Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist: Addendum

[AfterExile]

Just watched both movies, was wondering what everyone else thinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHiuaGJ46zo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

[pumpkin13]

I personally really love them. I also highly recommend watching "9/11: In Plane Site" and "Loose Change" as well. Whether you believe it all or not, i simply enjoy it for the intrigue. Although In Plane Site raises some VERY interesting questions. Regardless of whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not: The second plane to fly into the WTC was not a passanger plane, and was not American Airways.

[gaga]

i watched only the first movie and all i can say that its sad.. wether it may be truth or not its sad just to even think abt that we might not be free one day..

personally some of the things i do believe are true that are being said and some i have doubts abt.. but everything seen there sure makes me ask a lot of questions and wanting to know all those answers.. :\

[AfterExile]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43sUEFcD4Ro

[AfterExile]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnK5mBCFTMg

[metalsoup111]

I've only seen the first Zeitgeist. There used to be an old thread in the Pub about it. Here's what I said about part 1 of the film:

Zeitgeist, The Movie is remarkable, to say the least. From the very beginning it starts to list completely wrong information about the various historical religious figures. A few inaccuracies: Krishna was never crucified and nowhere in any Hindu text does it even allude to such a claim. Dionysus, also, was never crucified, niether was he born of a virgin. Semele, Dionysus's mother, was knocked up by Zeus, in a literal sense. No magical Jesus conception here. Horus is actually the "sky" god, not the "sun" god, though within his being he is said to contain portions of both the sun and moon. Horus had disciples, but in no Egyptian text does ever it state that he had only twelve. Nowhere in the Bible does it give a date of the supposed birth of Jesus. December 25th, like many other modern holiday dates, was a date adopted by the early Christian church of an originally pagan holiday/festival as a means to more easily persuade/convert them to Christianity and only later did it become associated with the birth of Jesus. Christianity is indeed a religion based off the partial plagiarization of older religions and various traditional cultural customs, but it is not as exact as the film makes it out to be.

The source listed for this section is the book The Christ Conspiracy by someone known as either Acharya S. or D.M. Murdock. This book has been continually pointed out as being based off of disputed evidence and contains no primary source. The sources it lists are all secondary. Thus, the book itself would be concidered a secondary source meaning there is no primary source for this portion of the film.

The film, as a whole, contains the thorough use of unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers, all of which I find a tad bit alarming. It's based on anectodal evidence and is sketchy, at best. The initial version of the film didn't even have a credits section, so it originally contained no citations.

I won't deny that the movie brings up some legitimate questions, but they are poorly backed and presented here...

As for the 9/11 conspiracy films, you can always read the reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or Popular Mechanics that debunk the Loose Change types.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_news1.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_news2.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_news3.gif
or
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot1.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot2.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot3.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot4.gif

[AfterExile]

:smile:

[Rokuro]

I've only seen the first Zeitgeist. There used to be an old thread in the Pub about it. Here's what I said about part 1 of the film:

"Zeitgeist, The Movie is remarkable, to say the least. From the very beginning it starts to list completely wrong information about the various historical religious figures. A few inaccuracies: Krishna was never crucified and nowhere in any Hindu text does it even allude to such a claim. Dionysus, also, was never crucified, niether was he born of a virgin. Semele, Dionysus's mother, was knocked up by Zeus, in a literal sense. No magical Jesus conception here. Horus is actually the "sky" god, not the "sun" god, though within his being he is said to contain portions of both the sun and moon. Horus had disciples, but in no Egyptian text does ever it state that he had only twelve. Nowhere in the Bible does it give a date of the supposed birth of Jesus. December 25th, like many other modern holiday dates, was a date adopted by the early Christian church of an originally pagan holiday/festival as a means to more easily persuade/convert them to Christianity and only later did it become associated with the birth of Jesus. Christianity is indeed a religion based off the partial plagiarization of older religions and various traditional cultural customs, but it is not as exact as the film makes it out to be.

The source listed for this section is the book The Christ Conspiracy by someone known as either Acharya S. or D.M. Murdock. This book has been continually pointed out as being based off of disputed evidence and contains no primary source. The sources it lists are all secondary. Thus, the book itself would be concidered a secondary source meaning there is no primary source for this portion of the film.

After watching the first movie I'm kinda convinced that it was a mistake to actually use such a debated source to back up some interesting similarities. But there is a small fail in common sense and objectivity in most of the critiques, which is often overlooked: it is actually totally futile to look for real, concrete evidence of anything related to religious teachings. So, I just can't understand why someone would actually pay more attention to a 60 year old theologist than the author of a book called "The Christ Conspiracy". Both are most likely equally biased, and furthermore, the topic is absolutely irrelevant and redundant.

The facts/factoids of that segment may be truths or half-truths, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. What does matter is, that the movie induces doubt. It makes you think and research. What I found particularly interesting was the part which deals with the presence of the zodiac in the christian mythology, and the single most important "fact" that there are no undebated sources of ancient historians or public records that show a particular individual named Jesus or any person similar - only that of Christus. Christus=christian. Fail in my book. On the other hand, I had my doubts on the Jesus/Horus/Mithras comparison all along, but I listened, and came to the conclusion that I've completely missed the point by pondering around on that. The point was to show how a myth is created - and applied in modern society.

The film, as a whole, contains the thorough use of unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers, all of which I find a tad bit alarming. It's based on anectodal evidence and is sketchy, at best. The initial version of the film didn't even have a credits section, so it originally contained no citations.

That's another flaw which should be discussed with Peter Joseph sometimes. It would give the whole movie more credibility if all citations and their sources would be readily avaliable, and it would pull the rug out from under the feet of many, amateuristic detractors who just take their webcam and hack around on these minuscule flaws.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy films, you can always read the reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or Popular Mechanics that debunk the Loose Change types.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_news1.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_news2.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_news3.gif
or
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot1.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot2.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot3.gif
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/metalsoup111/conspiracy_tot4.gif

I think there is just too much hype around the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Even if it is true (and well, I'm convinced it is), it is only really significant because the US government uses it as an excuse to pillage and terrorize other countries, communities and even it's own citizens. Don't get me wrong - I've seen it live on TV. Everything that went down there. It was horrible, I still have nightmares about it. But it is even more monstrous that many, many people support a never-ending mass slaughter, because they think, it is for the betterment of Iraq/Afghanistan - or simply about retribution. Which is bullshit, as George Carlin liked to say.

As for the pics - good humour. Bad topic. Very bad topic. And don't underestimate the unscrupolousness of those in charge. Use your common sense, and you will see this simple truth: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

My views on 9/11, in short:

I've seen many movies, multi-national documentaries about it. There's millions of "evidence" and "counter evidence" for nearly everything stated in those reviews. But one should rather take a step back and look at everything from a distance. There is an old saying which goes something like "fails to see the forest from the trees", well, just look at the events of 9/11. The reaction of the Bush-administration. The likelyhood for all this to happen in this way. All those illogical explanations. That alone should be enough to raise suspicions.

I'm not going to argue about building 7. Nor about thermite. About mysterious explosions before the planes have hit. But I'm going to ask you guys...who is a big enough jackass to take his testament with him on a suicide run? How can a f***ing passport survive all that shit? How come there was no air-defense? And most of all - why was George W. Bush all pussy and acting like a cornered animal on the release of the 9/11 commission report?

I hate it when they insult my intelligence.

On Zeitgeist: Addendum

It is the most powerful movie I've ever seen. I can't say I'm well informed atm, as I've lost my interest in nearly everything politics-related two-three years ago. This piece made me reconsider. It's a real eye-opener. It doesn't advocate useless violence or hate, it simply points out the fundamental flaws of the world we live in. And it also gives a perspective, an alternative to work for - even though the movement is still in disorder and in a rather infantile stage. Many of my early thoughts on society and its problems were reflected here. I've always found it laughable that now, in the wake of nanotechnology we are still "unable" to cut ourselves loose from fossile fuels, inefficient production methods; and now, that billions are used to bail out nearly bankrupt institutions, I've came to the same conclusion as Jacque Fresco: scarcity is artificial.

I'm personally sick and tired of this dog-eat-dog world, where you can only achieve anything by trampling others down. Where you can't trust anyone anymore, because everyone is trying to get rich on your back. Where the good-willed and naive get mowed down by the unscrupulous. Where millions of people are kept in line by preachers of outdated fairytales. Where "pimp mah ride" videos get 100x more clicks than the speeches of people like Jiddu Krishnamurti (Addendum starts with a very strong quote from him). Where people don't know who Nikola Tesla was, but the biography of Dieter Bohlen is a bestseller. It's just sick.


I'll soon be creating a channel on TUBE and begin re-uploading the Zeitgeist movies, and some related stuff that should prove relevant. I'm also joining the movement. Looking forward to discuss anything about it or even the Venus Project...but my inferior human metabolism confines me to the bed now, so laterz.

[metalsoup111]

After watching the first movie I'm kinda convinced that it was a mistake to actually use such a debated source to back up some interesting similarities.

An enormous mistake if you're attempting to convince someone of something, yes. Especially concidering that it's the only source listed. This should be exponentially more alarming to those in the target audience: skeptics.

But there is a small fail in common sense and objectivity in most of the critiques, which is often overlooked: it is actually totally futile to look for real, concrete evidence of anything related to religious teachings.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, because anything that has ever been proven to be true/factual has also been proven to not be magic, i.e. nothing of supernatural origin has ever been proved to have existed and/or occured. But the religious writings/scriptures/texts containing stories of these supernatural things do exist and must be referenced accordingly. Zeitgeist simply spouts a bunch of anecdotal or false nonsense and attempts to pass it off as fact.

So, I just can't understand why someone would actually pay more attention to a 60 year old theologist than the author of a book called "The Christ Conspiracy". Both are most likely equally biased, and furthermore, the topic is absolutely irrelevant and redundant.

Because one is an expert in their particular field of study and the other is a relatively unknown conspiracy theorist. If you're attempting to support a claim then credibility at providing verifiably factual information is far from irrelevant. I'd rather use historical facts myself.

The facts/factoids of that segment may be truths or half-truths, but that doesn't matter in the slightest.

If you expect to ever be taken seriously it does. Btw, it's mostly half-truths and alot of bullshiting.

What does matter is, that the movie induces doubt. It makes you think and research.

I would agree. This film and others like it have brought up interesting questions and provoked some people to investigate their claims, but, at the same time, we as humans are a gullible species and many have watched these films and stopped right there. Completely convinced that what they have just seen is undeniable fact.

What I found particularly interesting was the part which deals with the presence of the zodiac in the christian mythology, and the single most important "fact" that there are no undebated sources of ancient historians or public records that show a particular individual named Jesus or any person similar - only that of Christus. Christus=christian. Fail in my book.

Correct. There is no evidence that this Jesus character ever existed and a great deal of historical evidence that contradicts Biblical scripture about his life.

On the other hand, I had my doubts on the Jesus/Horus/Mithras comparison all along, but I listened, and came to the conclusion that I've completely missed the point by pondering around on that. The point was to show how a myth is created - and applied in modern society.

Although I'm not anywhere near as knowledgeable about the subjects of parts 2 & 3, I would have to ask that, taking into account the terrible citation job of the movie, if such blantantly wrong information was found throughout part 1 wouldn't common sense cast doubt on the validity of the entire rest of the flick? Again, this film is catering to the skeptical.

That's another flaw which should be discussed with Peter Joseph sometimes. It would give the whole movie more credibility if all citations and their sources would be readily avaliable, and it would pull the rug out from under the feet of many, amateuristic detractors who just take their webcam and hack around on these minuscule flaws.

lulz. In a persuasive piece like this, source credibility is far from a minuscule flaw.

I think there is just too much hype around the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Even if it is true (and well, I'm convinced it is), it is only really significant because the US government uses it as an excuse to pillage and terrorize other countries, communities and even it's own citizens. Don't get me wrong - I've seen it live on TV. Everything that went down there. It was horrible, I still have nightmares about it. But it is even more monstrous that many, many people support a never-ending mass slaughter, because they think, it is for the betterment of Iraq/Afghanistan - or simply about retribution. Which is bullshit, as George Carlin liked to say.

Wait? So do you believe there was a mass government cover-up operation and that the US was responsible for 911?

As for the pics - good humour. Bad topic. Very bad topic. And don't underestimate the unscrupolousness of those in charge. Use your common sense, and you will see this simple truth: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Use your common sense, and you will see this simple truth: Zeitgeist is little more than the The Da Vinci Code on steroids. Some partially truthful information mixed with even more bogus/unsupported crap.

...but my inferior human metabolism confines me to the bed now, so laterz.

Well, that sucks...

[pumpkin13]

As for the 9/11 conspiracy films, you can always read the reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or Popular Mechanics that debunk the Loose Change types.

the NIST and PM records/statements would do well to debunk the "loose change" types, given that Loose Change covers all of the various industrial integrity/NIST reports in depth.

Just off the top of my head:

Some big cheese at NIST states on the record (paraphrasing here btw) "that there is no way a single airline jet could cause enough stress and duress to compromise the structural integrity of either towers."

Less than two days later he again goes on the record, rather meekly stating "Given the circumstances, it is indeed possible that a jet liner could have brought the tower down." Smells badly like governmental pressure.

There's also Bush's comment "We never guessed that they would do such a thing like that... fly a plane into a building."

The blueprints and detailed manifesto surrounding the WTCs construction highlight in depth the plausible possibility that a plane might fly into the building, and detail how each tower was designed to withstand multiple passenger jet impacts.

On top of that, less than six weeks earlier NORAD was conducting an exericse in which a passenger jet is hijacked, then flown off course and into a skyscraper.
SO APPARENTLY THEY NEVER PREDICTED IT COULD HAPPEN.

Even without all that, the factual evidence (that's all over the papers and media material) that the second jet to go into the WTC was not an American Airlines passenger jet, and yet the government tells us that it was, should alone be ringing alarm bells that something here just isn't right.

[Rokuro]

An enormous mistake if you're attempting to convince someone of something, yes. Especially concidering that it's the only source listed. This should be exponentially more alarming to those in the target audience: skeptics.

On the religion-part again: Yes, it is a mistake not to use the few historical records as primary sources of information, because, like you said later on, it takes away from the credibility in the movie. By minuscule flaws I didn't mean the lack of undebatable sources - which can't be overlooked - the whole topic is insignificant to the developement of society. Religion is no threat to progress anymore if the people are well informed and properly educated.

Because one is an expert in their particular field of study and the other is a relatively unknown conspiracy theorist. If you're attempting to support a claim then credibility at providing verifiably factual information is far from irrelevant. I'd rather use historical facts myself.

Afaik there is no occupation of "conspiracy theorist" yet. And what is a theologist supposed to be? He is, normally supposed to have an extensive knowledge about the developement of certain religions through the course of history. Umm...kay. His knowledge is based on what little remains of certain cultures, just like that of the so called "conspiracy theorist". Using the egyptian mythology as reference or "fact" for example is actually idiotic, because most of it is simply up to interpretation. Nothing is exactly known, as not even the language can be reconstructed - only speculated upon. Horus may have been an early sun-god, before the introduction of Re (Ra in english). There is no right and wrong on the subject of religion, and that's why it is useless to make claims of universal truth - thus, there is no point in proving anything related to that matter.

I would agree. This film and others like it have brought up interesting questions and provoked some people to investigate their claims, but, at the same time, we as humans are a gullible species and many have watched these films and stopped right there. Completely convinced that what they have just seen is undeniable fact.

True. I for myself am also prone to get excited about such wake-up calls, but I try to get over the initial emotional hype and delve deeper into the problems adressed. That's why I will attempt to analyze the whole thing and I'll maybe even ask Peter Joseph for a list of his sources for investigation. It's not right to simply sit back and say "hah, entertaining, but ultimately conspiracist bullshit" - both movies are simply too complex to say so.

Although I'm not anywhere near as knowledgeable about the subjects of parts 2 & 3, I would have to ask that, taking into account the terrible citation job of the movie, if such blantantly wrong information was found throughout part 1 wouldn't common sense cast doubt on the validity of the entire rest of the flick? Again, this film is catering to the skeptical.

I wouldn't call that common sense, rather lazyness and unwillingness to differentiate :p. On the other hand, doubt is always good, but only if it isn't subjective. There is no point in supporting either side until one has been proven wrong in it's entirety.

Wait? So do you believe there was a mass government cover-up operation and that the US was responsible for 911?

I don't believe. The odds are against it. The course of history is against it. And I don't know if it was actually an total inside job or a partial one - or not at all. But the FACT that two planes "evaporated" after impact (just look at the damn pictures from the Pentagon, rofl - there is no way someone could have flown that low btw) defies the laws of physics, and that is just hilarious. And there are many other flaws, but still, the main reasons I'm suspecting a fraud are:

1. The US government needed a casus belli for another war. A casus belli given to them by an invisible enemy, who can be everywhere, at any time, and isn't really tied to a country - so you can create false evidence and attack anyone you want to conquer.
2. They've got it, and started to fight a war against phantoms which can never be won. On multiple levels, indoors and outdoors. Anything it has accomplished so far is negative, for everyone involved - besides the mega-corporations, arms manufacturers and bankers who reap the benefits of the conflict.
3. They began to act very unconfident and secretive as people began to raise questions, only pumped out a commission report unwillingly, and that report was written by the same man who kinda wrote the battle plans of the subsequent war.

Use your common sense, and you will see this simple truth: Zeitgeist is little more than the The Da Vinci Code on steroids. Some partially truthful information mixed with even more bogus/unsupported crap.

That is not a matter of common sense, and it isn't a particularly wise quote either. Because it may criticize, it also oversimplyfies things.

Pumpkin: Nice quote on Bush, dude. Common sense says: anyone who builds a skyscraper that high should take it into account that some kind of plane could crash into it. And they did, most likely. It's a real kneeslapper, seriously.

[AfterExile]

The facts/factoids of that segment may be truths or half-truths, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. What does matter is, that the movie induces doubt. It makes you think and research.

Thank you.

[metalsoup111]

Popular Mechanics report: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

NIST factsheets: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/

Some big cheese at NIST states on the record (paraphrasing here btw) "that there is no way a single airline jet could cause enough stress and duress to compromise the structural integrity of either towers."

Initially, that was the belief, yes.

Less than two days later he again goes on the record, rather meekly stating "Given the circumstances, it is indeed possible that a jet liner could have brought the tower down." Smells badly like governmental pressure.

But as you can see things don't always go according to design. Reality tends to throw unexpected variables at us. The main issues surrounding the towers collapse were, as stated by the NIST, that: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

The blueprints and detailed manifesto surrounding the WTCs construction highlight in depth the plausible possibility that a plane might fly into the building, and detail how each tower was designed to withstand multiple passenger jet impacts.

The fact that the aircraft were fully loaded with fuel and traveling at speeds of 500+mph negated the design features of the buildings and, thus, compromised it's structural intergrity.

On top of that, less than six weeks earlier NORAD was conducting an exericse in which a passenger jet is hijacked, then flown off course and into a skyscraper. SO APPARENTLY THEY NEVER PREDICTED IT COULD HAPPEN.

And? NORAD was running what are called war games. They are military simulations designed to test possible scenarios and theories of warfare and they were scheduled to run several that day.

Even without all that, the factual evidence (that's all over the papers and media material) that the second jet to go into the WTC was not an American Airlines passenger jet, and yet the government tells us that it was, should alone be ringing alarm bells that something here just isn't right.

Ummm, no. What government is insisting that the second plane was an American Airlines flight, because it isn't the US. The aircraft flown into the South Tower was United Airlines Flight 175.


On the religion-part again: Yes, it is a mistake not to use the few historical records as primary sources of information, because, like you said later on, it takes away from the credibility in the movie. By minuscule flaws I didn't mean the lack of undebatable sources - which can't be overlooked - the whole topic is insignificant to the developement of society. Religion is no threat to progress anymore if the people are well informed and properly educated.

I disagree. Religion is a massive threat to progress, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Afaik there is no occupation of "conspiracy theorist" yet. And what is a theologist supposed to be? He is, normally supposed to have an extensive knowledge about the developement of certain religions through the course of history. Umm...kay. His knowledge is based on what little remains of certain cultures, just like that of the so called "conspiracy theorist".

So you're saying that, for example, certified historians, archaeologists, paleontologist, anthropologists, ect., ect. should be viewed as equally credible sources as conspiracy theorists who speculate on the same topics in the same fields of study. :huh: I'm assuming that cosmologists and biologists are to be considered as credible as creationists also?

There is no right and wrong on the subject of religion, and that's why it is useless to make claims of universal truth - thus, there is no point in proving anything related to that matter.

There is no definiative answers to the claims made by religion, but there are correct and incorrect answers about the teachings and history of religion.

It's not right to simply sit back and say "hah, entertaining, but ultimately conspiracist bullshit" - both movies are simply too complex to say so.

That's why I didn't. These films spark far too much intrigue to be taken on face value alone and so I took it upon myself to distinguish fact from fiction.

But the FACT that two planes "evaporated" after impact (just look at the damn pictures from the Pentagon, rofl - there is no way someone could have flown that low btw) defies the laws of physics, and that is just hilarious. And there are many other flaws, but still, the main reasons I'm suspecting a fraud are:

As far as can tell, the laws of physics did apply that day and no planes evaporated. Look at the pictures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk

That is not a matter of common sense, and it isn't a particularly wise quote either. Because it may criticize, it also oversimplyfies things.

Maybe I'll change it to a tl;dr because I think it fits almost perfectly...

[Rokuro]

But as you can see things don't always go according to design. Reality tends to throw unexpected variables at us. The main issues surrounding the towers collapse were, as stated by the NIST, that:

(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

The fact that the aircraft were fully loaded with fuel and traveling at speeds of 500+mph negated the design features of the buildings and, thus, compromised it's structural intergrity.

Okay. I'm kinda stupid when it comes to physics, I confess. But...if the impact of a plane is enough to sever steel columns etc. then how come the debris around the Pentagon (well, assuming the pics are true footage, which I personally wouldn't argue against) was so minimal? Just look at other plane crashes. It seems paradox to me.

And? NORAD was running what are called war games. They are military simulations designed to test possible scenarios and theories of warfare and they were scheduled to run several that day.

I feel sorry for all the people that died bcoz NORAD was playing Command and Conquer in the mornin'. Seriously.

I disagree. Religion is a massive threat to progress, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Peter Joseph says the same. Maybe you are right, and I'm too naive yet.

So you're saying that, for example, certified historians, archaeologists, paleontologist, anthropologists, ect., ect. should be viewed as equally credible sources as conspiracy theorists who speculate on the same topics in the same fields of study. :huh: I'm assuming that cosmologists and biologists are to be considered as credible as creationists also?

No.

There is no definiative answers to the claims made by religion, but there are correct and incorrect answers about the teachings and history of religion.

I can only say I'll look it up, because I'm actually interested in that part. But for that research I'll need to hop over my prejudice first, and that isn't all too easy.

As far as can tell, the laws of physics did apply that day and no planes evaporated. Look at the pictures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk

Those pics look convincing to me, but the fanatical, egomaniac way the supporters present them is even worse than that of some 9/11 Truth guys.

Maybe I'll change it to a tl;dr because I think it fits almost perfectly...

I hope you don't, that would suck. :amused:

[TW501]

The blueprints and detailed manifesto surrounding the WTCs construction highlight in depth the plausible possibility that a plane might fly into the building, and detail how each tower was designed to withstand multiple passenger jet impacts.

It was designed to survive an accidental plane crash like the one that hit the Empire State Building. They envisioned a scenario where a plane landing at JFK Airport was lost in fog and accidentally crashed into the towers, not terrorists intentionally crashing planes into buildings.

As for zeitgeist itself, I can safely say it's a load of bullshit. Never have I felt more on the side of Bush and christianity than while watching that movie. It was completely idiotic and used ridiculously flimsy evidence. It's nothing but a conspiracy movie with no credibility.

As a side note, al-Qaeda has their own conspiracy theory on this: Iran is spreading the conspiracy theories to discredit them.

[Rokuro]

It was designed to survive an accidental plane crash like the one that hit the Empire State Building. They envisioned a scenario where a plane landing at JFK Airport was lost in fog and accidentally crashed into the towers, not terrorists intentionally crashing planes into buildings.


With the difference being .... ?

I see where this is going...:/

[pumpkin13]

Popular Mechanics report: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

NIST factsheets: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/



Initially, that was the belief, yes.



But as you can see things don't always go according to design. Reality tends to throw unexpected variables at us. The main issues surrounding the towers collapse were, as stated by the NIST, that: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Pumpkin says: and what of the pools of thermite found at the base of the towers? And what about WTC7? Did that collapse inwards after suffering from a severe compromise of integral structure?

The fact that the aircraft were fully loaded with fuel and traveling at speeds of 500+mph negated the design features of the buildings and, thus, compromised it's structural intergrity.

Pumpkin says: Still, the buildings were designed to withstand multiple hits from Boing 757s, the most advanced passenger jet at the time they were built.

And? NORAD was running what are called war games. They are military simulations designed to test possible scenarios and theories of warfare and they were scheduled to run several that day.

Pumpkin says: Yeah, six months previously they were running "war games" in which something like what actually happened, happens. My point was, Bush told the public, on the record, that they never predicted terrorists would hi-jack a plane and fly it into a building. Which is a downright lie.

On the actual day Norad were playing wargames as well, in which they sent the entire local fighter jet (read: terrorist interception) scramble squads over 200km away... smells fishy to me...

I believe Loose Change also points out that Norad were actually reworking the "terrorist hijack" wargame on the same day as well, I can remember one of the interviewies saying something like "Norad just happens to be running a terrorist hijack scenario, on the exact same day, at the exact same time, that a terrorist hijack scenario occurs!

Ummm, no. What government is insisting that the second plane was an American Airlines flight, because it isn't the US. The aircraft flown into the South Tower was United Airlines Flight 175.

Pumpkin says: I dunno, but someone's claiming it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

As far as can tell, the laws of physics did apply that day and no planes evaporated. Look at the pictures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk

Pumpkin says: Loose Change tackles these claims as well. Even if the aluminium melted away, where's all the pools of solidified aluminium? They should be all over the place. There's simply far too little. Also, the lack of scorch marks on the green in front is inconsistent with a plane collision.

Even if it was a plane. Conveninent that Norad happens to be running a "hijacked plane into Pentagon" wargame on exactly the same day

Maybe I'll change it to a tl;dr because I think it fits almost perfectly...

I feel sorry for all the people that died bcoz NORAD was playing Command and Conquer in the mornin'. Seriously.


This line is pretty awesome. Sad in the content it deals with but still.

It was designed to survive an accidental plane crash like the one that hit the Empire State Building. They envisioned a scenario where a plane landing at JFK Airport was lost in fog and accidentally crashed into the towers, not terrorists intentionally crashing planes into buildings.

Pumpkin says: As already stated, Norad envisioned and both practiced wargames in which planes are hijacked and flown into both the WTCs and the Pentagon, six months prior to the attacks, and then on the day itself. After sending all possible interceptive fighter aircraft, over 200km away.


.

[TW501]

With the difference being .... ?

The difference being that an accidental plane crash would probably hit it at a much slower speed (the hijacked aircraft were going hundreds of miles over the regulation speed), wouldn't have aimed the planes in a way that would cause maximum damage, and wouldn't have full tanks of jet fuel.

and what of the pools of thermite found at the base of the towers? And what about WTC7? Did that collapse inwards after suffering from a severe compromise of integral structure?
I don't recall ever seeing anything about pools of thermite in reports, official or unofficial. I assume you have sources for this? In any case, it would require several tons of thermite to cause the towers to collapse. It's rather difficult to believe that several tons of thermite could be moved into the towers without people noticing. Besides, if they did use some kind of explosive to bring down the towers, thermite would be the worst choice possible. It's not an explosive, it's designed to focus on small sections of metal rather than be used on a large scale, and it's extremely difficult to ignite.

WTC-7 was brought down by debris and fires caused by the collapse of the twin towers.

Still, the buildings were designed to withstand multiple hits from Boing 757s, the most advanced passenger jet at the time they were built.

From what I've read, calculations were done on how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 travelling at relatively low speed in fog, not multiple hits from 757s (which weren't put into use until ten years after WTC opened).
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/magazine/the-height-of-ambition.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=10

Yeah, six months previously they were running "war games" in which something like what actually happened, happens. My point was, Bush told the public, on the record, that they never predicted terrorists would hi-jack a plane and fly it into a building. Which is a downright lie.

Assuming that Bush was even aware of every military maneuver practiced at war games, that still doesn't mean he lied. His statement can be interpereted to mean different things. He may have meant that they never expected or anticipated a serious attempt to use hijacked aircraft as weapons, rather than saying that no one in the military had ever conceived a scenario where that sort of thing would happen. It's the military's job to try to train for every possible scenario, but that doesn't mean that they actually expect it to happen.

Furthermore, the fact that you apparently use Loose Change as a major source severely reduces your credibility and casts doubt over much of what you say. Here are just a few of the analyses of the film.
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

[pumpkin13]

Thermite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY&feature=PlayList&p=EB564A3686AE1E6C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28

But to make an attempt at objectivity so you don't think i'm just another raving anti-government fanatic:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

If you hadn't heard about the thermite, then i wonder how much of this stuff you have actually watched or researched into... You evidently haven't watched Loose Change, (otherwise you would have known about the thermite theories) and as such, you're dismissing something you haven't even seen.

[AfterExile]

As for zeitgeist itself, I can safely say it's a load of bullshit. Never have I felt more on the side of Bush and christianity than while watching that movie. It was completely idiotic and used ridiculously flimsy evidence. It's nothing but a conspiracy movie with no credibility.

I don't understand where you are getting the idea that the movie was created to give credibility to a conspiracy?

The movie is more entertaining than anything and it makes most people who otherwise wouldn't have given one thought to the scenarios brought up within the film think for a second and in some cases actually research what is said.

You can sit there and say it's a load of bullshit and stoop so low as to say it makes you side with "Bush and Christianity" when in fact those two evils are far more worse in what they have done to society and the world than one free E film like Zeitgeist. Honestly Bush and Christianity for the most part are against everything you believe in where as Zeitgeist isn't. You contradict yourself in everyway possible by even saying that.