Zeitgeist addendum - Page 4

The fact that there are people like Fraser so unable to empathize with human suffering, and lacking so many basic values really sends a shiver down my spine and makes me think mankind is just hopeless

On October 06 2008 05:07 Baal wrote: 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.

didnt read those posts before i posted this.

besides, everytime i see that woman i feel like mutilating some fat suit so this was the perfect opportunity to vent and at the same time contribute

point is, this is not only going on in africa, or any other 3rd word country for that matter, its going on ALL OVER THE PLACE, even in the worlds "richest" countries.

ow ye, also this isnt a fucking contest and you would be better of wasting your time on people who dissagree with you, this isnt a "baal vs world" thread

no matter that world unity is inevitable, the problem is that someone is going to have to foot the bill and surely none of you will pay for it

Baal why dont you agree with the solution to airplanes? I have no knowledge myself of the technology but if what they said about that magent train is true it should be applicable imo.

The only question is even if all commodities and products are free what about services? Like for example fire fighters or prostitutes, who would volunteer to that ?

On October 05 2008 19:05 Baal wrote: With technology enough we can create eveything in such abundance they do not need to be sold

didn't i just give an example of a desired object that u cant create in abundance?


i don't see how u can ever eliminate all of people's desires because they always desire exactly the thing that isn't abundant.. they'll always find something new they all want and will fight over

so inevitably you'll have to use the honour system.. do we really want that?


edit: wow i thought this thread was still on page 1, i apologise if this point was already made and answered

On October 06 2008 08:13 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On October 06 2008 05:07 Baal wrote: 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. didnt read those posts before i posted this. besides, everytime i see that woman i feel like mutilating some fat suit so this was the perfect opportunity to vent and at the same time contribute point is, this is not only going on in africa, or any other 3rd word country for that matter, its going on ALL OVER THE PLACE, even in the worlds "richest" countries. ow ye, also this isnt a fucking contest and you would be better of wasting your time on people who dissagree with you, this isnt a "baal vs world" thread

mostly people are ignorant, but not hopeless, if you can make at least one person think there is still hope :=)

On October 06 2008 03:10 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On October 06 2008 02:29 capaneo wrote:   On October 06 2008 01:07 Baal wrote:   On October 06 2008 01:00 capaneo wrote:   On October 05 2008 12:49 anon wrote:   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.

Are you retarded? Really? Go read some engineering text book. This is totally like Sarah Pallin and McCain comments. Im talking about the 707 comment in the movie. And when you realize how stupid and wrong you sound on that subject you immidiatly switch to WTC 7? lets talk about ONLY one thing here. So you agree that their 707 comment was %100 false and wrong? DID YOU REALIZE THAT?

Now lets destroy your ignorance step by step

oh fucking really? yes 100mph more on the planes done the job... oh wait....

Go read again and open a book and you realize that the speed difference is around 400mph. The difference is energy is 20times more. And yes it makes a big difference. In their calculation back when they made the buildings they didnt anticipate 20 airplane hitting the building at the same time. Thats the diffrence.

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.

Like I said before dont pull stuff out of your ass.
0: Show me a reliable source that confirms WTC7 fell at "free fall speed" and then we will talk about that

1: Yes something really fucking big DID hit the WTC7. it was one of the main columns of twin towers. Because twin towers didnt fall on itself like a controlled demolition as you might it did!

2: Fire fighters were called off the building on 911 because it was considered too dangerous and too late to try to save the building.

3:All the fire fighters at the site KNEW WTC7 is going to come down (you can search for its video on the web)because it looked like a disaster after the impact(column hitting the building) Specially considering the fire inside.

now what capaneo... how many miles per hour does debris has to fly to take down the WTC7... ROFL idiot....

Now lets just take this one and I show how you argue.

now what capaneo...

Here you are trying to pretend to others that its obv you have some point while yet again you failed to talk about anything factual

how many miles per hour does debris has to fly to take down the WTC7

Here you throw out the word "debris" trying to score some points by making others think nothing of a big mass hit the WTC7. You throw out "miles per hour" try to look a little scentific cause after all you are talking about a speed of some particle. You try to ask a question like it has no answer while as a matter of fact it DOES have an answer. If you do a little research you realize that ANYTHING going fast enough can take down a building. In the 911 story something of the mass of a major column hit WTC7. This is the kind of damage we are talking about.

This is NOT a major column of twin twors.

I would love to ask anyone who claims 911 was a controlled demolition to go and stay in a building like that for a few hours while there is fire at some floor.

In fact some buildings after 911 were demolished at the sight by pulling them with cables. cause it was considered too dangerous again to go inside them and plant explosive.

Also dont get me started on molten metal

Show me an acceptable source that confirms there was indeed molten metal(steel as you u said before) at the site. And then we will talk about that.

last thread nobody even fucking explained the beams, so if u want to talk about, go dig that thread.

1:YOU GO DIG THE PREV THREAD. I showed you in the last thread where the beam came from!

You remind me of Dr. Kent Hovind.

HERE is a lecture of him. Watch this and you will know what im talking about.

It's pointless, capaneo.

On October 06 2008 00:18 Baal wrote: In Mexico a politician just came in the news saying that the european eolic power plants are a huge failure and that they dont produce shit... yes go Mexican!, tell those hundreds of european scientists that the billions they spent were useless... go oil go oil!!! Oh the same guy also said Mexico is immune to the US depression, rofl mexico is the most dependant country of United States, and in less than 1 week the illegal workers stopped sending money to mexico in 20%... and to give u an idea, Mexico recieves more money from those transactions than from oil... yeah we are fucking immune bitches immune!!! BTW anon why on earth does that rings your bell?, ill give u a bigger bell mentioned in the movie. American deaths caused by terrorism per year: 68 Budget against terroristm (not counting war lol): 138 billion American deaths caused by coronary diseases per year: 450,000 Budget for research on heart diseases: 3 billion wat?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yea these numbers are shocking, but that's the numbers of one country, while to use power wind/sun/waves is refused by whole world, so i didn't really understand from that movie why. Maybe the info isn't that credible that these energy alternatives are effective.

It rings my bell, because these kind of enegergies could be alternatives to current energy supplies, which could change world drastically
I believe, that has more significants than U.S budget management

On October 06 2008 05:11 Baal wrote: The fact that there are people like Fraser so unable to empathize with human suffering, and lacking so many basic values really sends a shiver down my spine and makes me think mankind is just hopeless

rofl
baal u just made my day, nobodys ever said that to me before.

oops deleted accidentally..

I didnt ask you of exploitation was better than death, stop dodging the fucking question.

i said IS IS OK FOR ME TO DO THAT (the satarving woman example), answer, YES or NO, quite fucking simple and u havent.

Capaneo if you think a steel framed building collapses for that little damage you clearly have no idea whatsoever of structures (do you?), a steel framed building could take much more damage and it would still stand.

let me show you a few examples of remains of some steel framed buildings just to give you an idea how much punishment they can take:








Those are buildings built with less quality standards than the WTC7 were built, sustained atleast 5 times the damage WTC7 had, plus a building with that damage especially the latteral hole it has, it would never collapse in its own footprint, it would fall apart in pieces and fall from the weakened side.... moron.

On October 06 2008 12:58 anon wrote: Show nested quote + On October 06 2008 00:18 Baal wrote: In Mexico a politician just came in the news saying that the european eolic power plants are a huge failure and that they dont produce shit... yes go Mexican!, tell those hundreds of european scientists that the billions they spent were useless... go oil go oil!!! Oh the same guy also said Mexico is immune to the US depression, rofl mexico is the most dependant country of United States, and in less than 1 week the illegal workers stopped sending money to mexico in 20%... and to give u an idea, Mexico recieves more money from those transactions than from oil... yeah we are fucking immune bitches immune!!! BTW anon why on earth does that rings your bell?, ill give u a bigger bell mentioned in the movie. American deaths caused by terrorism per year: 68 Budget against terroristm (not counting war lol): 138 billion American deaths caused by coronary diseases per year: 450,000 Budget for research on heart diseases: 3 billion wat?!?!?!?!?!?!? Yea these numbers are shocking, but that's the numbers of one country, while to use power wind/sun/waves is refused by whole world, so i didn't really understand from that movie why. Maybe the info isn't that credible that these energy alternatives are effective. It rings my bell, because these kind of enegergies could be alternatives to current energy supplies, which could change world drastically I believe, that has more significants than U.S budget management

Europe is starting to invest seriously in eolic energy, this is Denmarks new eolic park:

The global renewable energies investment was € 79,603 millions (US$ 117,200 millions), about 41% more than 2006. The main clean energy investment was eolic energy, with € 16,838 millions (US$ 24,752 millions). Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMA) was the first investment region. The second place was solar photovoltaic energy with € 4,000 millions (US$ 5,880 millions), 82% more than 2006.

Apparently even mother fucking africa spends more money on alternate energy sources than USA.

On October 06 2008 16:07 Baal wrote: I didnt ask you of exploitation was better than death, stop dodging the fucking question. i said IS IS OK FOR ME TO DO THAT (the satarving woman example), answer, YES or NO, quite fucking simple and u havent.

u asked if it was exploitation, and i'm saying it is. as for whether or not its ok, i don't think thats a simple question at all, but I'll go with 'Yes' its ok.

Ok so its Ok for me to do that to the black woman, to make her work for the rest of her life for a loaf of bread and beans... jesus how can there be people like you in this world seriously die painfully.

On October 06 2008 17:09 Fraser wrote: Show nested quote + On October 06 2008 16:07 Baal wrote: I didnt ask you of exploitation was better than death, stop dodging the fucking question. i said IS IS OK FOR ME TO DO THAT (the satarving woman example), answer, YES or NO, quite fucking simple and u havent. u asked if it was exploitation, and i'm saying it is. as for whether or not its ok, i don't think thats a simple question at all, but I'll go with 'Yes' its ok.

sick

On October 06 2008 17:09 Fraser wrote: Show nested quote + On October 06 2008 16:07 Baal wrote: I didnt ask you of exploitation was better than death, stop dodging the fucking question. i said IS IS OK FOR ME TO DO THAT (the satarving woman example), answer, YES or NO, quite fucking simple and u havent. u asked if it was exploitation, and i'm saying it is. as for whether or not its ok, i don't think thats a simple question at all, but I'll go with 'Yes' its ok.

It is a simple question, and you failed, no toaster, no round two, cut to the fucking commercials.

hah, well it seems im not the only one who thinks you are scum :3



You know what is funny... when i were 16 i thought if i had a button to kill all the starving children who are unproductive and are a burden to society, i would have pushed it in a heart beat, and quite frankly i would have tought the same than you about exploitation... now i look back and fucking laugh at my childish stupidity.

So instead of scum, a more aproppiate term for you would be a simpleton. You are an immature fool with such a childish tought process you are unable to empathize to human suffering, i hope one day you get past this.