movie does"
Go to 92min:10sec in the movie and you will hear it!

Feds is controled and monitored by both the Congress and the President. It was created as an indipendece so that the goverment wont be able to influence it.
Fed was created to establish a more stable economy in US. And it is doing its job very very nicely since it was created compare to before it was created.

Feds rebate its profit back to treasury from wiki
"All profit after expenses is returned to the U.S. Treasury or contributed to the surplus capital of the Federal Reserve Banks "

capaneo, I think you should watch some of the videos I posted a while back. I'll do my best to answer your questions from my memory of the videos, but you have to bear with me that I'm only going to spend about 15 minutes writing this post and can't go and find all the sources to back up what I say.

1. If the government was behind 9/11, why would they want the towers to COLLAPSE? Wouldn't smashing planes into the buildings have the exact same effect?

I think the answer to this lies with who benefits from 9/11. First you have to stop thinking about governments and nations being the chief people in power: They are not. It is in fact the people who have massive deposits in the central banks of America, and throughout Europe. These people, such as Rothschilds, Whalburgs (sp?), Morgans, etc.

Now, when you have 2 huge towers like that collapse, SOMEONE is going to profit when they have to rebuild those towers. I can't remember the name of the construction company who was given permission to begin rebuilding, they are mentioned in the movie "Ring of Power" which I linked in an earlier post. Imagine if once those towers were rebuilt, you knocked them down again? You'd basically have a cycle where the bank profits immensely when they get the interest back on the loans they make to the construction company, and the workers of the construction company basically become slaves to continually rebuilding these two stupid buildings because they need to work in order to earn a pittance of money to pay their mortgages on their house (who was also loaned to them by banks).

When you take a step back and look at how all of society is interlinked and how the bank is basically at the TOP of the chain no matter what, you realize how basically the banks control everything, even the government who they loan money to, because EVERYONE is in debt to the bank in some way or another.

The phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is quite interesting. It's true but a lot of people don't stop and think about why this is so. There are many ways of explaining this, one way is when you realize that only the bank knows how much money is in existence in the community. Let's say there's x amount of money in existence. The bank then prints some more money, say 0.5x. The people who are first recipients of this money possess the same buying power as if the total money in circulation was of x value, even though now it is 1.5x. As the money gradually circulates and gets filtered down lower and lower, from the government to the commissions to the managers to the workers, slowly people realize that the money in circulation has increased from x to 1.5x. To compensate this, inflation occurs to raise prices by 1.5 times to restore the status quo. But what has really happened here? The original recipients of the money had stronger buying power per dollar because prices hadn't rose yet. But when the money is circulated down to the menial laborers, inflation has occurred (who knows how long this takes, lets just guess at a 6 month lag) and the buying power of those same dollars has decreased.

You can then say "oh but then the pay rates of workers will all go up by 1.5x to restore the status quo entirely", but you know as well as I do that this system doesn't occur perfectly. If you have an uneven distribution of pay-rises, where bosses get 2x pay-rise and the menial workers get 1.25payrise, you immediately realize there has been an inequitable shift in who possess the true wealth. Another example is, just say everyone DOES eventually go to 1.5x pay rise, the timelag of this might be 1 YEAR from when the bank originally injected that money into the community. So for an entire 6months, those workers are struggling on a 1x wage when their buying power of the dollar has reduced by 0.66, and for that period of time they are 'poorer' than the original recipients of that money.

I know my explanations aren't entirely accurate, but I'm fairly sure if I sat down I could come up with a bunch of differential equations which explain these things in a more dynamic manner.

I have heard quotes from Woodrow Wilson when he was close to dying (again I can't remember my exact sources, I've been watching and reading so much during this past week) where he essentially says he feels he has ruined his country by giving the reserve bank the power to control the money.

I will watch "Ring of Power" again now, so I can accurately reference time points and names I refer to in this post, and I will edit this in due time so that I don't sound so vague.

On August 13 2008 04:00 Baal wrote: It is retarded to believe that the english monarchy is decendant from an imaginary cock sucking carpenter who lived over 2,000 years ago

wtf??? do u have a fkin clue what religion is? and btw i'm not a christian (but i used to be) but for fucks sake show some respect u fkin ignorant mexican bastard. die plz

another question - why would they bother with those planes, if demolition was enough to bring the building down?

On August 14 2008 02:42 SneakrFreakr wrote: another question - why would they bother with those planes, if demolition was enough to bring the building down?

Cause it was too obv. And also in america they love drama.

I belive Joker was behind this. As a matter of fact these sort of crap is well within Dark Knight plots.
Joker does it cause he is just one very bad dude.

but they could easily claim that bombs were planted by terrorists

oh and baal u say that one of the buildings was almost only governmental/cia or whatever. do u think cia agents are so retarted that they're not gonna realize that sth is going on? they wouldnt spot anything suspicious in such a complex undertaking? or maybe they thought: "ehh fuck it, why not, let's die so that bush can conquer the world"?

On August 14 2008 02:39 SneakrFreakr wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2008 04:00 Baal wrote: It is retarded to believe that the english monarchy is decendant from an imaginary cock sucking carpenter who lived over 2,000 years ago wtf??? do u have a fkin clue what religion is? and btw i'm not a christian (but i used to be) but for fucks sake show some respect u fkin ignorant mexican bastard. die plz

respect to peoples beliefs? nope sorry tolerance is just not in me, i think their beliefs are retarded so i say it out loud, i dont respect imaginary characters.

On August 14 2008 02:42 SneakrFreakr wrote: another question - why would they bother with those planes, if demolition was enough to bring the building down?

sight please READ THE TREAD, capaneo asked the same question not long ago.

Because it would be impossible for a terrorists to plan hundreds of demolition charges in the 3 buildings of the WTC and the pentagon withouth being noticed.

so how come bush's people werent noticed?

On August 14 2008 02:59 SneakrFreakr wrote: oh and baal u say that one of the buildings was almost only governmental/cia or whatever. do u think cia agents are so retarted that they're not gonna realize that sth is going on? they wouldnt spot anything suspicious in such a complex undertaking? or maybe they thought: "ehh fuck it, why not, let's die so that bush can conquer the world"?

the WTC 7 did infact have CIA, IRS and DoD offices, however most of it were other institutions like banks and insurance companies, also there werent any people in the WTC 7 afaik since it collapsed much much later than the twin towers and it was evacuated, not that there were many people in it anyway.

This is my 99% accurate word-for-word translation of what the narrator of "Ring of Power" says. She begins talking on this issue at about 23:00 into the video. Here is the link if you care to watch for yourself.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8250619454941053618

"An even bigger mystery is why WTC7 owned by Larry Silverstein collapsed, even though it had never been hit?"

"The 30 yo WTC has always been publicly owned and manage by the New York New Jersey Port Authority. That is until a jewish business man named Lewis Eisenberg (sp?) becamse the chariman. [he] is an active leader in Jewish Zionist organization. He personally oversaw negotiation that put the publicly owned WTC into private hands. Those private hands belong to two Jewish Zionist billionaires, named Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy (sp?), even though their bid was lower than other bids. Lowy served as a commander in the Israeli army, and Silverstein just happens to be the former chariman of the united Jewish Israel appeal. With Eisenbergs help, they landed the 99 year lease worth $8 billion for half price at $3.5 billion.

"During the moving renovations and secrutiy change overs, explosive could have easily been installed in the building without detection. Geroge W's brother Marvin Bush was not only the director of the WTC electronic security company, he was also the director of the world trade centers casualty and insurance company called Houston Casualty. That company terminated their insurance comapny for the WTC before 9/11 just in the nick of time. Another suspicious company occupied the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower. That company, called Zim Israel-American Shipping, suddenly broke their lease, paid a $50k penalty and moved out of the WTC only weeks before 9/11. ZIAS is owned by Zim Israel Navigation, which just happens to be owned by the government of Israel.

"If the new owners Silverstein and Lowy knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, why did they buy a 99 year lease for the doomed building? Because they could do the simple math. Silverstein bought the $3.5billion WTC with only a $15 million down-payment, which amounts to 0.1% of the total. He took out maximum terrorist insurance coverage only 6 weeks before the attack. The demolition of the WTC on 9/11 eliminated Silversteins cost for an $800 million facelift to update the aging 30yo building. As soon as the spanking new WTC is finally built and expanded to over 11million sq ft of rental space, Silverstein stands to pocket billions of dollars per month. In the meantime, US taxpayers are covering Silversteins' so-called losses. Then there are the big payouts from insurance policies with mega-terrorism insurance which Silverstein took out just weeks before 9/11. Silverstein is demanding a 200% payout by claiming payouts for two separate 9/11 attacks instead of 1.

"Silversteins insurance companies called "Swiss Re" and "Munich Re" are the same companies under investigation for advance knowledge of 9/11 and for profiting from 9/11 on the stockmarket. If silversetins insurance companies knew in advance about the attacks, why would the insure doomed buildings? Were these giant insurance companies hand-picked to keep a lid on their insurance investigation findings, and to ignore the evidence of 9/11 cover-ups? Silverstein has since bought out Frank Lowy, paid off investors in loan groups, put limits on victim compensation claims, and turned the publically owned WTC into the smelliest private real estate deal in American history.

George W bush threw up permanment roadblocks to stop an independant investigation of the 9/11 events. When the 9/11 senate commitee report was published, 27 pages that would have connected international banks to 9/11 were censored. On October 30th 2003, a CBC television documentary investigated the 10 year friendship between the Bush family, the Bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi royal family. That friendship includes illegal presidential campaign contributions, and partnerships in oil and weapons companies like the Carl Lyle group. Since 9/11, 2500 relatives of victims filed trillion dollar lawsuits against 7 international banks, against the Saudi friends of the Bush family, and against the US government for supression of information."

The proof of how stupid these theories are is lied within the theories itself.
1:Lets say these bankers manage to sneak in TONs of explosives and hudreds of meters of wires into the top security buildings in a such a short about of time
2: Lets say that NO one of the 100+ crew who handeled all these ever spoke out
3:Lets say that No security and other people ever realized what all these explosives doing in the middle of Manhatan
Lets say all that is true. Im not even arguing about these SMALL facts

Here is a question for you:
Why the had to make these buildings collapse in such a nice way and rise suspecios? Why they couldnt plant less explosives and make the buildings collapse sideway distroying more and hiding more evidence?



Here is a decent website. With math/photos/simulation and engineers opinions. Refrence to pappers published in scientific journals.
People who build that A-Bomb and people who build buildings they say it was possible for buildings to collapse.
Why WTC 7 collapsed?
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Make your choice who you wanna belive them or a bunch of college dropouts and people who are talking behind a camera?






Baal never answered my two key questions he did the first one on MSN but I would appriciate if anyone who think 911 was inside job answer them first

I think its stupid what you guys are doing. Pocerdoc said it best in his post about the "reality box" or whatever it was. People have a set of things they want to believe and if some of those things arent in that realm then fuck it..

Capaneo wont believe shit Baal is going to say so stop trying to answer each other questions and what not, and vice a versa, Baal wont believe anything cap. has to say. Different realms..

Those videos pokerdoc posted are powerful, I liked end game... That is some crazy stuff. Sheep will always be sheep...

On August 14 2008 12:46 Ja hunta wrote: I think its stupid what you guys are doing. Pocerdoc said it best in his post about the "reality box" or whatever it was. People have a set of things they want to believe and if some of those things arent in that realm then fuck it.. Capaneo wont believe shit Baal is going to say so stop trying to answer each other questions and what not, and vice a versa, Baal wont believe anything cap. has to say. Different realms.. Those videos pokerdoc posted are powerful, I liked end game... That is some crazy stuff. Sheep will always be sheep...

I belive everything that is sopported by facts, scientific approches and mathematical equations.
Some unknown bankers, destroyed evidence, cover ups, stolen tapes, confession with last breath, behind the curtain deals and out of focus and blurry pics and videos are the kind of stuff I dont belive and these are THE ONLY type of evidence they have.
If you are a banker and you talk about banks I take your world.
If you are an astronomer talking about stars I also take your words.
But if you are on internet forums or if you are talking on a movie and you bring up "facts" then you HAVE to support your words. With books and journals with page numbers.



There are conspiracies in the world. WaterGate/Iraq WMDs and rigged elections and stuff.
Saying that hijackers were sopported by some war profetiers in US IS acceptable. (no proof one way or the other)
But anything beyond that is not a matter of belief is a matter of being blind to evidence and being ignorant

just wanted to say thx for ur contributions everyone im reading everything just don't have any worthwile comments other than thx