Zeitgeist movie/documentry - Page 4

Also it wasn't thermite that was used it was "THERMATE" which is a variation used in military explosives.

the real conspiracy is what I just broke...

on the zeitgeist website they want you to join the mailing list - little do the sheople know that the gov't actually runs zeitgeist and just wanted to find out who's onto them.

B00000000000000M

this movie is old as shit.

On November 22 2010 21:12 Xervean wrote: Because the media is controlled by corporations in bed with the US Government. They are told what they can and can't say on the air. If they violate this they will be fired.

I realise that you are obviously either a troll or staggeringly stupid, but if even the President of the United States isn't involved in the conspiracies, who exactly in the 'US Government' is?

According to you, neither the director of the FBI nor the President of the United States was involved in 9/11, who do you suspect was?

The director of the CIA? NSA? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Who?

Claiming there are conspiracies everywhere headed up by 'the US Government' that is beyond even the President is pretty absurd.

Xervean let it go, Feticiera and others are already convinced that there is no way their government could do that, evidence is irrelevant, they are only looking for evidence to support their flawed naive beliefs not basing their beliefs on the evidence presented, its a waste of time i mean.

WTC 5 had the biggest structural damage and BY FAR the biggest fires of all the WTCs (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7) and it never fell.




but i mean this... WTC 7 was fucking intact, it had small structural damage on the front and tiny fires and it fell at free fall speed meaning all the columns were pulverized simultaneously... and lets not forget this [b]a steel frame building never collapsed because of fire in the entire mother fucking history before WTC, fires that went for DAYs, and the WTC7 falls on its footprint because of that? you must be in some sick degree of denial to not realize you are wrong.

I will not speculate further on individual names. This is why I would like to have a full reinvestigation of 9/11. What it all comes down to is: are we looking at molten steel or molten aluminum? And as that video I posted clearly shows... Molten aluminum turns silver almost instantaneously. What we are looking at in the picture is long after the tower collapsed. If this was aluminum it would be silver and that is the end of it.

went back and re-read all the arguments from previous zeigiest threads...i need to get a life...anyhow this is pointless to argue, capaneo and baal hashed this out for dozens of pages where each argument basically resulted in the following conversation

Cap-"YOUR NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS"
Baal="YOUR A IDIOT YOUR NOT ANSWERING MY RESPONSES"

repeat for pages and pages and pages...

people on my side accept the analysis and answers given by the large majority of engineers and say any demolition of the WTC buildings is both illogical as a conspiracy and impractical to carry out

people on xerveans/baal choose to say the large majority of engineers (and answers they give) are wrong, that the gov't reports are falsified or misleading, and that the minority of engineers are correct. Further they've already become convinced that the massive conspiracy required is not only completely logical but was carried out without a hitch despite all the problems


seriously from reading the threads we might as well be arguing whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old with a bunch of evangelicals from middle america

just for fun: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf the report which describes w/ math the general view of the tower collapse

stop making cliffnotes of shit you have no clue about, i have linked documents signed by hundreds of engineers and scientists (one of the main arquitects of the god damn twin towers by the way) claiming that they believe it was a demolition, over 35% of Americans believe the government had some kind of involvement.

So stop trying to make us look like some fundamental christian retards who base their beliefs on randomness, you are the one basing your beliefs on the status quo not judging evidence, if anybody here is following a line of thinking of stubborn fundamentalist it is you regardless of who is right or wrong.

A conspiracy carried flawlessly? its not flawless when 35% of your god damn population believe you were involved in the murder of thousands of americans, it was clumsy and obvious yet the truth is so fucking hard to chew that people wont ever accept it, because that would mean that the people you vote for do not give a shit about your life and will murder you and thousands to push their agendas.


So this is not a debate of molten steel or not, you have a pic just above your post and you ignored it, you didnt even question yourself, this is a debate between people analyzing evidence and people who simply could not bear the truth and that is that the lives are americans (because foreigners its pretty clear lol) are absolutely worthless to your government.

So basically no amount of evidence and reason will pull you out of your Stockholm Syndrome, i hope one day you wake up and start questioning things.

^I have looked over evidence I just came to a completely different conclusion.

My general rule is if I don't fully understand something I will side with whatever the majority of experts in the field say. The large majority of experts that have studied the WTC attacks say that the plane damage was enough to bring down the towers. I did not ignore the pic of molten steel. Cap and I both posted links to sites which had experts explaining things like motel steel and such w/o the use of thermate but no one ever seemed to care and just said those don't prove anything.

I mean you say hundreds disagree, that's fine, i'll give you documents of hundreds/thousands of biologists who believe evolution is false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism Does this mean you'll think suddenly because thousands of biologists point out flaws in evolution that creationists have a good point? No you'll say they are retarded and laugh at them. It's the same thing here except you are in the minority. Also it makes sense to me one of the twin tower architects would say that it was a demolition, why would he admit his design was not good.

35% of the people think it's a hoax, recently that number is more like 6-28% (the same percentage of people who think the moon landings were faked) depending on orientation in the country and yes I would say that's a flawlessly carried out attack for this reason. Tell me who did the attack, not "The gov't" or some vague shit like that. If this was a huge conspiracy give me at least a couple names you believe were directly involved in it. Surely if it's so poorly carried out you can name a few. Also since no one has ever been brought to justice for the attacks I would again consider it well carried out, maybe flawlessly was slightly misleading of a word, but still very well carried out.

The tower collapse also wasn't nessecary which is something cap pointed out before. I mean my mom is a big person in the JFK conspiracy theory, that one at least makes sense from the standpoint of people needed JFK dead to do what they wanted then needed oswalt silenced so those theories at least have logical beginnings. The largest problem I have with demolition theories from a logical view is that they did not need the towers to collapse for US to go to war. All they needed for a successful war in the middle east was for an attack on large scale to occur, attacking the towers and pentagon with a plane would be simple enough and requires nothing but making sure Bush doesn't take CIA reports seriously. I have no problem and even could find logic to support a theory that if the Fed is indeed in control of the US gov't then they would make sure that Bush ignored CIA reports and allowed the attacks to occur due to not taking the threats seriously. That type of theory makes perfect sense as easy to carry about, requires a small amount of people to run successfully, and gets the job done just fine.

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.

Not sure if serious. This is almost as retarded as "communism cannot function because SOVIET UNION" except this shows even greater ignorance of the topic.

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.

The CNT had representation in Caballeros government, which is not to say the government ruled in Catalonia (before 1937 that is).

I tried to explain. In anarchism oppressive institutions are dismantled. A gang of murderer driving around with machine guns and shooting at peasants would seem quite oppressive to me. Anarchism is more than lack of violence of monopoly, as you seem to understand it, but a society organised on direct democracy, freedom of people and so on. You can just read "What would an anarchist society look like?" in the FAQ. Then compare it to Somalia and you'll see my point if it still remains unclear.

Anarchists (or at least I) do not believe that just by smashing the state we would somehow magically arrive at a Utopia. Instead we must build democratic institutions which are ready to take power back to the people when such systems of power as capitalism and state are brought down.

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

Now could you even try please. "Haymarket incident was violent, thus anarchism is a violent ideology". ----------____________________________________----------

I pretend that you commented on serious issues like propaganda by deed in 1930s, and response to that instead: Anarchism certainly has been part of a violent movement being the anti-authoritarian wing of the revolutionary workers movement. In early 1900 many anarchists also believed in "propaganda by deed" committing assassinations and violent attacks against fascists (such as Adolf Hitler) and corporate leaders. That proves nothing of anarchism, only about the tactics used by past generations.

The actually violent part of French revolution was pretty much the antithesis of anarchism: a secret police hunting down counter revolutionaries. In Russia first things Lenin did was getting rid of the anarchists: in Ukraine Nestor Makhno lead anarchists militias against the whites and succeeded in establishing libertarian society, which lasted all until the Red Army came and killed everyone. Another example is the fortress city of Kronstad, which was taken over by anarchist seamen and conquered by the state.

So better examples would be the areas controlled by EZLN or Chicago in 1929.

btw could someone believing in wtc conspiracy explain why were the plains needed at all? If they were going to bomb it, why go for a massive and ridiculously difficult operation with hijacking and everything?

ok I can't contain ....palak... reread this statement please? over and over again if you have to

On November 23 2010 03:19 palak wrote: My general rule is if I don't fully understand something I will side with whatever the majority of experts in the field say.

can you not see how huge a leak this is? a very big flaw in your game sir, very, v e r y big

let me give you an example of this short sightedness that stays on topic

palak, does your mom know about WTC 7 or that three skyscrapers fell on Sept 11th 2001?

while she might, you do know the chances are that she (as with most Americans) doesn't right?

ask her this:

"This might seem like a dumb question but on 9/11, how many skyscrapers fell in New York?"

if she answers 2, send her to www.buildingwhat.org

the point is, what happens when the majority (including would be experts) is fed misinfo or left in the dark entirely?

On November 23 2010 03:35 tloapc wrote: ok I can't contain ....palak... reread this statement please? over and over again if you have to Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 03:19 palak wrote: My general rule is if I don't fully understand something I will side with whatever the majority of experts in the field say. can you not see how huge a leak this is? a very big flaw in your game sir, very, v e r y big

nope...tell me...if the vast majority of experts in a field and private investigations agree on one topic then if i do not understand the argument I will either remain neutral or side with them. For example, I do not fully understand quantum theory, does this mean I think it is false, no I side with the experts in the field who say quantum theory is correct and will use their arguments and statements if asked. This only has to do with things of a technical/scientific nature or which can be explained that way. For example I would not accept that God is real because the majority of religious experts believe in God. With historical things I am much more subjective in many cases. For example I do agree that the US gov't let happen, exagerrated etc, many of the instances leading the US into war in order to further our gov't own desires. Gulk of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, Mexican gunfire, our own biased view of the start to the french-indian war.

If I used the "follow the experts" for any subjective matter where there is no real yes or not then yes this would be a flaw. But when it's speaking of techinical things like a building falling over, how quarks move, etc then there is no problem.

Everyone follows this. No one in this thread can run an experiment and prove to me quarks exist but we all accept that they do because scientists studying quantum theory tell us they exist and show us the math to prove it which we all go meh ok they exist.

if you are ignorant of a subject why do you side at all? all you are doing in choosing a side you are ignorant on is make yourself doubly ignorant

what is wrong with just admitting you do not know??

On November 23 2010 03:41 tloapc wrote: let me give you an example of this short sightedness that stays on topic palak, does your mom know about WTC 7 or that three skyscrapers fell on Sept 11th 2001? while she might, you do know the chances are that she (as with most Americans) doesn't right? ask her this: "This might seem like a dumb question but on 9/11, how many skyscrapers fell in New York?" if she answers 2, send her to www.buildingwhat.org the point is, what happens when the majority (including would be experts) is fed misinfo or left in the dark entirely?

I never follow what the majority of the American population thinks. If I i did I would think the world is 40,000 years old and that we were created by an almighty and loving gods. The average American person is not an expert and without evidence I would not consider their opinion without heavily questioning it.

Tell me what is more likely the majority of experts are fed misinfo or bad information by some all powerful conspiracy, or the minority got some math wrong or is misanalyzing the facts. If the majority of experts are fed bad information, where the hell did the minority get the good information? When dealing with experts it is almost always just an interpretation of the same facts and events. I believe that when evaluating the same incidents with the same facts the majority of experts will be the one who have come up with the right answer.

On November 23 2010 03:49 tloapc wrote: if you are ignorant of a subject why do you side at all? all you are doing in choosing a side you are ignorant on is make yourself doubly ignorant what is wrong with just admitting you do not know??

there are many things I admit I don't know due to not studying the issue at all.

ok lets us Pearl Harbor as an example

it was not released until 50 years after the fact that Roosevelt had specific knowledge that could have prevented the catastrophe but what do you think the majority of expert historians said 25 years ago to someone who said such a thing was possible? and if you were alive back then, what would you conclude?
Seeing how you would never really know and using your illogical reasoning it seems 25 years ago you would go ahead and blindly side with the majority of historians

On November 23 2010 03:50 palak wrote: I never follow what the majority of the American population thinks.

You prove this statement false by your statements in this thread

On November 23 2010 03:50 palak wrote: Tell me what is more likely the majority of experts are fed misinfo or bad information by some all powerful conspiracy, or the minority got some math wrong or is misanalyzing the facts.

doesn't matter which is more likely, what matters and is the real question is are both of these things possible
the answer is yes

On November 23 2010 03:50 palak wrote: When dealing with experts it is almost always just an interpretation of the same facts and events. I believe that when evaluating the same incidents with the same facts the majority of experts will be the one who have come up with the right answer.

Ya, like the housing bubble and financial crisis right? Let me end this with what my momma used to always tell me,

"If everyone thinks the same thing then someone aint thinking"

On November 23 2010 03:33 auffenpuffer wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Show nested quote + 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. Not sure if serious. This is almost as retarded as "communism cannot function because SOVIET UNION" except this shows even greater ignorance of the topic.   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. The CNT had representation in Caballeros government, which is not to say the government ruled in Catalonia (before 1937 that is). I tried to explain. In anarchism oppressive institutions are dismantled. A gang of murderer driving around with machine guns and shooting at peasants would seem quite oppressive to me. Anarchism is more than lack of violence of monopoly, as you seem to understand it, but a society organised on direct democracy, freedom of people and so on. You can just read "What would an anarchist society look like?" in the FAQ. Then compare it to Somalia and you'll see my point if it still remains unclear. Anarchists (or at least I) do not believe that just by smashing the state we would somehow magically arrive at a Utopia. Instead we must build democratic institutions which are ready to take power back to the people when such systems of power as capitalism and state are brought down.   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 Now could you even try please. "Haymarket incident was violent, thus anarchism is a violent ideology". ----------____________________________________---------- I pretend that you commented on serious issues like propaganda by deed in 1930s, and response to that instead: Anarchism certainly has been part of a violent movement being the anti-authoritarian wing of the revolutionary workers movement. In early 1900 many anarchists also believed in "propaganda by deed" committing assassinations and violent attacks against fascists (such as Adolf Hitler) and corporate leaders. That proves nothing of anarchism, only about the tactics used by past generations. The actually violent part of French revolution was pretty much the antithesis of anarchism: a secret police hunting down counter revolutionaries. In Russia first things Lenin did was getting rid of the anarchists: in Ukraine Nestor Makhno lead anarchists militias against the whites and succeeded in establishing libertarian society, which lasted all until the Red Army came and killed everyone. Another example is the fortress city of Kronstad, which was taken over by anarchist seamen and conquered by the state. So better examples would be the areas controlled by EZLN or Chicago in 1929.

i never meant to say somalia shows anarchy can't work. Just that it was an anarchy and is extremely violent. In fact from what I've read there are many places and services in Somalia which have almost certainly benefited from anarchy.

So from what I'm taking away from your argument is this. Anarchy in a perfect world would work due to humans being taught via community education to respect each other and the eventual society of well educated humanitarians would no longer need a gov't as it would be peaceful (at least more peaceful then one which requires a gov't) and since this society lacks a gov't to restrict rights people would have complete freedom (as long as they don't harm others?). Therefore a society of well educated peaceful humans no longer needs gov't so therefore anarchy is the ideal form of gov't. Is this the correct reasoning? Because if so I have no problem with that line of thought at all, if not please correct me.

Also if your saying more direct democracy as a form of gov't rather then anarchy, it's the same thing as the above paragraph, sure that could work fine but direct democracy is logistically hard to do, but if done could work well assuming a well educated public.

The problem I have with anarchy is that humans are very not ideal and I do not see us making any improvement. We are a very fearful, illogical, primal race and due to this evolutionary short coming I do not see anarchy without violence as ever occuring, or at least not in my lifetime or any time in the next century or two. For the same reason Communism can not work due to the inherent greed humans have, not because it is violent/oppressive or anything like that.