Zeitgeist movie/documentry - Page 2

On November 22 2010 17:28 auffenpuffer wrote: To continue what genjix started on the topic of "what is to be done?"

all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point.

On November 22 2010 16:43 Baal wrote: religion is BS...and a lot of it is based on pagan rituals

100% right imo

christs existence cannot be historically proven

by that logic neither can alexander the great, siddhartha gautama, socretes, plato, zeno,Hippocrates, or any other ancient person...it's pointless to argue it

9/11 was an obvious demolition job

that's complete bullshit

Federal Reserve is indeed fucking evil and is getting richer and richer every day

meh probably true

9/11 was def a demolition job there is no doubt about it. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to bring a massive skyscraper to the ground at free fall speed. In fact it burns at its HOTTEST EVER around 1800ish degree's Fahrenheit. Steel burns at 2750 degrees. Also building 7 came down at freefall speed exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by an airplane it simply had a fire inside. No steel structure has ever came down at free fall speed due to a simple fire. It is absolutely impossible.

On November 22 2010 17:51 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On November 22 2010 17:28 auffenpuffer wrote: To continue what genjix started on the topic of "what is to be done?" all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point.

anarchy is extremely violent just look at somalia...humans are a violent species, if left w/o a gov't we will commit large amounts of violence and inevitably form into separate groups of violent thugs to provide us with protection from other groups...this system might end up better for us then the current gov't system which is debateable...but to say violence and anarchy arn't related is wrong when you look at human nature.

laws not enforced at gunpoint...child support, divorce agreements, tax evasion, speeding, running a red light, no glass in public parks, no drinking if under the age of 21, no drunk driving, etc etc etc....often these lead to resisting arrest which is enforced through force/gunpoint (what other way is there to get someone to stop resisting arrest)

On November 22 2010 18:10 Xervean wrote: 9/11 was def a demolition job there is no doubt about it. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to bring a massive skyscraper to the ground at free fall speed. In fact it burns at its HOTTEST EVER around 1800ish degree's Fahrenheit. Steel burns at 2750 degrees. Also building 7 came down at freefall speed exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by an airplane it simply had a fire inside. No steel structure has ever came down at free fall speed due to a simple fire. It is absolutely impossible.

says the person w/ no structural engineering experience (i assume)...the vast majority of engineers who have analyzed the world trade center bombings believe that it was not caused by a controlled demolition...plus even if ur going to try and claim that it was a conspiracy in order to get the war on terror started etc a controlled demolition is the most out of the way retarded thing to do...i tend to hold if someone pulls off a conspiracy theory successfully they have put a lot of thought into it, so which is more believable

1. evil person/group in the gov't decides to start the war on terror. Without anyone knowing they aquire the funds and people (easily for them) to demolish the world trade centers. They then somehow sneak in thousands of pounds of explosive into the world trade centers weeks in advance and put it in place. This requires not only strategic placement on support beams which are a bitch to get to, but it also requires drilling into the support beams and making the structure no longer safe. So they somehow drill into massive support beams in an office filled with thousands to tens of thousands of people without anyone hearing anything? Really? OK well lets assume everyones def. They then make sure that Bush disregards the memo's from the CIA saying bin laden is going to attack the twin towers (easy enough). Once the towers are attacked they wait 56 minutes after the first impact and 102 minutes after the 2nd impact to detonate the explosives. They also somehow manage to get the explosives to start on the exact floor the planes hit since it is clear that both towards started collapsing from the floors of impact and not from the bottom as is the way every other controlled demolition is done. The evil group pulls all this off and pays off or kills the thousands/tens of thousands of people who would need to be silenced for this conspiracy to work.


2. Evil group wants the war on terror to start. They make sure Bush doesn't take the Bin Laden CIA report very seriously which allows for the attacks to take place.

I mean it's not like the towers needed to collapse for the US to go crazy and attack places. After 9/11 even if the towers were still standing and we had only lost a few hundred-a thousand lives we still would have invaded Afghanistan no problem and then probabily invaded Iraq anyway.

also i have no clue wtf ur talking about with steel burning...as temperature increases solid material looses strength, it does not need to burn (melt?) in order to collapse under the weight of a giant fucking part of a building on top of it, it just needs to become weaker and gravity will do the rest.

The problem is that even if the top portion of the tower was weakened and collapsed a bit, the damage caused by the heat would have been contained at the top of the tower. Also if part of the tower collapsed it would have sunk down at an angle instead of collapsing free fall.

You failed to comment on building 7 collapsing at free fall and it was not hit by a plane.

You need look no further than the military industrial complex for a motive. The companies with government contracts make so much fucking money every time we go to war. They would do anything to get into a war! But wars are extremely unpopular with the American people. To get around this they stage false flag attacks such as the Gulf of Tonkin, to get us into Vietnam. Bin Laden is a joke sponsored by the CIA because we need a boogieman. In early 2001 the CIA found him on dialysis in Dubai at an American hospital and let him go. (He was top 10 on the FBI).

The government is corrupt as fuck! wake up yo!

ps. yes I meant melt

On November 22 2010 17:51 Baal wrote: all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point.

All what concepts?

I certainly agree that freedom is only to be found in anarchism, which is why I posted those posters of anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World. Since you reject violence I would assume that syndicalism is close to your heart but guess not then.

anarchy is extremely violent just look at somalia...humans are a violent species, if left w/o a gov't we will commit large amounts of violence and inevitably form into separate groups of violent thugs to provide us with protection from other groups...this system might end up better for us then the current gov't system which is debateable...but to say violence and anarchy arn't related is wrong when you look at human nature. laws not enforced at gunpoint...child support, divorce agreements, tax evasion, speeding, running a red light, no glass in public parks, no drinking if under the age of 21, no drunk driving, etc etc etc....often these lead to resisting arrest which is enforced through force/gunpoint (what other way is there to get someone to stop resisting arrest)

Firstly Somalia has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is more than absent of monopoly of violence. Freedom in anarchism is not found by abolishing society and all it's rules, but organising society in a way in which everyone can have a true say on issues concerning them, and ensuring that laws and rules serve goals accepted by all members of the community, instead of serving the interest of the wealthy. More you can read at the link below.



Secondly even in cases like Somalia where the states violence machinery collapses bloodshed is not a common result. David Graeber, one of the best known anarchists of our days, gives an example of when he was doing field research for anthropological study at Madagascar. He was at a town somewhat distant from the capital, and at one point the government practically gave up of the are. People were not paying taxes, and police would not come if called. Now things continued pretty much as usual, and Graeber estimates that for every Somalia there are 10 Madagascars.

Thirdly a more relevant example of actual anarchism is Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. CNT and FAI (CNT being anarcho-syndicalist union and FAI being the anarchist federation of Iberia) took over the area and dismissed government. It worked out very nicely, well enough for Noam Chomsky to say call it the "highest point of western civilization, and a beacon of hope".

Here is anarchism explained briefly http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

People were also arrested planting bombs on the George Washington Bridge. This was reported by multiple news stations and was soon after removed and never mentioned again.

Also you think the structure was just weakened? Here is MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO! 2750 degrees plus!

The news report of the George Washington Bridge bombers.

On November 22 2010 16:43 Baal wrote: religion is BS and christs existence cannot be historically proven

Jesus of Nazereth is a documented, historical figure. This is fact. He existed - whether or not he is the son of God is obviously up for debate, but the man existed.

On November 22 2010 19:04 Xervean wrote:+ Show Spoiler + The problem is that even if the top portion of the tower was weakened and collapsed a bit, the damage caused by the heat would have been contained at the top of the tower. Also if part of the tower collapsed it would have sunk down at an angle instead of collapsing free fall. You failed to comment on building 7 collapsing at free fall and it was not hit by a plane. You need look no further than the military industrial complex for a motive. The companies with government contracts make so much fucking money every time we go to war. They would do anything to get into a war! But wars are extremely unpopular with the American people. To get around this they stage false flag attacks such as the Gulf of Tonkin, to get us into Vietnam. Bin Laden is a joke sponsored by the CIA because we need a boogieman. In early 2001 the CIA found him on dialysis in Dubai at an American hospital and let him go. (He was top 10 on the FBI). The government is corrupt as fuck! wake up yo! ps. yes I meant melt[s/poiler]

sky scrapers are designed to fall ontop of themselves...the slanting building idea has been brought up and again almost all engineers say that gravity and the building design would have caused the collapse without the need for any demolish crew.

building 7 is also believed to have collapsed due to the same effects of fire burning for a long time which lead to a weakness in the structure causing floor 13 (i think) to collapse which brought down the building.

i never said there that there isn't a motive, i just find it highly unlikely that they would go through all the trouble of bringing down the buildings themselves when all they needed was for the attack to occur...pretty sure we agree the gov't does many fucked up things to justify wars that are perceived to be beneficial to the US gov't. American-Mexican war is the blatent example of that but for some reason no one brings it up in these threads

On November 22 2010 19:10 auffenpuffer wrote:[spoiler] Show nested quote + On November 22 2010 17:51 Baal wrote: all those concepts are flawed and the only true freedom comes only in the form of anarchy, true anarchy not the indoctrinated concept that most people have that think it is related to violence in any way while on the contrary, the state is violence and does everything at gun point, just tell me one law that is not enforced at gun point. All what concepts? I certainly agree that freedom is only to be found in anarchism, which is why I posted those posters of anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World. Since you reject violence I would assume that syndicalism is close to your heart but guess not then.   anarchy is extremely violent just look at somalia...humans are a violent species, if left w/o a gov't we will commit large amounts of violence and inevitably form into separate groups of violent thugs to provide us with protection from other groups...this system might end up better for us then the current gov't system which is debateable...but to say violence and anarchy arn't related is wrong when you look at human nature. laws not enforced at gunpoint...child support, divorce agreements, tax evasion, speeding, running a red light, no glass in public parks, no drinking if under the age of 21, no drunk driving, etc etc etc....often these lead to resisting arrest which is enforced through force/gunpoint (what other way is there to get someone to stop resisting arrest) Firstly Somalia has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is more than absent of monopoly of violence. Secondly even in cases like Somalia where the states violence machinery collapses bloodshed is not a common result. David Graeber, one of the best known anarchists of our days, gives an example of when he was doing field research for anthropological study at Madagascar. He was at a town somewhat distant from the capital, and at one point the government practically gave up of the are. People were not paying taxes, and police would not come if called. Now things continued pretty much as usual, and Graeber estimates that for every Somalia there are 10 Madagascars. Thirdly a more relevant example of actual anarchism is Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. CNT and FAI (CNT being anarcho-syndicalist union and FAI being the anarchist federation of Iberia) took over the area and dismissed government. It worked out very nicely, well enough for Noam Chomsky to say call it the "highest point of western civilization, and a beacon of hope". Here is anarchism explained briefly http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

somalia is a failed state which is currently semi anarchist and was a complete anarchy in the southern from 1991-2006..no one has ever said anything different as far as i know...ur the first one to even say somalia has no place in an anarchy topic.

sure violence doesn't always occur immediately after anarchy occurs, but why would violence occur in a group that is left to themselves when they are already all familiar with themselves...many successful anarchy examples like the madagascar one are of small communities left to themselves, is anyone actually surprised those communities don't need gov't. I mean many small neighborhoods or even towns/cities can function fine w/o a gov't...but i find it hard to believe that an area as vast as say the US or China will be able to function without large amounts of violence and the need for a gov't. So small towns, sure anarchy is cool...large areas probably need gov't.

as for Spain from what i've done it seems to be a decently succesful anarchist society which wasn't really full anarchist...i mean the CNT did participate in gov't actions and such. But I fail to see how the CNT controlled parts of Spain are more relevant to any discussion then the state of Somalia...maybe it is more relevant for some reason, but i don't get why.

As for the Chomsky quote...Chomsky is pretty close to batshit insane, and also gee what a surprise an anarchist saying an anarchy was good
almost every example of anarchy given has led to violence or has been part of an otherwise violent movement...russian revolution, haymarket incident, somalia (anarchy), french revolution all very violent

palak, you're obviously correct but who cares. People who believe the twin towers going down was a controlled demolition are clearly morons, do you care what they think?

Scroll up and check out the pictures I added of molten steel, the fire fighters testimony, and the coverup of the George Washington Bridge bomb attempt.

On November 22 2010 19:15 Xervean wrote:+ Show Spoiler + People were also arrested planting bombs on the George Washington Bridge. This was reported by multiple news stations and was soon after removed and never mentioned again. Also you think the structure was just weakened? Here is MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO! 2750 degrees plus!

i'm far to lazy to type out all the crap so just read this site

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

On November 22 2010 19:41 Xervean wrote: Scroll up and check out the pictures I added of molten steel, the fire fighters testimony, and the coverup of the George Washington Bridge bomb attempt.

if the gov't was meaning to bomb the bridge why would they catch themselves in the act? that just makes no sense

On November 22 2010 19:38 Feiticeira wrote: palak, you're obviously correct but who cares. People who believe the twin towers going down was a controlled demolition are clearly morons, do you care what they think?

conspiracy theories that are completely false just usually piss me off

here's a question the conspiracy theorists never ask themselves:

if there really was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC by the US Government and there is genuine evidence proving it.. why are the only people talking about it retarded conspiracy theorists on the internet?

Why aren't the Washington Post or the New York Times printing this shit on the front page? I'm pretty sure a Government conspiracy to kill thousands of American Citizens is a big story.

LOL Because the cops and the FBI aren't in on it and arrest people with explosives? Also that website proves nothing LMFAO!

On November 22 2010 19:48 Feiticeira wrote: here's a question the conspiracy theorists never ask themselves: if there really was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC by the US Government and there is genuine evidence proving it.. why are the only people talking about it retarded conspiracy theorists on the internet? Why aren't the Washington Post or the New York Times printing this shit on the front page? I'm pretty sure a Government conspiracy to kill thousands of American Citizens is a big story.

Because people are told what to think on the news and never question anything.

On November 22 2010 19:52 Xervean wrote:+ Show Spoiler + LOL Because the cops and the FBI aren't in on it and arrest people with explosives? Also that website proves nothing LMFAO!

again to lazy to type
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

giant multibillion dollar conspiracy theory and they don't pay off the cops in that region to ensure the bombs are planeted? So you seriously think it's possible that they laid tons of explosives after drilling into support beams in a crowded office building yet they fuck up on the bridge...wow....also i'm still confused why people are actually saying thermite was used when it isn't an explosive....almost all complex conspiracy theories seem to come about by people who think they know what the fuck they are talking about going around spouting false facts/logic

What i don't understand is that you watched the movie and did all the research on the first 3rd of the movie and realized holy fuck they are wrong about nearly everything. Yet you then go on and accept the next 2/3 of the movie as if they wouldn't again horribly distort reality in order to try and prove a point.

You don't pay off cops because the more people who are brought in on the conspiracy the more likely it is that it will be discovered. You would basically hire a black ops team and that would be the extent of your exposure.

That website doesn't prove anything. The video I posted rapes your theory of aluminum.