Zeitgeist addendum - Page 5

On October 06 2008 16:20 Baal wrote: 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.

Do YOU have any idea? what are your qualifications? Where are you getting these pic? HOW DA FUCK YOU ARE STILL SAYING RANDOM SHITS WITHOUT SOPPORT? DID YOU LEARN HOW TO QUOTE SOURCES? What do you mean its less standard? Where are these buildings. What were the standards on WTC7? Who da fuck do you think you are talking to? Im not some random guy you find on the streets that you can say random shit to and I agree. Either shut the fuck up or talk with showing evidence. posting a pic of a building on fire is NOT evidence. Are you really that stupid?

These buildings are in Brazil and Spain, i have credentials on mother fucking PHD in common sense and it seems u didnt even go to 101 course.

the WTC were built keeping in mind impacts from fucking planes, the brazilian building, which sustained a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger damage, was a fucking HOTEL built earlier than WTC7 and also it didnt even have steal beams like WTC7, it had had steel in the concrete (dont know how they call it in english), but not beams, so its structure was much weaker.


But just in case you missed it im going to post the picture again




Ok now.... are you fucking insane?!?!?!?! would you consider the WTC center damage over 20% of this kind of damage?!?!? also keep this in mind cocksucker a steel framed building has never collapsed because of fire, eat that... the damage caused in WTC7 was ridiculous, a building does not collapse because of that, not even close, and a building NEVER collapses at gravity speed on its footprint you dumbass.

Capaneo ur an asshole, and if u cant see anything wrong on that video of the building falling then u've never seen a physics book in ur life.

capaneo I have a simple question:

if the collapse of WT7 occurred due to the falling of a large pillar of one of the larger towers, wouldn't the collapse be instantaneous?

I mean, either the pillar should crash into WT7 and take the structure down, or WT7 manages to hold and then reach an equilibrium where the structure remaining is able to 'hold' up the debris that crashed into it.

For WT7 to collapse a certain period of time after the pillar crashed into it would imply there is a driving process occurring from the moment the pillar impacted to the moment the building collapses. This process cannot be explained by fire because no steel-framed structure has ever collapsed due to a fire in history. There is no jet-fuel to allow the fire to burn to high enough temperatures to weaken the steel frames (this very fact that jetfuel burns hot enough to cause enough weakening is debated with the collapse of the twin towers, but let's ignore it for now and just focus on WT7).

So what process (be it mechanical or chemical or whatever mechanism you wish to suggest)lead from the initial event of the debris crashing into the tower (which DIDN'T knock it down) to the event of the entire WT7 structure collapsing?

I liked this and the previous. Really opened my mind. But the same way happened with Marx and the actual world, this videos will do nothing but may be help the big emperors to be prepared to prevent a social revolt.

The goverments are so corrupted that sometimes they do something good to their country and cant give a good explanation to their nation becouse they are playing a dirty game that cant be exposed.

On October 06 2008 19:43 Forrest Gump wrote: I liked this and the previous. Really opened my mind. But the same way happened with Marx and the actual world, this videos will do nothing but may be help the big emperors to be prepared to prevent a social revolt.

Well dont underestimate the power of this, Zeitgeist could grow big enough to harm the banks given that they now give clary guidelines like retiring accounts from their banks, i mean we will not bring them down by one movie, but its a first step.... that step is awareness.

On October 06 2008 03:02 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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 23:25 Baal wrote:   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? Please reply this before saying anything else.

BAAL, Im pretty sure there are plenty of africans BEGGGGGING for you to go there and "exploit" them by opening a clothing factory and employing them for what you see as
a miserable salary. I'm pretty sure you have a big heart, and you love your fellow man... believe me, I do also, but sometimes THINKING is required in decision making.

Every free-trade must have both parts in agreement. If someone works for another, free for coertion, that person is inherently better off, or else he would just QUIT!
As long as the guy has an option to leave, its perfectly ok from a moral, economic, utilitarian, logical, or whatever other perspective you may have.... There are instances where
the guy forces people to work, like some places in asia where they kidnap girls and force them into prostitution, either by confiscating passports, drugging them up, using violence or inprisonment, etc. THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT from the mutually consensual sweatshop worker, or the Indian guy at a call-center that works for 2$ a day. These guys usually are the
main providers for their family, wich means they earn not only enough to feed themselves but also feed more people. But if you call that UNFAIR because they dont have acess to healthcare, vacations, etc. then you are just narrowminded who should learn to put themselves in the place of poor african fellow

On October 05 2008 12:49 anon wrote: Show nested quote + 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?

http://www.liquidpoker.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=535257 read capaneo's posts

basically all the beginning about religion is literally just completely made-up. it all comes from one book from a quack writer who made a bunch of random false claims about religious history, making parallels between christian stories and other religions. numerous scholars and historians have made sure to note that the book that fed the beginning of zeitgeist was just entirely untrue.

the 9/11 stuff was just crap also. there is simply no good evidence provided that would point to a controlled demolition, and major independent scientific investigations have concluded that the crashing of the planes into the towers is far more likely the explanation for the collapse of the buildings.

finally, it seems like the section in zeitgeist about the american economic situation and the power of banks is somewhat true and that some of the evidence in this section is verifiable. however, the opinion that criminal masterminds are at work to destroy the US dollar and to keep the american people stupid and uneducated is just plain paranoia.

do the research yourself, though. i spent several days researching the subjects covered in zeitgeist and i found very few of its claims to have any substance.

On October 06 2008 03:51 brambolius 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

BRAMBOLIUS, if you care about this old woman, why dont you help her out of your own pocket?? If you think she deserves to EAT and at the same time NOT PRODUCE, then surely the money most come from someone else who produces it. Wich comes down to 1) GIFT, 2) THEFT. You can give it, or someone else can give it to her. But if you FORCE someone to give it to her (Wellfare, job subsidy, any privilage whatsoever) then you are essentially using option #2. Because to take by force (taxes) what someone else produced to subsidize some old woman just because you think she deserves it makes you AND her both thieves.

THE FUNNY THING is that every comunist loves to preach how people should recieve this or that, but why complain and not DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? GO HELP THE WOMAN IF U WANT TO, you are free to do that.. but here's a thought exercise: If every industrialist/businessmen in the world quit their jobs and joined greenpeece/WHO/etc. and went to africa help nurture the needy, the world would become miserable and we would all be as poor as the guys in africa. DUCY??

On October 06 2008 19:42 PokerDoc88 wrote: capaneo I have a simple question: if the collapse of WT7 occurred due to the falling of a large pillar of one of the larger towers, wouldn't the collapse be instantaneous? I mean, either the pillar should crash into WT7 and take the structure down, or WT7 manages to hold and then reach an equilibrium where the structure remaining is able to 'hold' up the debris that crashed into it. For WT7 to collapse a certain period of time after the pillar crashed into it would imply there is a driving process occurring from the moment the pillar impacted to the moment the building collapses. This process cannot be explained by fire because no steel-framed structure has ever collapsed due to a fire in history. There is no jet-fuel to allow the fire to burn to high enough temperatures to weaken the steel frames (this very fact that jetfuel burns hot enough to cause enough weakening is debated with the collapse of the twin towers, but let's ignore it for now and just focus on WT7). So what process (be it mechanical or chemical or whatever mechanism you wish to suggest)lead from the initial event of the debris crashing into the tower (which DIDN'T knock it down) to the event of the entire WT7 structure collapsing?

Read this 40 pages and make sure you understand them and then if you still have question we will discuss.

On October 06 2008 19:14 Baal wrote: the WTC were built keeping in mind impacts from fucking planes No they werent the brazilian building, which sustained a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger damage, was a fucking HOTEL Why are you still talking out of your ass? What happened to them? built earlier than WTC7 and also it didnt even have steal beams like WTC7, it had had steel in the concrete (dont know how they call it in english),You are so ignorant on the issue that you dont even know that the steal rods in the concrete are for a totally diffrent reason there. A steel beam and a re-enforced concrete beam are two TOTALLY diffrent materials in almost EVERY way you look at them. but not beams, so its structure was much weaker. Again you are talking out of your ass. How da hell you know its weaker? What do you mean by weaker? As a matter of fact its not even weaker. GOD YOU ARE AS IGNORANT AS HELL Ok now.... are you fucking insane?!?!?!?! would you consider the WTC center damage over 20% of this kind of damage?!?!? The WTC 7 had some of its main columns REMOVED by the impact if you don't know why thats of important read This also keep this in mind cocksucker a steel framed building has never collapsed because of fire, eat that... the damage caused in WTC7 was ridiculous,Thanks for your opinion MR poker player? a building does not collapse because of that, Again you are still talking out of your ass without stating where you are getting your facts form? not even close, and a building NEVER collapses at gravity speed Do you even know WHAT exactly gravity speed is? And if yes HOW DA FUCK do you know it didnt fall at gravity speed?? Any sources you might wanna point out to? on its footprint Again you are being dumb as hell stating wrong facts out of your ass. How do you know it fell on its footprint? Do you have proof? Do you even know what the footprint is? How would a building like that collapse in case it collapses beucase of an impact and weakend structure? you dumbass.

Im sorry but YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT DA FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Im sure you think you know. But you have no fuckin idea about anything that you are talking about. Maybe you should go back to school?



And @ baal and many others.
Please guys get real. You guys talking about engineering and matters as such its like a 10nl player giving advice to 1000nl players. You saw Rounder and after that you've played some poker online and at ur local casino and now you think you are the best player in the world. in Reality you dont know shit and your ignorance is BEYOND arguing. I suggest you keep quite and read some REAL books and then come back maybe after a few years.

god you fucking moron...


(ur answers in bolded)
1.- the WTC were built keeping in mind impacts from fucking planes No they werent

YES THEY WERE YOU COCKSUCKING FAGGOT, they were designed to recieve the impact of a plane lost in the fog, regardless if u want to debate it was a plane at higher speeds im talking about the WorldTradeCenter 7.... which didn not even sustain an impact you moron.

2.- the brazilian building, which sustained a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger damage, was a fucking HOTEL Why are you still talking out of your ass? What happened to them?
Im not talking out of my ass you idiot, the brazilian hotel suffered a fire and it burned for if i remember correctly around 17 hours, look it up you cunt.

3.-and a building NEVER collapses at gravity speed Do you even know WHAT exactly gravity speed is? And if yes HOW DA FUCK do you know it didnt fall at gravity speed??
ROFL are you insane? yes i fucking know gravity acceleration... anyone who passed fucking highschool does (apparently you dont), its 9.8m/s, how do i know it fell at gravity acceleration? well just fucking count you idiot, simple math, and a building that is falling because of a structural failure at one spot would never fall at that speed, simple logic, it would be slowed down by the remaining columns that need to be crushed by the weight.

4.- Proof it fell on its footprint? what ?!?! what??!?! are you blind you fucking retarded iranian piece of shit?, the building is clearly falling in a vertical fashion, it also creates a dip in the middle which is a patter for demolition.



------------------

For the record, here is a video of a big blast happening below the impact, [b}nearly 100 floors down[/b], the previous explanations by retards was that aire moving rapidly caused these "puffs" in below floors... yeah, fucking compressed air blows an office 100 floors below the collapsing building... you realize that is impossibly by the laws of physics, air "trapped" by the collapsing building would exit at the closest possible floor, so if this even were to happen, it would blow the windows of the floor just below the one falling... not ignoring those floors and going out in one 100 below.








but anyway you are a moron and this is not the thread to discuss 9/11, as i said if u want to bring this up again, use the proper thread, in order to be fair u can reply to this 9/11 related post but thats it, 9/11 discussion over after that post

What exactly are your credentials capaneo? From what you have written so far, your opinions seem as equally worthless as everyone else's.

I think the most important question anyone can ask is why. what possibly ulterior motives could these people have.(both creators of zeitgiest movies or people behind 9/11, if it was in fact planned)
For 9/11 its a lot easier to see possible motives, and there is an alarming amount of conceivable evidence. More so then any other conspiracy ever construed. For instance, melting point of steel vs fuel max temp, where was norad, no steel building has ever collapsed from fire, people who saw it first hand, videos of collapse, gov confiscating vidoes at pentagon, video and damage at pentagon, thermite traces found after collapse, I mean the list goes on and on.

As for the zeitgiest video, the majority of it seems to be based on verifiable facts.(not that I have varified them) And its hard to imagine what their ulterior motives they could have... any ideas? I think they should have left religion out of it. People are far too attached to their faith, and attacking religion is no way to convince anyone to share your opinion. But almost everyone is against major corporations and massive greed/control.

I'm not saying I think 9/11 was planned, but I do believe it's a possibility. There is so much corruption, death, and immoral acts linked to large corporations and their greed, its entirely possible. And I'm not saying I believe Zeitgiest completely, but it sure sounds nice, and is quite informative.

This day and age what can we actually believe, the news is obvious very biased as 4 corporations own the vast majority if new outlets. Can you believe articles and books from PHD's/experts simply because they have PHD's and are experts... who knows what their motives are.

There are very few irrefutable facts.

On October 06 2008 20:47 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + 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? http://www.liquidpoker.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=535257 read capaneo's posts basically all the beginning about religion is literally just completely made-up. it all comes from one book from a quack writer who made a bunch of random false claims about religious history, making parallels between christian stories and other religions. numerous scholars and historians have made sure to note that the book that fed the beginning of zeitgeist was just entirely untrue. the 9/11 stuff was just crap also. there is simply no good evidence provided that would point to a controlled demolition, and major independent scientific investigations have concluded that the crashing of the planes into the towers is far more likely the explanation for the collapse of the buildings. finally, it seems like the section in zeitgeist about the american economic situation and the power of banks is somewhat true and that some of the evidence in this section is verifiable. however, the opinion that criminal masterminds are at work to destroy the US dollar and to keep the american people stupid and uneducated is just plain paranoia. do the research yourself, though. i spent several days researching the subjects covered in zeitgeist and i found very few of its claims to have any substance.

that is grossly exagerated myth, first of all part 1 is not "made up" as u said, ive researched about it, a lot and yes they make unfounded claims that i could not verify however many Gods share alike attributes, but i couldnt verify all of them.

There are manipulation of information in part 1 like for example, when they mention Dionisius turning water into wine... well he did that, but thats only because Dionisions was the fucking god of WINE, (and edonism in general), so thats no astrological relation, its just used for shock factor.

but saying its all made up is a gross exageration.

on your comments on part 2 im not going to talk about it for obvious reasons -.-.

Paranoia about bankers plotting? are you serious Myth, are you even aware that people like David Rockefeller gather in the Bilderberg group? he is even caught on tape, also many USA governors attent to these meetings with foreign representatives like Queen Beatrix, its illegal for obvious reasons to meet foreigner representatives for USA government members without previous notice.

Please watch from 1 to 6 :



now tell me we are just paranoid, i bet David Rockefeller and the leaders of the world meet in secrecy to play fucking ping-pong.

im glad more and more people aren't believing this paranoid propaganda, but its sad to see people throwing themselves into the conspiracy wall that is baal

i wouldnt bother myth, capaneo, etc

I have been in a few US-concentrated econ classes with different professors and every time theres a few retards in the room that try to bring up the fed stuff, etc and a few of the profs have literally laughed at all the retarded conspiracies that people come up with. Feel free to email your university econ professors and ask them their opinions on the issues, I highly doubt any of us are as qualified to answer these questions

On October 06 2008 21:59 Baal wrote: some stuff in response to me

the part about religion is irrelevant anyway so who cares about zeitgeist part 1

as for 9/11 i am not even REMOTELY convinced that the demolitions were controlled, but, that said, i am not really convinced that they weren't either. i went back and researched again today and didn't realize how unconvincing and likely biased the NIST report was as well. unfortunately, on the issue of 9/11, i actually don't think enough data is available to really do more than speculate.

and on the issue of conspiracy to undermine the good of the people - i'm not saying it isn't obvious that the powers-that-be are consciously plotting to continue their dominance, via whatever means necessary, over the people and through wealth. but i am saying that the way zeitgeist talked about it is wayyyyyyyy overdone, as if NOBODY with any amount of power is actually working for the betterment of humanity, but rather that EVERYONE with money or power is just tricking us into stupidity and slavery. which is paranoid.

furthermore, i really liked this addendum a lot more than the first movie. at least its discussions are substantiated, based on legitimate documentation, and primarily informative rather than opinionated

this one is very much worth watching even if you hated the first

On October 06 2008 23:28 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + On October 06 2008 21:59 Baal wrote: some stuff in response to me the part about religion is irrelevant anyway so who cares about zeitgeist part 1 as for 9/11 i am not even REMOTELY convinced that the demolitions were controlled, but, that said, i am not really convinced that they weren't either. i went back and researched again today and didn't realize how unconvincing and likely biased the NIST report was as well. unfortunately, on the issue of 9/11, i actually don't think enough data is available to really do more than speculate. and on the issue of conspiracy to undermine the good of the people - i'm not saying it isn't obvious that the powers-that-be are consciously plotting to continue their dominance, via whatever means necessary, over the people and through wealth. but i am saying that the way zeitgeist talked about it is wayyyyyyyy overdone, as if NOBODY with any amount of power is actually working for the betterment of humanity, but rather that EVERYONE with money or power is just tricking us into stupidity and slavery. which is paranoid.

Agreed, its meaningless to discuss part 1...

The problem at the same time good part of Zeitgeist is that it brushes of these subjects lightly, it cannot go in depth too much, for example a few months ago i saw a exposition in some american university (michigan? not sure), about the 9/11 demolition, the damn talk lasted for 2h 30min, its longer than entire Zeitgeist, and its obviously 10 times more convincing than Zeitgeist were about 9/11, there are also other sources about the Banking system that go much more in depth, however Zeitgeist is a movie to raise awareness, to make people realize and question things, to go and look up for information (as some of us have), otherwise it would be 20 hours long.

About every person tricking us into economic slavery well i dont think everybody, but if you watch those 6 videos i gave you, it will make you wonder, what in the fuck are the Morgans, Rockefellers, european Royalty, USA gobernors and senators (illegaly, betraying their nation) and prime ministers all around the world having secret meetings, its scary as fuck.

@ DaEm0niCuS
I dont HAVE any credentials AND THATS EXACTLY MY POINT! You see in my posts where ever I MADE A CLAIM or im trying to pass out facts I refered to someone else who has those credentials. And thats the whole point and thats EXACTLY what baals arguments are lacking. IM ONLY ASKING FOR BAALS CREDENTIALS OF HIS SOURCES. You dont need credentials when you are asking for sources of claims! And dont get me wrong. Im not trying to say that 911 WASNT an inside job. Im only trying to say that saying WTC was controled demolition BASED on represented facts(if there is any) is RETARDED and it IS WRONG. IM saying that planes hit the building and building collapse like they said it did for whatever reason they said it did. Im saying a plane did indeed hit Pentagon. But were people inside the planes motivated by USA or only BinLaden I dont know and I dont really care. But thats not what im saying. There ARE conspiracy in the world. LOTS of them Enron/WaterGate/Mossadegh coup deta/................... Maybe even the 911 hijackers were paid by US. But thats NOT what im talking about. As a matter of fact I kind of agree with that. Probably there was some US people who were invloved in this.




And @ baal. Im getting tired of this shit. either show sources with academic credentials or shut the fuck up please.

3.-and a building NEVER collapses at gravity speed Do you even know WHAT exactly gravity speed is? And if yes HOW DA FUCK do you know it didnt fall at gravity speed?? ROFL are you insane? yes i fucking know gravity acceleration... anyone who passed fucking highschool does (apparently you dont), its 9.8m/s, how do i know it fell at gravity acceleration? well just fucking count you idiot, simple math, and a building that is falling because of a structural failure at one spot would never fall at that speed, simple logic, it would be slowed down by the remaining columns that need to be crushed by the weight.

And if you really dont understand what Im talking about then i have nothing to say.

On October 06 2008 18:33 Baal wrote: 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.

lol funny cause when i was 16 i refused to buy anything made by Nike because of the same ideologies you hold.

If you all wanna hate because I think its ok to exploit someone's labour whilst feeding them when they would otherwise have starved... well i'd say thats an argument you're not gonna win.