Zeitgeist addendum

Another Zeitgeist movie has been released, titled 'Zeitgeist Addendum'.

I just finished watching it, and must say I like it more than the first part. It has more useful information and less conspiracy stuff involved. Also, rather than just point the finger it offers quite a few intriguing solutions to many of the worlds problems today.

Watch it here

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

What an awesome movie, this actually gives me some hope for the future, even if the solutions arent perfect the philosophy is 100%.
I only wish this movie could be shown and taught in schools all over the world.

saw the first one too. very interesting and alarming too. i felt the second hour of the show was draggy tho

read abit about the resource based economy they are talking about. this concept is really intriguing.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

a very advanced and mature way of living but it goes against the cores of human nature i dont see how this ever gets established unless someone with a great amount of power and wealth shares this way of thinking

you can't make everything abundant that people want... i can't believe they claimed "prisons wouldn't be needed" lol


what if i wanted some woman and simply took what i wanted? this society would just say "ok go ahead" ? ... Or are they going to make desirable women abundant by the use of technology? good luck


i like the idea of making clean energy so abundant that theres no longer any need to sell it though

very intersting

The first one was so insultingly stupid that it tilted me for days, I am almost afraid to watch this one

the popes hat is a fish DUH!

The first one was simply ridiculous nonsense, whoever was responsible has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.

good watch

liked both parts a lot, thansk for the link

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?

Is there downloadable copies of either film?

edit- T_T http://zeitgeistmovie.com/dloads.htm

i thought the ending was funny with how to help

oh and also the very end with people finally understanding and losing their religion and stopping what they are doing was just super lolz

It was very interesting! At about min 43 it home when they discussed Jamaica because earlier this week Nolan sent me a video about exactly what was discussed (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=Life%20and%20Debt%20documentary&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#).

I think the venus project part may be far fetched but I think it promotes the right ideas. The end was out there, not sure if people are just gonna wake up and switch banks and all that, but once again promoting the right ideas.

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.

yes please... enlighten us with what parts are ridiculous nonsense -_-

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.

On October 05 2008 08:46 Jelle wrote: you can't make everything abundant that people want... i can't believe they claimed "prisons wouldn't be needed" lol what if i wanted some woman and simply took what i wanted? this society would just say "ok go ahead" ? ... Or are they going to make desirable women abundant by the use of technology? good luck i like the idea of making clean energy so abundant that theres no longer any need to sell it though

wat? yes you can, that is the inevitable future of mankind, its only matter of time, it doesnt matter if it takes several hundreds, technology will surpass out outdated society structure.


You simply dont get how an utopic society would work, there are hippy societies that do not work based on a monetary system, they take what they want and what they need, and they live their life that ways, however to do that you need a high quality of humans to beging with, because many rotten apples cause chaos in such a weak small hippy community.

With technology enough we can create eveything in such abundance they do not need to be sold they simply cant be taken, however society is against change, all history it has been that way, religion created the obscurantism age that lasted a thousand years withouth a single technolgy advancement... but it only slows down the inevitable.

utopia cannot exist unless every member of society becomes agreeable to what is

Is globalization/world unity inevitable? I think not. As centuries pass by it will be rare to find anyone that is not of mixed racial descent. The strongest idealogy will eventually find a successful way to dominate and eliminate any other ideologies and people will know of nothing except whatever is socially programmed into them. Like all things manmade, this one ideology will have its flaws and collapse.

This is how the world will end!

On October 05 2008 18:32 ikc5 wrote: 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.

yeah bro kill em all keep that closed mind

lol

On October 05 2008 19:14 vegable wrote: utopia cannot exist unless every member of society becomes agreeable to what is Is globalization/world unity inevitable? I think not. As centuries pass by it will be rare to find anyone that is not of mixed racial descent. The strongest idealogy will eventually find a successful way to dominate and eliminate any other ideologies and people will know of nothing except whatever is socially programmed into them. Like all things manmade, this one ideology will have its flaws and collapse. This is how the world will end!

No, society will surpass "bad apples", in a faint utopia, like the hippy communities i mentioned, a couple of people who take advantage of the system can jeopardize its stability, however if society grows to certain extent, those will be absorbed, for example, somebody gets greedy in some way, what is he going to do... take 5 cars for himself???, overeat like crazy???, what can he possibly do when everything is free... there is no motivation for stealing or any malevolent act, but mental illness, like for example a serial killer, in which case he would be sent to a mental institution, not jail.

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!

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

we are able to live better than an ancient monarch because of technology not economy or politics you retarded dumbfuck, if you have seen the movie you would realize that its exactly what they purpose actually, its focusing in technology and technology alone, not on economics and politics.

Also if you dont believe big corporations outsourcing employment in sweatshops in fucking india is not exploitation you are a moron, 10% of the world population owns 90% of the wealth, does that ring any fucking bell to you?.

Atleast have the fucking decency to watch the movie before posting your retardation in the thread, why in the fuck did u even mention gold, they dont mention it a single time in the movie, they aim for oversupply coming from technology rendering a monetary system useless.

you're making this point with the assumption that people will not take more than they need, when in fact that is the exact opposite of human nature. This is what precisely separates us from the "other animals" that live to fulfill their basic functions and then die off after making some type of contribution to the natural order. Humans have the added ability to reason, scheme, plan, articulate, etc. to ensure their own survival (regardless of personal motivation to hoard anything). To say that a hippy colony will become the shining beacon of hope for all mankind to adore and model itself after would mean that humans have lost the option to use reason.

Don't get me wrong, I fucking hate hippies. All it would take to topple the organization is for someone to follow through a selfish thought with action. From an evolutionary standpoint, going back to barter mode would be historical suicide.

I'm basing these thoughts on some philosopher that argued reason separated us from animals. I think it was Aristotle

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..

It's like the POKER universe, some people are born with the gift, and 99% are losing players...
Scientists/geniouses/leaders/innovators/etc. produce virtually everything the mob consumes, and welfare exists so that these people wont steal it all.

I think the single most important invention for society is the birth control pill. Imagine if the poor continued having 8 children each like in the 50's all around
the world.

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?

Equality is an utopia, people are born vastly unequal with vastly unequal skills and productivity capacity. Why they whould have similar wealth if they produce so differently?
I've never seen a hippie that produced something.. and these movies like Zeitgeist, michael moore shit, the corporation, and neo-hippie-communist bullshit piss me off.

oh, and please dont vote for BARACK! he will bloat up government in the US and china will take over on 20 years..

Mccain's proposals are very much like Margaret Thacher, Ronald reagan did to the world in the 80's wich made americas and britains superstrong economy of today.
Be more rational and less romantic/sentimental. Vote with your brains

r3v allow me a few moments to carefully tear you apart

Good stuff. Another nice little eye opener is Howard Zinn's, The People's History of the United States

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..

Much of what this top 1% of the population create is inherently biased to survive in our current monetary system. Do you think the scientists and researchers sitting in their labs are free to research and do whatever it is they fancy? Of course not. They need the funding to purchase the tools and pay the people they will use to conduct their research. To get this funding, they have to show that whatever it is they are trying to invent can be sold FOR PROFIT. If I have a fantastic idea to create a machine that can fabricate food out of thin air, yet I require $100 billion dollars of backing to fund my research, who on earth is going to pledge to me $100 billion when there is no inherent profit in creating such a machine? Oh I know, we'll get the money from a giant corporation, who will then claim ownership of the machine and use it to create food at 0 cost to them, and still sell it for $$$ to the masses.

Who on earth has $100 billion to give to me to fund my research in ways in which to harness geothermal energy? Oh I know, the only people with such large sums of money are giant corporations such as the oil companies. Why would they pay that much money when they can just say 'piss off' and continue selling fossil fuels?

The disgusting thing with the monetary system is that no matter how altruistic your intentions are, you still need to do what you must to survive. To survive in such a system, you need to generate money to pay for your food, shelter, and energy. I'm studying to become a doctor and I can tell you, even though I wish to help people, there is no way in hell I'd work for free in order to heal the sick, because in doing so I'd not survive in this world myself. If basic things like food, shelter, and energy could be provided to everyone at zero cost (which with technology becomes more and more possible) then finally I'd be free to do what I want with my time, I could help others freely without worrying that when I come home there won't be a meal on my table to feed myself.

It's like the POKER universe, some people are born with the gift, and 99% are losing players... Scientists/geniouses/leaders/innovators/etc. produce virtually everything the mob consumes, and welfare exists so that these people wont steal it all.

You are seriously happy with the world being like the poker universe? The people running the tables (ie. Pokerstars) are like an empire, and you are all slaves working for them. The top % of winning players manage to grind out a profit, the vast majority of people lose and are perpetually feeding the poker economy as 'slaves', yet the entire time the empire makes guaranteed profit, so long as the game continues to be played.

I think the single most important invention for society is the birth control pill. Imagine if the poor continued having 8 children each like in the 50's all around the world.

Tell that to Africa.

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?

I'd say if presented with the option of working for 50cents a day or starving, I'm basically being FORCED to choose 50 cents, because the choice of starvation is not a choice at all.

On October 05 2008 20:57 r3v wrote: Equality is an utopia, people are born vastly unequal with vastly unequal skills and productivity capacity. Why they whould have similar wealth if they produce so differently?

This is true to a certain extent, but the current monetary system vastly exaggerates this difference far more than natural differences does. Are you seriously trying to tell me that we are evolutionarily vastly superior to the sweatshop workers? Of course we fucking aren't. We can easily pick up some fabrics and stitch them together. But why should we? Our current money system keeps them as 'slaves' for us, so we don't have to do such menial labor.

I've never seen a hippie that produced something.. and these movies like Zeitgeist, michael moore shit, the corporation, and neo-hippie-communist bullshit piss me off.

Define hippie. I'd say I share many qualities of a hippie, I like helping others, I care about the environment, and I'd like world peace. I don't dress like one and I don't spend my time smoking pot, but these are all pathetic social stereotypes of what a hippie is, built by arrogant, selfish, egotistical assholes to separate 'us' from 'them'. Are you saying I am incapable of producing anything worthwhile? GTFO.

oh, and please dont vote for BARACK! he will bloat up government in the US and china will take over on 20 years..

Politics is irrelevant and delivers us nothing, because the system is so inherently corrupted and tied in with big business.

Mccain's proposals are very much like Margaret Thacher, Ronald reagan did to the world in the 80's wich made americas and britains superstrong economy of today.

Oh, the superstrong economy which is now entering recession? The superstrong consumerist economy whose eventual doom is built into its very mechanism of function?

Be more rational and less romantic/sentimental. Vote with your brains

Rationality =/= selfishness or greed.

Actually damn this was pretty bad, the whole section on how money is created was just absurd and I barely managed to make it beyond then.

I was impressed when it got to around 1 hour 5 minutes, picked up there a bit.

On October 05 2008 19:16 bane wrote: Show nested quote + On October 05 2008 18:32 ikc5 wrote: 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. yeah bro kill em all keep that closed mind

alright, yeah, my comment was pretty retarded. Still, I thought part 1 was very well researched and drew from multiple sources and put only a moderate amount of a slant on the information. But I guess even given all that people are impossible to convince and it's pretty useless and boring to try to open their eyes.

On October 05 2008 19:18 PokerDoc88 wrote: lol

I'm not sure how this is relevant, but it was definitely funny.

i went from liking baal, to hating baal, to loving baal, to being pretty sure i hate baal again

then because of all that

i now forever love baal

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?

oh you cocksucking ignorant piece of shit seriously, how can somebody be so fucking stupid.

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?

edited to remove a few "FUCK YOU"

On October 05 2008 23:19 nolan wrote: i went from liking baal, to hating baal, to loving baal, to being pretty sure i hate baal again then because of all that i now forever love baal

as long as u are not indifferent im cool with it

yea that's the first time i am on Baal's side and i also think that the guy is "cocksucking ignorant piece of shit"

I was watching that movie quite tired, gonna watch it again. But i don't really understand why goverments do not start using solar, wind etc energies? what stops them from that? corporations? lack of money or w/e ?
As it was said 3 states could produce enough wind energy to supply the rest 47...

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?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I love this forum.

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.

On October 06 2008 00:39 Breeze wrote: Show nested quote + 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 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?

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.

On October 06 2008 00:39 Breeze wrote: Show nested quote + 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 06 2008 01:00 capaneo 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? 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)

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.

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: Show nested quote + 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..

this part tho is obviously bullshit

On October 06 2008 01:07 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

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 Show nested quote + 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.

On October 06 2008 02:29 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

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)

can we discuss the 2nd zeitgeist movie plz -.-

Im trying to but capaneo is being a moron as usual :<

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.

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?

wat?

On October 06 2008 03:51 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

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.

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.

if you want to argue that the richer people of the world have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate more than they currently do, then I'm on your side, but if you're going to argue that employing and thereby feeding someone, albeit with a tiny wage, is immoral, in comparison with the general standard of providing no help at all, then mexican drugs are clearly stronger than canadian ones.

Im not gong to win? what do you say if we bet 1k more people are with me than with your idea.

Unless with "you wont win" you mean "you wont convince me" which well, i never expected to, retards can only go so far.

It's not meaningless to discuss part one - it shows the cheap lies and manipulations the moviemaker uses all the way. In my opinion it is obvious he KNOWS he is lieing and twisting facts, and he doesn't care, he just wants to deliver some outrageous claims so that his insignificant boring movie gets discussed way more than it deserves.

"Unless with "you wont win" you mean "you wont convince me" which well, i never expected to" - that's exactly why there's no point to waste too much energy over this crappy discussion

On October 07 2008 00:14 capaneo wrote: 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.

Yes im pretty sure a plane hit the pentagon.

i dont think even a moron like capaneo think that the pentagon was hit by a plane....

they tied a paper airplane onto the missle they shot into the pentagon.

therefore, a plane DID hit the pentagon

On October 06 2008 21:01 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

Cap I don't see any links to 40 page article here? Or am I blindly missing something here?

On October 06 2008 20:51 r3v wrote: Show nested quote + 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??

first of all, i do help her out when i can.

now about your view on things,

you are thinking like an animal, not a human being. there is nothing more i can do or type over the internet to make myself more clear.

ow and btw: "poor as the guys in africa" ..........

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THE STATE THEY ARE IN???? ARE YOU A FUCKING RETARD???
HAVE YOU EVEN STUDIED HISTORY? DO YOU EVEN KNOW ANYTHING BESIDES NUMBER AND ECONOMIC TRAPS??
THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG WITH AFRICA IF WE HAD JUST LEFT IT THE FUCK ALONE. INSTEAD WE RAPED IT, ARE RAPING IT, AND KILLING ITS POPULATION BY FORCING A NEW WAY OF GOVERNING ONTO THEM. SERIOUSLY HOW CAN YOU BE SO FUCKING THICK.

WE MADE AFRICA THE WAY IT IS, AND NOW YOU WANT TO POINT THE FINGER AND SAY "OMFG LOOK AT THEM THEY R SO POOR THEY FAIL SO HARD"

THEY R POOR BECOUSE WE R RICH. JEZUS FUCK.
/rant

plz ignore all the swearing, its just there to get your attention lol

EDIT: and before any of you ppl start asking "Why dont you do anything then?"


don't make urself look like a retarded monkey and dont ask that question.

On October 07 2008 03:18 PokerDoc88 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 06 2008 21:01 capaneo wrote:   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. Cap I don't see any links to 40 page article here? Or am I blindly missing something here?

lol
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
sorry about that

On October 07 2008 00:55 Guillaume wrote: Show nested quote + On October 07 2008 00:14 capaneo wrote: 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. Yes, im prety sure a plane hit the Pentangon.

OMG. So thats your solid proof? Are you realizing how stupid u sound?

What is the plane in that pic?
Is that building really Pentagon?
Who said plane hit the building in that angle?
Im not going to talk about this. But really. You guys need to get a clue of how to properly quote sources and make arguments. Just because you post a pic that has ZERO support and credential behind it doesnt mean you are making any sense.

1.- Its a Boeing 757
2.- yes the collapsed part is a very well known picture of the pentagon attack

Why do you fucking question ridiculous stuff Capaneo... seriously... "is that a picture of the pentagon" oh fucking god, you imbecile, ofcourse it is you idiot... fucking common sense, if not just google it dammnit and see 29387492384 pictures of that collapsed pentagon part.

The pentagon, one of the buildings with more surveillance cameras in the planet released a total of 2 fucking videos non of them shows the plane crashing.

In matter of fact the videos seem to be missing frames to make it difficult to identify the object, in the next video you can see how the videos get out of sync, due to removed frames.




btw if you seriously this this is all the video material the Pentagon can provide, you are more stupid than i thought, and i actually consider you one of the biggest idiots i know, and im serious.

ROFL the re-syncronize at 29, with that misterious "glare". hahaha so pathetic editing.

God... how did Capaneo fucking dragged this thread so low...

I thought even the most radical rednecks were aware that the Pentagon thing was total BS, it seems now.... what are you going to drag this discussion now Capaneo, creationism now?

Capaneo, why don't YOU provide some solid proof of how we are oh so wrong?

you are not discussing, you are trolling.

the sad thing is you are probably not even doing it on purpose...

the people who pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world can't edit a video correctly?

if they crashed two planes in to the WTC why would they lie about crashing a plane in to the pentagon?

i mean it may be true, but the "evidence" is laughable

Yugless dont bother using logic, like why knock down two towers? Involve double the people(make it so much more likely that people "come out" to the press, etc), double the risk, and we easily go to war for 1 tower

On October 07 2008 00:14 capaneo wrote: Is that building really Pentagon?

Are u serious? are u THAT dumb?

Is this pic REAL enough for u stupid ass? I cant believe ur that retard.