On October 05 2008 18:32 ikc5 wrote:
I really liked part 1 of the original movie, just sort of a nice collection of facts that I'd personally known for a long time, but most people are shockingly unaware of. Parts 2 and 3 were kinda
Looking forward to watching this, thanks.
edit: I echo the sentiment, which parts of movie 1 did you guys think were ridiculous? If you're referring to part 1, you are a religious faggot and you should die immediately.
Well man, I am an atheist or at least agnostic, born and raised during communism, but I started laughing right when the pseudoastronomical explanations began and pretty much everything else was far stretched to a ridiculous, childish extent.
My work is of high quality, cheap and fast. Pick only two of those though.
1
EvilSky Czech Republic. Oct 06 2008 01:54. Posts 8918
On October 05 2008 18:32 ikc5 wrote:
I really liked part 1 of the original movie, just sort of a nice collection of facts that I'd personally known for a long time, but most people are shockingly unaware of. Parts 2 and 3 were kinda
Looking forward to watching this, thanks.
edit: I echo the sentiment, which parts of movie 1 did you guys think were ridiculous? If you're referring to part 1, you are a religious faggot and you should die immediately.
Well man, I am an atheist or at least agnostic, born and raised during communism, but I started laughing right when the pseudoastronomical explanations began and pretty much everything else was far stretched to a ridiculous, childish extent.
The theories may or may not be fully applicable and some may be too utopic and optimistic, but its a great way of thinking,it makes you question the system and believe there is a better way. And besides that the facts there are all true as far as I believe so its worth watching just for the value of knowing how the current society works.
On October 05 2008 11:15 rgfdxm wrote:
The first one was simply ridiculous nonsense, whoever was responsible has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.
what exact parts of the movie/statements are you talking about?
About almost every single part in the first movie you point out is TOTAL bullshit when you do a little research on the subject.(Try me and ask me of any part if u have doubt)
This movie (the first one) Is %1000 like the republican campaign in the 2008 election.
You take the truth(facts), you twist it around in a way that it becomes a big lie but only sharing some words with the original fact.
You make a big deal out of it.
You make some LOGICAL conclusions based on your WRONG facts.
You make MORE big deal out of the issue.
And finally feed it to the public who are either too stupid to realize you might be lying or they are too lazy to do research.
The public will smile and they will feel warm inside thinking "OMG, i know what really happened" while actually what happend is that they got feed %100 bullshit. Its just bullshit from wrong facts with a right logical conclusion at the end.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On October 05 2008 18:32 ikc5 wrote:
I really liked part 1 of the original movie, just sort of a nice collection of facts that I'd personally known for a long time, but most people are shockingly unaware of. Parts 2 and 3 were kinda
Looking forward to watching this, thanks.
edit: I echo the sentiment, which parts of movie 1 did you guys think were ridiculous? If you're referring to part 1, you are a religious faggot and you should die immediately.
Well man, I am an atheist or at least agnostic, born and raised during communism, but I started laughing right when the pseudoastronomical explanations began and pretty much everything else was far stretched to a ridiculous, childish extent.
who in the fuck cares about part 1, if imaginary beings come from ancient astrological observations or they are just random is absolutely meaningless, please debate the rest and be specific so i can torn you apart like a rag doll, especially the banking part cuz we already had a 9/11 discussion not long ago.
On October 05 2008 11:15 rgfdxm wrote:
The first one was simply ridiculous nonsense, whoever was responsible has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.
what exact parts of the movie/statements are you talking about?
About almost every single part in the first movie you point out is TOTAL bullshit when you do a little research on the subject.(Try me and ask me of any part if u have doubt)
This movie (the first one) Is %1000 like the republican campaign in the 2008 election.
You take the truth(facts), you twist it around in a way that it becomes a big lie but only sharing some words with the original fact.
You make a big deal out of it.
You make some LOGICAL conclusions based on your WRONG facts.
You make MORE big deal out of the issue.
And finally feed it to the public who are either too stupid to realize you might be lying or they are too lazy to do research.
The public will smile and they will feel warm inside thinking "OMG, i know what really happened" while actually what happend is that they got feed %100 bullshit. Its just bullshit from wrong facts with a right logical conclusion at the end.
for the third and last time, point out specifically which part are twisting truths, especifically from Part 2 and 3. (religion part is meaningless)
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
angryfishes Australia. Oct 06 2008 02:48. Posts 410
this is getting really good. ive watched both movies as well with an open mind. i dont have a particular stance cause i cant be bothered to do the research. the ideas presented are extremely interesting and controversal and am curious what is really true and what isn't. lets hear a good argument which does not descend into a flame war from both sides (like what happened to this topic in team liquid)
ive done extensive research about it, and their Religion part seems to be flawed to some point since many of their claims are not precise, for example, Horus is not the god of the sun, that is Ra, however the theory of astrological relation seems correct, Part 2 and 3 are much more solid and i couldnt find many holes there, except 1 quote from a person who has no relevance in the issue and a date thing, besides that nothing ive seen.
On October 05 2008 20:47 r3v wrote:
Oh, and if you think the Indian 10 year old child is FORCED to work at the NIKE sweatshop then you are very very alienated.
working there is better than starving dont u think?
You think its Ok for Nike to have 10yo indian kids working for them only because they do it willingly?!?!?
If i go to a starving mother with a newborn in africa and offer her a bowl of beans and a loaf of bread every day and that in exchange they have to work for me all day long in any tasks i give them, do you fucking think im a fucking philatropist or atleat a bussiness man? NO you fucktard, i should be shot to death for exploiting the situation of these people, i would be the worst kind of human being there is..... oh but im not forcing her.. and she might have died if i didnt feed her right?
The business person isn't a philanthropist, but at least hes feeding them. that must be more than the rest of the world is doing or her situation wouldn't exist, so don't blame that on business. from a utilitarian perspective what the business person is doing has moral value. Why should the business person have any more responsibility for improving this person's situation than anyone else?
r3v is right about the gold standard too.. (not sure if anyone is debating that point) but the fixed amount of gold in the world makes it impossible to expand the money supply which prevents the economy from growing
On October 05 2008 20:47 r3v wrote:
If 10% of the world population DIDNT own 90% of the wealth, i'd be way more shocked. The thing is, they should own MORE than 90%.
I'm pretty sure the top 1% of the population is responsible for the creation of 90-95% of total wealth. Just think about people who innovate not only in
technology but methodology..
On October 05 2008 11:15 rgfdxm wrote:
The first one was simply ridiculous nonsense, whoever was responsible has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.
what exact parts of the movie/statements are you talking about?
About almost every single part in the first movie you point out is TOTAL bullshit when you do a little research on the subject.(Try me and ask me of any part if u have doubt)
This movie (the first one) Is %1000 like the republican campaign in the 2008 election.
You take the truth(facts), you twist it around in a way that it becomes a big lie but only sharing some words with the original fact.
You make a big deal out of it.
You make some LOGICAL conclusions based on your WRONG facts.
You make MORE big deal out of the issue.
And finally feed it to the public who are either too stupid to realize you might be lying or they are too lazy to do research.
The public will smile and they will feel warm inside thinking "OMG, i know what really happened" while actually what happend is that they got feed %100 bullshit. Its just bullshit from wrong facts with a right logical conclusion at the end.
for the third and last time, point out specifically which part are twisting truths, especifically from Part 2 and 3. (religion part is meaningless)
You point out a SINGLE part in the movie and I will show you that its a lie.
Anything sourcing a NON-academic source is considered NOT reliable. You shouldnt quote anything from a conspiracy book/movie or "the conversation you heard on the bus"
Example1: one of Bin Laden family was meeting with George H W Bush. <-------Where is the source for this claim? How did the author got his hands on this source?
Example2: In the video of Bin Laden acknowledging the attacks he looked different <---- How in the world do you even dare to make conclusion on such a subjective issue? And are you trying to suggest that the CIA who staged this massive attack was not able to reconstruct a better fake bin laden? people in Holywood with one millions of CIA's resources are doing this on a daily basis with a very good quality but CIA couldn't make an ACCEPTABLE 5min movie?
Example3: the movie claims that The WTC was designed to stand the impact of a 707, so it should have not fall. <--------- Looking at the an article by Leslie E. Robertson in "The Bridge" (which IS an academic journal published by National Academy Engineering) Vol 32 Number1 Spring 2002 (The article is here )
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
landing speed of an aircraft is around 150mph or 67m/s
The 911 plane hit the towers at the crusing speed which is around 250m/s <---FEMA report page 31
now considering the weight diffrence(767 weight 180E3 Kg while 707 average weight is 120E3 Kg [source on wiki]) So by only these back of the envelope calculation u get that that (KE = .5*m*v^2) the plane that hit the WTC on sep had around 20x more kinetic energy than the so called estimated 707.
Note that im not even considering the after effect of fire and the angle of impact the shock of the 2nd impact and all the other stuff that happned.
These are simple examples of how you just take some words out of something and twist it around and build a whole bunch of BS on it. YES they estimated a 707 impact but that has nothing to do with what happened. Just because its a plane hitting a building doesnt mean they were designed for this.
Note that everything I said has sources next to it.
Before you argue I suggest this. Read some legitimate report/article. Pick up some engineering text book. If you still dont understand then post here.
And its not my job to debunk conspiracies. Its this movie's job to show reliable sources to prove its point.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On October 06 2008 02:18 Fraser wrote:
r3v has made most of the good points so far in this thread.
baal flying off the handle like that makes u look retarded
On October 05 2008 20:47 r3v wrote:
Oh, and if you think the Indian 10 year old child is FORCED to work at the NIKE sweatshop then you are very very alienated.
working there is better than starving dont u think?
You think its Ok for Nike to have 10yo indian kids working for them only because they do it willingly?!?!?
If i go to a starving mother with a newborn in africa and offer her a bowl of beans and a loaf of bread every day and that in exchange they have to work for me all day long in any tasks i give them, do you fucking think im a fucking philatropist or atleat a bussiness man? NO you fucktard, i should be shot to death for exploiting the situation of these people, i would be the worst kind of human being there is..... oh but im not forcing her.. and she might have died if i didnt feed her right?
The business person isn't a philanthropist, but at least hes feeding them. that must be more than the rest of the world is doing or her situation wouldn't exist, so don't blame that on business. from a utilitarian perspective what the business person is doing has moral value. Why should the business person have any more responsibility for improving this person's situation than anyone else?
Ok so if i do that, offer her a loaf of bread and a bowl of beans for her rest of her life an make her work for me that is absolutely OK with you; are you saying that is NOT exploitation?
On October 05 2008 11:15 rgfdxm wrote:
The first one was simply ridiculous nonsense, whoever was responsible has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.
what exact parts of the movie/statements are you talking about?
About almost every single part in the first movie you point out is TOTAL bullshit when you do a little research on the subject.(Try me and ask me of any part if u have doubt)
This movie (the first one) Is %1000 like the republican campaign in the 2008 election.
You take the truth(facts), you twist it around in a way that it becomes a big lie but only sharing some words with the original fact.
You make a big deal out of it.
You make some LOGICAL conclusions based on your WRONG facts.
You make MORE big deal out of the issue.
And finally feed it to the public who are either too stupid to realize you might be lying or they are too lazy to do research.
The public will smile and they will feel warm inside thinking "OMG, i know what really happened" while actually what happend is that they got feed %100 bullshit. Its just bullshit from wrong facts with a right logical conclusion at the end.
for the third and last time, point out specifically which part are twisting truths, especifically from Part 2 and 3. (religion part is meaningless)
You point out a SINGLE part in the movie and I will show you that its a lie.
Anything sourcing a NON-academic source is considered NOT reliable. You shouldnt quote anything from a conspiracy book/movie or "the conversation you heard on the bus"
Example1: one of Bin Laden family was meeting with George H W Bush. <-------Where is the source for this claim? How did the author got his hands on this source?
Example2: In the video of Bin Laden acknowledging the attacks he looked different <---- How in the world do you even dare to make conclusion on such a subjective issue? And are you trying to suggest that the CIA who staged this massive attack was not able to reconstruct a better fake bin laden? people in Holywood with one millions of CIA's resources are doing this on a daily basis with a very good quality but CIA couldn't make an ACCEPTABLE 5min movie?
Example3: the movie claims that The WTC was designed to stand the impact of a 707, so it should have not fall. <--------- Looking at the an article by Leslie E. Robertson in "The Bridge" (which IS an academic journal published by National Academy Engineering) Vol 32 Number1 Spring 2002 (The article is here )
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
landing speed of an aircraft is around 150mph or 67m/s
The 911 plane hit the towers at the crusing speed which is around 250m/s <---FEMA report page 31
now considering the weight diffrence(767 weight 180E3 Kg while 707 average weight is 120E3 Kg [source on wiki]) So by only these back of the envelope calculation u get that that (KE = .5*m*v^2) the plane that hit the WTC on sep had around 20x more kinetic energy than the so called estimated 707.
Note that im not even considering the after effect of fire and the angle of impact the shock of the 2nd impact and all the other stuff that happned.
These are simple examples of how you just take some words out of something and twist it around and build a whole bunch of BS on it. YES they estimated a 707 impact but that has nothing to do with what happened. Just because its a plane hitting a building doesnt mean they were designed for this.
Note that everything I said has sources next to it.
Before you argue I suggest this. Read some legitimate report/article. Pick up some engineering text book. If you still dont understand then post here.
And its not my job to debunk conspiracies. Its this movie's job to show reliable sources to prove its point.
oh fucking really? yes 100mph more on the planes done the job... oh wait....
Here is World Trade Center #7, which didnt recieve any impact of a plane, and it fell down at gravity acceleration speed in a implosive detonation way too.
now what capaneo... how many miles per hour does debris has to fly to take down the WTC7... ROFL idiot....
Also dont get me started on molten metal, but capaneo lets avoid a discussion about 9/11 again, last thread nobody even fucking explained the beams, so if u want to talk about, go dig that thread.
You said its bullshit, not that they werent providing anough sources for you to accept it as a truth, you claim BULLSHIT, which means you think u know the truth and its different, so please let me know this different truth you know.
Please let me know in what parts, they are lying in Part 3 (part 2 can be discussed in the 9/11 thread cuz it would just clutter this new thread with your stupid bullshit again)
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
PokerDoc88 Australia. Oct 06 2008 04:18. Posts 3527
but back on the 2nd movie i really liked that now they show the bright side there are only 2 things i dont like.
1.- when they get against planes, they board something so new way to lightly, if you are going to "attack" planes, something that hasnt been done before, do it properly or leave them alone, it will only leave a less credibility feel if u do that, so i didnt like that part.
2.- Well they claim that the economic model is designed to eventually collapse, but what happens if banking institutions just inject liquidity and in some way give people money back when this credit collape is about to happen, that would allow it to keep perpetually running.
I didn't actually know that people took this seriously. Are you guys sure that it's not just a big level?
Also, a little bit of topic, the Jesus-part reminds me of The Master and Margret when Satan is talking to some communists about Jesus and free will. You guys should read that book. It's funnier.
1
brambolius Netherlands. Oct 06 2008 04:51. Posts 1708
On October 05 2008 20:20 r3v wrote:
DONT WATCH THIS GARBAGE. Why is it that this communist propaganda stuff is all that people post in forums?
Why do people always want to think they are poor because someone is EXPLOITING them? Did Marxism suddenly become hip on the USA also?
Here in south america there are lots of populist guys badmouthing the "evil corporations" and the "IMF", and how it's so cruel to end peoples "welfare".
People always assume that they DESERVE things, like health, housing, food, etc. Where do these things come from? Goods dont exist in nature,
they are created by work. If someone recieves something without work, they recieved it from someone else. If consensual, its called a gift, if not, its called theft.
Usually people call this theft "welfare for the needy" and "taxes for the productive".
Read some books buys.
Also, if the current monetary system is flawed, what does the filmaker suggest, return to the gold standard? As if gold doesnt fluctuate in value by new findings of
gold ore, or lack of theroff. Ever heard of something called a deflationary spiral? People hoarding gold, or people digging for gold, creates zero "intrinsic value" for an
economy.
Also dont forget that we are living in the best times in history. Even some of the lowest income americans have access to goods and services that not even
a monarch would have access to a few hundred years ago.
Books to read:
The Machinery of Freedom - David Friedman
Human Action - Ludwig von Mises
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
also,
Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell
I am aware that certain libertarians advocate gold standard etc. but economic theory has moved beyond that and it's agreed that its problems would far outweigh benefits. Furthermore, if you are worried about inflation, buy gold bullion and make your own private gold standard, you have the liberty of doing that. Or simply buy stocks, wich on the long term are unaffected by rising prices since they companies can charge more. All the evil corporations are for sale (LMT, MO, NOC, HAL, XOM, etc) join the conspiracy!
thats all great, real great BUT
One of my best friends has a mother (no suprises there lol), she's over 50 years old, now this woman might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but she has a heart of pure gold.
This woman slaves away doing production work in factories day in day out for minimum wage , her body cant really take it but hey, she needs to put food on the table right?
In the meanwhile some lard-ass somewhere in his office is making a huge profit off of this frail old woman.
And im not from some "3rd world" country, hell no, im from the fucking netherlands, imagine what goes on in places like china, africa and yes, the united states.
if you dont see anything wrong with this picture then you are one coldblooded fucker, and no, that doesnt mean your cool, it means your an animal with a fucked up brain/body ratio
On October 06 2008 03:39 DustySwedeDude wrote:
I didn't actually know that people took this seriously. Are you guys sure that it's not just a big level?
On October 05 2008 20:20 r3v wrote:
DONT WATCH THIS GARBAGE. Why is it that this communist propaganda stuff is all that people post in forums?
Why do people always want to think they are poor because someone is EXPLOITING them? Did Marxism suddenly become hip on the USA also?
Here in south america there are lots of populist guys badmouthing the "evil corporations" and the "IMF", and how it's so cruel to end peoples "welfare".
People always assume that they DESERVE things, like health, housing, food, etc. Where do these things come from? Goods dont exist in nature,
they are created by work. If someone recieves something without work, they recieved it from someone else. If consensual, its called a gift, if not, its called theft.
Usually people call this theft "welfare for the needy" and "taxes for the productive".
Read some books buys.
Also, if the current monetary system is flawed, what does the filmaker suggest, return to the gold standard? As if gold doesnt fluctuate in value by new findings of
gold ore, or lack of theroff. Ever heard of something called a deflationary spiral? People hoarding gold, or people digging for gold, creates zero "intrinsic value" for an
economy.
Also dont forget that we are living in the best times in history. Even some of the lowest income americans have access to goods and services that not even
a monarch would have access to a few hundred years ago.
Books to read:
The Machinery of Freedom - David Friedman
Human Action - Ludwig von Mises
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
also,
Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell
I am aware that certain libertarians advocate gold standard etc. but economic theory has moved beyond that and it's agreed that its problems would far outweigh benefits. Furthermore, if you are worried about inflation, buy gold bullion and make your own private gold standard, you have the liberty of doing that. Or simply buy stocks, wich on the long term are unaffected by rising prices since they companies can charge more. All the evil corporations are for sale (LMT, MO, NOC, HAL, XOM, etc) join the conspiracy!
thats all great, real great BUT
One of my best friends has a mother (no suprises there lol), she's over 50 years old, now this woman might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but she has a heart of pure gold.
This woman slaves away doing production work in factories day in day out for minimum wage , her body cant really take it but hey, she needs to put food on the table right?
In the meanwhile some lard-ass somewhere in his office is making a huge profit off of this frail old woman.
And im not from some "3rd world" country, hell no, im from the fucking netherlands, imagine what goes on in places like china, africa and yes, the united states.
if you dont see anything wrong with this picture then you are one coldblooded fucker, and no, that doesnt mean your cool, it means your an animal with a fucked up brain/body ratio
You just watered down my african mother example dude, now people will reply to your example which is 100 time easier to debate than mine -_-,
This guy just said that its ok for me to offer a bowl of beans every day to a starving woman and i can make her work all day long if i want to, after all its her choice and she would be dead if i didnt do that.
Contact Users: 580 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 10:25
Czech Republic. Oct 06 2008 01:54. Posts 8918
,
,
,
,