ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[Drudgewire]

we're not trusting what the govt says about 9/11, we're trusting our eyes, our minds, and scientific experts say about 9/11.

Two words you'll see an awful lot here warlexz: "Peer review."

Both sides of the 9/11 "Truth" debate use an awful lot of sciency talk. I won't lie, I'm a right-brained kind of guy and while I understand the basics, the second math and chemical formulas show up in a report it becomes Greek to me. If I was just coming off the street and found something like "engineers for truth" and already had a bit of suspicion about the people running things, it would certainly sound good enough to me.

By being exposed to it here, I get the chance to see all this science stuff being countered by other science stuff... and while it pretty much always makes more sense after thinking about it, if I was under subpoena and forced to testify (hehe) I'd have to admit I wouldn't have any idea who was really right.

But the difference is "peer review." It isn't like there are equal numbers of scientists on either side of the debate. There are a very select few on the twoof side, and NONE who are considered experts in the specific field they're writing about. The reason is, when CT science is graded by other experts in these fields... not all of whom could possibly be part of any vast conspiracy... they all fail miserably. The official story, on the other, passes the muster.

But forget getting published in journals and all that, just look at the Internet. Like I said, I'm no science expert, but I am pretty good at reading people. When I come to a place where the leaders of the other side admit drives them up a wall, I expect to see some fighting back. If they had truth on their side, we'd be getting scientists in here out the wazoo that would be throwing numbers and periodic table thingys back and forth so fast it would one's head swim.

Who do we get? Kids. I don't mean that with any disrespect to the youth, but it's very telling when those are the only people that see any benefit of trying to argue science in here. Skeptics don't disbelieve the notion of conspiracies. If the official story doesn't make sense the skeptics will be the first ones calling it into doubt, not because of any political ideal or preconcieved notion of how things are, but simply because the numbers don't add up (btw, I stay out of religious debates here... but I'm certainly not a "full-bore" member of the society).

And in this particular conspiracy theory, once the numbers stop adding up the only argument that can be tossed back at the skeptics is that they're either too close-minded to see outside their box or they're consciously or subconsciously part of it either knowlingly or by being a brainwashed useful idiot. All of them...

...along with all the experts in the fields who the skeptics are siding with...

...along with every science geek in the country who would LOOOOOOOVE to prove their mental superiority over everyone else in the world by using his or her skills to prove it to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

Oh, and then there's the dishonesty. One side is littered with it top to bottom. I don't say that because I don't support their beliefs. I say that because, looking at it as objectively as humanly possible, it's honestly stunning to see how much lying, how much willingness to accept said lying, and how much accusations of lying towards people who have absolutely no reason to be comes from the Truthers.

It doesn't take a PhD to figure out who's right about 9/11, it only takes a very basic understanding of human psychology. One side is supported by science and reason. One side is supported by YouTube videos and baseless accusations (the funniest is that "accepted science" somehow equals "neo-con." Scientists aren't neo-cons... they're rule10ing weirdos).

Regardless of any paranoias about what COULD have happened on 9/11, the FACTS... not planted evidence, not lying eyewitnesses, not manufactured science in reports... prove it didn't.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes I have a lot to look into, and you guys have already pointed me in some good directions and I appreciate that. I am open to both sides and I really want to make an informed decision for myself, so I will study up.

I'm really glad to see you are willing to research this subject properly.

I apologize for my abruptness in our first exchange, but you have to know something about how you answered my question:

Since you seemed to favor the conspiracy, I asked you if you ever considered that there wasn't a conspiracy. My question was sort of a to test to figure out if you were open to the possibility that the "official story" might be true. A trully objective person who is genuinely interested in both sides of the debate should be able to accept such a possibility. Clearly, with your response to that question you weren't. It was exactly what I expected from a closed-minded truther, and it was quite insulting. You answered by a strawman, putting me and others who agree with the "official story" in an impossible position: According to you, either the Official story is false, or the war in Iraq is justified. I absolutely execrate being put in such a position. These two (the war in Iraq and 9/11) are completely different topics (not to mention the non existing war in Iran which is a non-topic). This shows that you are giving your own political spin to these events and are unwilling to see past it.

As Viper told you, you can agree with the official story and be pissed about the war in Iraq at the same time. Both are not mutually exclusive. If you really want to know the truth about 9/11, you should better leave your frustrations and hatred of the Bush administration and the war (which are both absolutely understandable sentiments and you will find that they are widely shared by many "debunkers" here), and focus on the facts, the real evidence, the real science. Leave your emotions at the door and try to look at it rationally.

Maybe it was an inside job, but don't start with your conclusion before you even started to research. Because you know what? The Official story could also be true, and the people who did this atrocity should not be left off the hook. The least you can do is to read the official reports to know for yourself what they are saying, instead of parroting conspiracy sites who are misrepresenting these very same reports. Read for yourself and make the choice yourself. Most truthers who say the NIST report is whitewash have not read the damned thing! You have the choice, to read both sides of the story and judge for yourself.

Also, be aware of the true believer syndrome, because once you deny yourself this choice, and willingly ignore reality, then you are lost.

 

[Brainster]

Canada's Globe & Mail covers Zeitgeist. The most relevant passage to the forum is:

What troubles me the most is that, for all the talk of skepticism, conspiracy counterculture is really an anti-intellectual, populist movement - much like Intelligent Design. For all their absurdity, conspiracy theorists try to drag everything back to the level of common sense.

The rest of the article is just okay (his entire debunking consists of mentioning the Popular Mechanics and Scientific American Articles), but that's a pretty good paragraph.

 

[R.Mackey]

Typical "Truth Movement" Behavior

The "Zeitgeist" movie has just hit a lonely and relatively sane corner of paintball on the 'net.

Submissions to engineering, science, or other scholarly journals? Still pegged at zero.

Publicity != Truth. Learn that lesson, then get back to me, but not before.

 

[Ultramedia]

Yeah I liked it a little too but most of it I had learned about (dare I say) in my search for the truth.

It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance of many in the so called intellectual elite that is JREF "duh-bunkers". So much prejudice and harsh criticism being made by so many that have seen so little of this movie to begin with.

Perhaps the label "Archie Debunker" is a suitable answer to those giggly anti-ct'ists who are so trapped in conventional thinking they mistake as critical thinking. The idea that ANYTHING a CT creates is ridiculed with extreme prejudice is one so often seen here.

The interesting thing is that none of that seems to stop them from watching it. I watched the entire video and albeit it's creators took more creative license with music and other areas of entertainment to stimulate multi-sensory impact then necessary, it was interesting.

I see how this will become yet another boorish CT bashing bake-off by those needing a candle to see the sun. From a historical standpoint the video is pretty accurate moreover many of the motives that were once those ideas that most of you would have scoffed as twoofers tricks back then, are the CT's of that era's vindication today.

I was once a conservative anti-CT who's angst aggression never quite reached the level of closing myself off to the idea that possibilities exist.

Galleleo was seen as CT'ist Isaac Newton, MLK spoke of a conspiracy to kill him and that he wouldn't live to age 40. He was 39 when he was murdered.

With all the lies of wmd's, CIA advising an administration that the wmd issue was in fact false, they got blamed for giving bad intel. The only one who had the class to resign was Powell, when his integrity was used to facilitate the agenda of yet another war. In the meantime, bin-laden is still in a cave somewhere, or so I'm told. Having served six years in the U.S. Navy I often like to play devils advocate regarding such heretical words like "controlled demolition." It is with as much drop dead honesty and introspection as I can muster in asking myself, could that have been done in the way some CT'ists are afraid it was done?

I certainly know the possibility exists moreover I know first hand that our Government has done some pretty nasty things and that it isn't as hard as you might think. There is some truth in much of what truthers believe without having to produce that pristine perfect evidence debunkers are blinded by there own convention to see.

I know that you can stand outside next to any CT'ist on a sunny Sunday afternoon and the sun is going to shine on both of you.

Just remember to wear your sun glasses, those tinfoil hats are murder on the eyes lol.

Zeitgeist wasn't so much about God as it is about how Religion preys on people (no pun). I would expect those atheists with there staggering intellect to have figured that out. Perhaps it was too tempting an opportunity to bash the bible believer regardless of the less then zero influence it would have in changing any opinions they hold so dear.

I don't know why I would consider this but I wonder if in that last ten minutes of life, they don't ask or at least say to themselves "Jeez I hope that god thing is really true after all" I mean what have you got to lose at that point? No one at JREF will say anything at a time like that.

Agnosticism notwithstanding the idea of atheism is a self refuting concept. Einstein himself never pushed the quality of humility over the cliff into humorous humiliation by judging the believer. He admitted believing in a God but was agnostic. To know unequivocally that there is in fact NO GOD, one would have to be all knowing omni present omnipotent i.e. , GOD

There's the rub.

- Ultramedia

Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? .

 

[Arus808]

welcome ultramedia, please refer to the links provided in this very thread that debunks every claim mentioned in Zeitgeist. If you have any questions, feel free to post.

 

[Ultramedia]

welcome ultramedia, please refer to the links provided in this very thread that debunks every claim mentioned in Zeitgeist. If you have any questions, feel free to post.

Don't be so presumptuous.

I have read them and they prove nothing.

Why that doesn't register with you I can only speculate. I knew back when they were making chips for dogs and cats that humans would follow regardless of any cloak and dagger reasons for doing it. It only makes sense to package something like that behind the guise of personal safety and security. The amber alert, Elizabeth Smart, John Walsh would make worthy a spokesman for it as Jordan did Nike.

You don't see that coming in the very near future?

Do you think it is even possible?

I have a series 6 securities license and a better then average grasp of investment strategies most of them will fail by design for the very reasons the movie says. The concept of Life Insurance and your privilege to borrow your own money or "cash value" has to be the biggest scam among many when it comes to money and who controls it.

I have seen our Government distribute counterfeit rubles to inflate an other economy in the late 70's (yes I am fifty*&%something)

It is clear to me that you have your mind made up,,

the LAST thing I'm going to do is,,

confuse you with the facts.

especially when ignored

- Ultramedia

 

[Ultramedia]

Pardalis in your post to warlexz53,,

What he do? set your house on fire?


I always find it a scandalous bit disingenuous for someone to accuse another of having there emotions get in the way of another persons view.

You apologize for your abruptness to him and are twice as abrupt afterward.

You want to say you were quite insulted by him and many other instances you give as "emotional" while at the same time request he become more "spock" like for you?

You test him in a maneuver to see if he "qualifies" as having an open mind using the prejudice that CT's usually don't and you don't see something wrong with that picture??

As for an open mind,, YOU are the one that subscribes to ONE theory and one alone.

Regardless of your assertion that other theories could be true, the fact is, the one you are quoting disagrees with ONE while you disagree with all others. You endorse ONE as the "official" theory having no more motivation to keep looking. So who is more likely to have an opened mind?

I make no apologies for my emotions as long as I am not getting into personal attacks. That depends on whether or not your self concept is one molecule away from being an eggshell. We all boil at different degrees.

Then in the same post you make the assertion that the NIST "Theory" could also be true. That is approximately 10,000 pages and with the exception of R. Makey, expecting anyone to read something like that AND understand it tells me that it is more then likely YOU haven't read it all yourself.

Parroting other ct'ists is yet another area of your own hypocrisy

Should I quote the posts you plagiarized yourself or did you actually author all of yours sighting all third party authors of those you have quoted?
I have seen this issue go on for many years and wonder how debunkers can make jokes in the name of superior intelligence using labels as tired as "politically correct".

They laugh at them saying they will be looking for truth years from now they are so ignorant. I got a wager that debunkers will still be there to make fun of them long after the NIST theory has been proven a one in a ten trillion chance in hell. Those are the same odds you will have in getting any CT's to even consider NIST, using reprisal to "open there mind"

sheesh

- Ultramedia

I'm really glad to see you are willing to research this subject properly.

I apologize for my abruptness in our first exchange, but you have to know something about how you answered my question:

Since you seemed to favor the conspiracy, I asked you if you ever considered that there wasn't a conspiracy. My question was sort of a to test to figure out if you were open to the possibility that the "official story" might be true. A trully objective person who is genuinely interested in both sides of the debate should be able to accept such a possibility. Clearly, with your response to that question you weren't. It was exactly what I expected from a closed-minded truther, and it was quite insulting. You answered by a strawman, putting me and others who agree with the "official story" in an impossible position: According to you, either the Official story is false, or the war in Iraq is justified. I absolutely execrate being put in such a position. These two (the war in Iraq and 9/11) are completely different topics (not to mention the non existing war in Iran which is a non-topic). This shows that you are giving your own political spin to these events and are unwilling to see past it.

As Viper told you, you can agree with the official story and be pissed about the war in Iraq at the same time. Both are not mutually exclusive. If you really want to know the truth about 9/11, you should better leave your frustrations and hatred of the Bush administration and the war (which are both absolutely understandable sentiments and you will find that they are widely shared by many "debunkers" here), and focus on the facts, the real evidence, the real science. Leave your emotions at the door and try to look at it rationally.

Maybe it was an inside job, but don't start with your conclusion before you even started to research. Because you know what? The Official story could also be true, and the people who did this atrocity should not be left off the hook. The least you can do is to read the official reports to know for yourself what they are saying, instead of parroting conspiracy sites who are misrepresenting these very same reports. Read for yourself and make the choice yourself. Most truthers who say the NIST report is whitewash have not read the damned thing! You have the choice, to read both sides of the story and judge for yourself.

 

[Ultramedia]

Shrinker, Korey Rowe's fantasies aside, Loose Change's budget would be in the thousands, not millions. Do you really think those morons are capable of raising millions of dollars? They just had to hit their fans up for more money.

Rosie O'donnel is investing a million

hee hee

 

[calebprime]

Ultramedia, if you can show that early Christian practices are related to the Federal Reserve, all of which is related to the events of 9/11, you'd be making a case for watching Zeitgeist carefully.

It wouldn't be hard to persuade me that the U.S. is going to go through some rough times financially, but that's a different issue.

 

[Drudgewire]

Zeitgeist wasn't so much about God as it is about how Religion preys on people (no pun). I would expect those atheists with there staggering intellect to have figured that out. Perhaps it was too tempting an opportunity to bash the bible believer regardless of the less then zero influence it would have in changing any opinions they hold so dear.

I don't know why I would consider this but I wonder if in that last ten minutes of life, they don't ask or at least say to themselves "Jeez I hope that god thing is really true after all" I mean what have you got to lose at that point? No one at JREF will say anything at a time like that.

Agnosticism notwithstanding the idea of atheism is a self refuting concept. Einstein himself never pushed the quality of humility over the cliff into humorous humiliation by judging the believer. He admitted believing in a God but was agnostic. To know unequivocally that there is in fact NO GOD, one would have to be all knowing omni present omnipotent i.e. , GOD

I believe in God. I believe He gave us the power to use reason and intelligence.

Both of which tell me Zeigeist is one of the most retarded things I've ever tried to sit through.

 

[tsig]

Thank you for showing some interest in my inquiries. I looked through the links you provided. I wasnt aware that so much damage was done to building 7. However I still dont think it was enough to bring the building down. First of all I dont believe fire can melt steal. Two, even though there was a large chunk missing in the South part of the tower I dont think that would have been sufficient enough to bring it down. I use to build erector sets when I was a kid and I could make some pretty weird **** stand without it falling and this buidling was very very well reinforced.

Even if the hole in the South end did make the tower fall, why didnt it collapse at an angle? If you knock the side of something out it usually falls in that direction. The building came down completely straight. Lets be honest, there isnt any real evidence either way. But just by looking at it, the FEMA and 9/11 commision explanations just dont make sense.

Why did they use fireproofing?

 

[twinstead]

Who said anything about fire melting steel?

 

[tsig]

Yeah I liked it a little too but most of it I had learned about (dare I say) in my search for the truth.

It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance of many in the so called intellectual elite that is JREF "duh-bunkers". So much prejudice and harsh criticism being made by so many that have seen so little of this movie to begin with.

Perhaps the label "Archie Debunker" is a suitable answer to those giggly anti-ct'ists who are so trapped in conventional thinking they mistake as critical thinking. The idea that ANYTHING a CT creates is ridiculed with extreme prejudice is one so often seen here.

The interesting thing is that none of that seems to stop them from watching it. I watched the entire video and albeit it's creators took more creative license with music and other areas of entertainment to stimulate multi-sensory impact then necessary, it was interesting.

I see how this will become yet another boorish CT bashing bake-off by those needing a candle to see the sun. From a historical standpoint the video is pretty accurate moreover many of the motives that were once those ideas that most of you would have scoffed as twoofers tricks back then, are the CT's of that era's vindication today.

I was once a conservative anti-CT who's angst aggression never quite reached the level of closing myself off to the idea that possibilities exist.

Galleleo was seen as CT'ist Isaac Newton, MLK spoke of a conspiracy to kill him and that he wouldn't live to age 40. He was 39 when he was murdered.

With all the lies of wmd's, CIA advising an administration that the wmd issue was in fact false, they got blamed for giving bad intel. The only one who had the class to resign was Powell, when his integrity was used to facilitate the agenda of yet another war. In the meantime, bin-laden is still in a cave somewhere, or so I'm told. Having served six years in the U.S. Navy I often like to play devils advocate regarding such heretical words like "controlled demolition." It is with as much drop dead honesty and introspection as I can muster in asking myself, could that have been done in the way some CT'ists are afraid it was done?

I certainly know the possibility exists moreover I know first hand that our Government has done some pretty nasty things and that it isn't as hard as you might think. There is some truth in much of what truthers believe without having to produce that pristine perfect evidence debunkers are blinded by there own convention to see.

I know that you can stand outside next to any CT'ist on a sunny Sunday afternoon and the sun is going to shine on both of you.

Just remember to wear your sun glasses, those tinfoil hats are murder on the eyes lol.

Zeitgeist wasn't so much about God as it is about how Religion preys on people (no pun). I would expect those atheists with there staggering intellect to have figured that out. Perhaps it was too tempting an opportunity to bash the bible believer regardless of the less then zero influence it would have in changing any opinions they hold so dear.

I don't know why I would consider this but I wonder if in that last ten minutes of life, they don't ask or at least say to themselves "Jeez I hope that god thing is really true after all" I mean what have you got to lose at that point? No one at JREF will say anything at a time like that.

Agnosticism notwithstanding the idea of atheism is a self refuting concept. Einstein himself never pushed the quality of humility over the cliff into humorous humiliation by judging the believer. He admitted believing in a God but was agnostic. To know unequivocally that there is in fact NO GOD, one would have to be all knowing omni present omnipotent i.e. , GOD

There's the rub.

- Ultramedia

Why was there fireproofing on the beams?

God refutes itself.

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Ultramedia: First prove to us that you know the difference between a Conspiracy and a Conspiracy Theory.

You seem to use evidence of Conspiracies to commit a crime in the past as proof that a Conspiracy Theory is true. This is completely illogical.

 

[The Almond]

As for an open mind,, YOU are the one that subscribes to ONE theory and one alone.

Why does open mindedness imply that one should accept a myriad of theories regardless of their technical veracity? I think it's rather presumptuous of you to assume that any of us here have rejected alternative theories outright. I personally studied three alternative theories (to the NIST progressive collapse theory) in detail, and found them all to be utter gibberish.

Regardless of your assertion that other theories could be true, the fact is, the one you are quoting disagrees with ONE while you disagree with all others. You endorse ONE as the "official" theory having no more motivation to keep looking. So who is more likely to have an opened mind?

The impetus and inspiration to "keep looking" needs to come from the ones proposing alternative theories. Specifically they would need to:
1) Make claims and assertions that are not demonstrably false
2) Show how their theories encompass more of the available evidence than the NIST theory does.

As such, every competing theory thus far has failed at step 1. I don't intend to hold as equally plausible all theories simply because they oppose each other. That's not open mindedness, that's stupidity.

I make no apologies for my emotions as long as I am not getting into personal attacks. That depends on whether or not your self concept is one molecule away from being an eggshell. We all boil at different degrees.

Then in the same post you make the assertion that the NIST "Theory" could also be true. That is approximately 10,000 pages and with the exception of R. Makey, expecting anyone to read something like that AND understand it tells me that it is more then likely YOU haven't read it all yourself.

Actually, the first report NCSTAR 1, is written in layman's terms. Following Hawking's suggestion, the writers have eliminated equations from the entirety of the text, relegating them to appendices and companion reports. NCSTAR 1 is about 300 pages long and can be read in an afternoon.

The frustration around here is that most conspiracy theorists have not even bothered to do that. They misquote, misrepresent and lie about the contents and context of the NCSTAR. That being said, anyone who wishes to debate on an evenly mildly technical level should at least read the NCSTAR and be capable of understanding it.

Parroting other ct'ists is yet another area of your own hypocrisy

Should I quote the posts you plagiarized yourself or did you actually author all of yours sighting all third party authors of those you have quoted?
I have seen this issue go on for many years and wonder how debunkers can make jokes in the name of superior intelligence using labels as tired as "politically correct".

They laugh at them saying they will be looking for truth years from now they are so ignorant. I got a wager that debunkers will still be there to make fun of them long after the NIST theory has been proven a one in a ten trillion chance in hell. Those are the same odds you will have in getting any CT's to even consider NIST, using reprisal to "open there mind"

sheesh

- Ultramedia

I've noticed that you spent an awful lot of time insulting and criticizing a poster on this forum, but not his arguments. Would you care to engage in a debate on the facts and not on the style and candor of other posters?

 

[T.A.M.]

Theories that make sense and have evidence to back them up...
1. Official account of 9/11

Theories that are speculative, with no evidence to back them up...
1. CD of towers
2. Missile at Pentagon
3. No Plane at Shanksville
4. Plane at shanksville shot down.
5. No hijackers on planes
6. Star Wars Beam Weapons used to bring down towers
7. Leprachauns brought down towers
8. Aliens brought down towers.

TAM

 

[JimBenArm]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an increase in the number of posters who just show up to say "You're all a bunch of close-minded poopyheads, and I hate you!" in the last few weeks? None of them really have anything to say, just a big tantrum, and then they disappear!
Pretty pathetic, actually.

 

[Sergio Agüero]

Show's nicely who's winning the "debate" doesn't it?

 

[HyJinX]

Theories that make sense and have evidence to back them up...
1. Official account of 9/11

Theories that are speculative, with no evidence to back them up...
1. CD of towers
2. Missile at Pentagon
3. No Plane at Shanksville
4. Plane at shanksville shot down.
5. No hijackers on planes
6. Star Wars Beam Weapons used to bring down towers
7. Leprachauns brought down towers
8. Aliens brought down towers.

TAM

9. Flyover