ZEITGEIST, The Movie

JimBenArm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Summer vacation, methinks. Don't kids play outside anymore?
 
JimBenArm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've noticed the same thing. But it's not just kiddies. There's Plumjam, OldSchool, g4mcdad, etc. (pardon wrong spellings.)
 
calebprime said:
I've noticed the same thing. But it's not just kiddies. There's Plumjam, OldSchool, g4mcdad, etc. (pardon wrong spellings.)
Click to expand...
I'm already prepared for an onslaught tomorrow. Twoofers are going to be feeling extra defensive after the Discovery Channel show airs tonight. :)
 
Yes the intellectual age of the truther posters here recently has been very young. Given the average mental capacity of a given truther is low anyway, it is not all that surprising.

TAM;)
 
There is a special on the history channel tonight (8/20) about 9/11 conspiracies. This will be interesting to watch. From the commercial it looked like there was a guy that was really pissed off about all the theories. Its like a real life JREF forum!
 
Ultramedia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not Galileo again. Why don't you use Jor-El next time?

Ultramedia said:
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.
Click to expand...

We're talking about facts here, objective rational facts. Anger is a bad way to approach any subject, especially 9/11.

You apologize for your abruptness to him and are twice as abrupt afterward.
Click to expand...
What do you care?

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?
Click to expand...
This is a critical thinking forum.

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??
Click to expand...
Nope.

As for an open mind,, YOU are the one that subscribes to ONE theory and one alone.
Click to expand...
Well, CTists subscribe to many theories, all at once, and none of them make any sense and none are based on fact. So sue me for supporting the only coherent and substanciated theory about 9/11.

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?
Click to expand...
I am confronted everyday with alternate theories which contradict the Official theory, so everyday I expect one of those theories to come up with some kind of evidence. I am still waiting.

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.
Click to expand...
I read this one:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

and some of these:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

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?
Click to expand...
Feel free to do so. I haven't parroted anything.

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".
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean.

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"
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the NIST report?

I await your critique.
 
Last edited:
HyJinX said:
Summer vacation, methinks.
Click to expand...

Back to school will see most of these teenagers gone, here and at the LCF. The real hard core one who say they will be coming to NYC for 9/11 will be sorely disappointed to know that Dylan has scheduled his "truthfest" in large NYC nightclubs.
 
JimBenArm said:
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.
Click to expand...

As a noob, it looks like a lot of Pro-troofer threads are started by newbie troofers saying:

"Hi, I'm new here, and I just happened to watch xyz video and it raised some questions for me. I'm not sure what to believe, what do you all think?"

and within 3 posts, they're refusing to listen to our side and they're showing themselves to be a full blown truther in the cult of truthiness.
 
SpaceMonkeyZero said:
As a noob, it looks like a lot of Pro-troofer threads are started by newbie troofers saying:

"Hi, I'm new here, and I just happened to watch xyz video and it raised some questions for me. I'm not sure what to believe, what do you all think?"

and within 3 posts, they're refusing to listen to our side and they're showing themselves to be a full blown truther in the cult of truthiness.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's how they normally go about it. But recently, it seems like we've gotten a lot of the ones who don't even bother with that, it's full-on woo from the first post. But they don't stick around for more than two or three posts, just stir things up and disappear!
 
The Almond said:
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?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? PROVING anything here seems to be an exercise in futility. I have seen for months now the same cliques say the same thing over and over in response to anything ever said here.

I would have better luck proving a thing if we all agreed on the same stable datum. The fact is we don't. Debunking CT's one always points to the NISTIAN BIBLE and Ill no more believe that then an atheist would use the Bible as his stable datum.

There are things in the movie anyone can disagree with it isn't perfect, has strange music blah blah blah Get Over it. Someone doesn't agree with the NIST Report they are customarily advised to see this link that link as if reading that information a second third time is going to make any more sense then it did the first time we disagree with it.

Then the same old accusation about NOT reading all of it persists. This entire forum is so saturated with it's traditional patterns and protocols I could have predicted most of your response verbatim because they are always the same.

Rather then test your skills of debate or argue with a terminally self righteous group of know-it-all in one clique or the other, Ill express myself in the way I want following MY OWN protocol whether you like it or not whether you agree or not.

Ill direct you to the Jay Howard vs R. Makey discussion where again,, a lot of time and typing done by two obviously very intelligent people. It would have been refreshing to see if once a dialogue like that concluded in the transformation of ones fixed opinions to those of his "opponent" .

You see it as a game with no middle ground someone wins someone loses but neither one has learned a damn thing more then they were willing to accept at the start. Since we have these discussions with the allies of our cliques watching, accepting anything less then what you started with results in more of the same.

It begins to degrade into a meticulously executed act of splitting hairs in the name of "straw man" or the ever popular and even more juvenile name calling use of the word "twoofer".

example: R. Makey who worked very hard to educate us the virtues of the NIST report as his stable datum was why I could have predicted his giving up on Jay Howard. Obviously R. Makey has a superior knowledge of engineering and much education which I assume was the reason he saw himself as the "teacher" and Howard as the unwilling student. The questions Jay had that were never addressed went unanswered by using the same tactics traditionally used here. Accusations that he didn't understand the report and claims that his questions were answered where it never occurred to him that perhaps it wasn't.

No one likes repeating themselves and as much as I was intrigued with that discussion, I sure didn't see it either.

It wasn't R Makey's knowledge of the NIST report but the art of persuasion that was lacking skill. I admit I marveled at his intelligence but like him I won't ignore what I know about fighting a fire or my experience with steel's incredible ability to withstand a Jet crashing through steel compartments and NOT SOFTENING.

His comments about CT'rs come from the same prejudice that wouldn't allow him to listen hard enough to the very valid points Jay was making. Jay had doubt, reasonable doubt that was easy to see. He also has very impressive powers of persuasion. Another words if that doubt can influence me that doubt exists then those arguments he had also have possibilities which were more then sufficient for me to agree on.

Perhaps all that engineering education is too much to write off having invested so much time and money. It is the same reason my years and education fighting Jet Aircraft fires in an all steel environment aboard Aircraft Carriers won't allow me to buy the NIST report as anything more then JUST another THEORY and its proponents JUST another kind of CT'ist.

The science of fire and the many personalities it takes on when JP-5 is added is one thing but Jet fuel is Jet fuel. You can add anti icing, lubricity changes can alter it considerably.

Removing the postulate of explosives being used as part of that destruction is and always will be a moot subject.

The idea and the odds that BOTH those towers fell the way NIST theorizes is a hard pill for me to swallow. As for WTC7 heh I won't even go there.

Until I have seen something that makes more sense, then the NIST report is all we have got and I will always doubt it. Many of the same reasons Jay Howards questions went unanswered to his satisfaction only confirmed them for me.

He had a very impressive argument and one that brought much of my experience to mind. I write software these days but grew up the son of one of the chief investigators for the FBI, I served on board the USS Saratoga CV-60 Forrestal class carrier task-force 6th fleet. I was in a Division called the "Nucleus Fire Party" a mixed group of UDT S.E.A.L and firefighter team. I am a Card Carrying member of the NRA a past conservative republican turned what ever isn't in the two party system we have now.

I no more follow the so called loose change crowd as I do the debunkers, those debunking debunkers OR (in case) the debunkers debunking for debunction sake. I want solid Proof as much as anyone else. I have no preconceived notions about terrorist Muslims etc. I also know our Government is not above using such tragic events as pretext for wars whether the involvement directly or indirectly carried out.

I think wasting time dissecting posts looking for angles to attack your opponent while missing the point or central message is as dumb as dumb gets but that's just me. I think Zeitgeist was an interesting movie and as I said much of the historical issues it makes are in fact NOT THEORY NOT A REPORT but FACT. The spin they want to put on that history is and will continue to be up for debate. That debate I assume I would do no better then R Makey or Jay Howard in the conclusion of beta theory.

Not that I didn't learn something there or have nothing to contribute.

I simply don't have the time

- Ultramedia
 
Last edited:
Ultramedia said:
Are you serious? PROVING anything here seems to be an exercise in futility. I have seen for months now the same cliques say the same thing over and over in response to anything ever said here.
Click to expand...


thats 100% false. We go by what is supported by evidence and science. To this date, not one single person from the 911 liar's movement has provided such. Not one.

Please list the names of those who have submitted their research and reports to reputable scientific and engineering journals and was accepted and published.

If you have the proof, then we will look into what your proof states.

Other than, what we've been getting is speculation, conjecture and numerous exercises in incredulity.



the rest of your rant has nothing to do with the movie or the claims within, which have been touched upon and debunked, even before it came out (because the subjects ARE old) Care to provide proof that everythng stated in that movie is 100% correct?
 
Ultramedia said:
I have no preconceived notions about terrorist Muslims etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you'd extend that same courtesy to our Government when looking for "the truth," you'd have less trouble overlooking the real facts and more trouble digesting supposition, innuendo, and distortions. ;)
 
JimBenArm said:
Opinions may vary, but facts don't. I think this is where your problem begins.
Learn to differentiate between the two, and your problem will clear right up.
Click to expand...

Then I take it the existence of God is a fact since you say so and
your assertion that the movie is BS is yet another fact?

Predicated on what? I suggest that was also your opinion which again VARIES from others and that my freinds

IS A FACT

- Ultra
 
Ultramedia said:
100% false? You just made my point 100%

Nothing like contradicting yourself eh

- Ultra
Click to expand...

excuse me? i didn't contradict myself, you just proved yet again, you dont know what you are talking about and are only here to be a bellyaching whiner.

iF you have the proof, provide it. All you've done is whine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom