Zeitgeist

GhostInTheRuins · 10-01-2009 12:21pm

Serenity Now! wrote: »

The way they do it, the quality of what they do and the cost of doing so...:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Were talking about the venus project

1 - Cost - It is a cashless society
2 - "The way they do it" - If machines are fixing other machines and running completely independently why would you need to change the way they work?

Fighting Irish · 10-01-2009 3:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Trust me, that film has a lot more problems than that.

Mainly the whole film is a giant non sequiter.

no different than the bible then

Sofa_King Good · 12-01-2009 5:42pm

The first section endorses both marxism and and Rothchild manufactured theosaphy and therefore pushes a one world government agenda.

See here for what must have been a major influence for the film´ http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/contents.html

And here also fron Theosophist Alice Bailey
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Steps Towards the New World Order
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/exte1082.html

Here is the Lucius Trust, publisherformerly known as the lucifer trust http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer

Then you have New World order advocate Fresco and the venus poject a "veritable blue-print for the genesis of a new world civilization,". A man who thinks thar for humans to survive as a race they will need to become a modified species with machines-

onemorechance · 12-01-2009 6:00pm

I was unconvinced by the big deal made of these new secure passports. Having worked where they are made, there is little worry about them being used to track your position as the movie inferred. They are high frequency rf transmitters so you need to be very close to the receiver for them to work. I would be interested in getting peoples opinions on the steel girders in the collapsed buildings and the angled "cuts" in them.

Nick_oliveri · 12-01-2009 6:07pm

Ahh, 911 rule! You are talking about Zeitgeist 1. This is a thread about Attendum, the sequel.

Angled cuts on the steel has been covered in the massive 9/11 thread on this forum.

King Mob · 12-01-2009 6:12pm

onemorechance wrote: »

I was unconvinced by the big deal made of these new secure passports. Having worked where they are made, there is little worry about them being used to track your position as the movie inferred. They are high frequency rf transmitters so you need to be very close to the receiver for them to work. I would be interested in getting peoples opinions on the steel girders in the collapsed buildings and the angled "cuts" in them.

The pictures you see with clean cuts generally were taken during the clean up operation, where they would have cut through the girders.

onemorechance · 12-01-2009 6:16pm

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Ahh, 911 rule! You are talking about Zeitgeist 1. This is a thread about Attendum, the sequel.

Angled cuts on the steel has been covered in the massive 9/11 thread on this forum.

The thread title is "Zeitgeist".

onemorechance · 12-01-2009 6:18pm

King Mob wrote: »

The pictures you see with clean cuts generally were taken during the clean up operation, where they would have cut through the girders.

Ok, that makes sense. Good man thanks! One thing that really annoyed me about the movie was how the government would blow up buildings full of it's own people.

King Mob · 12-01-2009 6:31pm

onemorechance wrote: »

Ok, that makes sense. Good man thanks! One thing that really annoyed me about the movie was how the government would blow up buildings full of it's own people.

And yet leaves people who "expose" the conspiracy alive?

In truth the entirety of this film is lies on top of lies.
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/
This guy calls the filmmaker on most of them.

Nick_oliveri · 12-01-2009 8:45pm

onemorechance wrote: »

The thread title is "Zeitgeist".

I suppose. Just so you know, im not trying to be a bollocks, the second one is a good watch and dont let me stop you from discussing the first one!!

Kernel · 13-01-2009 2:50am

King Mob wrote: »

The pictures you see with clean cuts generally were taken during the clean up operation, where they would have cut through the girders.

Generally? Would have? Are you presenting this theory as fact, if so, then proof please. If not then you once again left out: 'in my opinion'.

King Mob · 13-01-2009 3:07am

Kernel wrote: »

Generally? Would have? Are you presenting this theory as fact, if so, then proof please. If not then you once again left out: 'in my opinion'.

Well unless they were letting photographers in immediately after the collapse it's a fair assumption that the photo was taken either during the rescue operation or during the later clean up.

But no I've no verified dates for the pictures. And as far as I know neither do the conspiracy theorists.

I use words like "generally" and "would have" because it's intellectually honest. It means that I might be wrong if you have evidence to say so

Kernel · 13-01-2009 3:14am

King Mob wrote: »

Well unless they were letting photographers in immediately after the collapse it's a fair assumption that the photo was taken either during the rescue operation or during the later clean up.

If you assume you make and ass out of 'u' and 'me' mobby.

King Mob wrote: »

But no I've no verified dates for the pictures. And as far as I know neither do the conspiracy theorists.

I use words like "generally" and "would have" because it's intellectually honest. It means that I might be wrong if you have evidence to say so

But you made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you my good man, I've claimed nothing and so I don't have to prove anything.

King Mob · 13-01-2009 3:24am

Kernel wrote: »

If you assume you make and ass out of 'u' and 'me' mobby.

So it's an unfair assumption because.......?

Kernel wrote: »

But you made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you my good man, I've claimed nothing and so I don't have to prove anything.

Actually I'm refuting the claim that there where cuts in the girders before the cleanup or rescue operation. It's the people who claim that who need to provide evidence that the photos showing the cut girders where taken before the work crew cut them.

Kernel · 13-01-2009 3:27am

King Mob wrote: »

Actually I'm refuting the claim that there where cuts in the girders before the cleanup or rescue operation. It's the people who claim that who need to provide evidence that the photos showing the cut girders where taken before the work crew cut them.

Ah now now Mobby, someone asked what the story was with the angled cuts on the girders. They asked an open question. You made a claim, now prove the claim. Evidence. Us conspiracy theorists and truthers want evidence.

King Mob · 13-01-2009 3:39am

Kernel wrote: »

Ah now now Mobby, someone asked what the story was with the angled cuts on the girders. They asked an open question. You made a claim, now prove the claim.

Still can't find a date for the most referenced picture, either for or against the conspiracy. But here's a good bit of evidence on the whole girder issue.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Kernel wrote: »

Evidence. Us conspiracy theorists and truthers want evidence.

First time for everything I suppose.

Kernel · 13-01-2009 3:54am

King Mob wrote: »

Still can't find a date for the most referenced picture, either for or against the conspiracy. But here's a good bit of evidence on the whole girder issue.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

I've read that before. Of course, it's a biased site and not independent by any means. But where is the definitive evidence on the site?

That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.

All I see here is supposition and opinion?

King Mob · 13-01-2009 3:59am

Kernel wrote: »

I've read that before. Of course, it's a biased site and not independent by any means. But where is the definitive evidence on the site?

Most of their references are right there in blue.

Kernel wrote: »

All I see here is supposition and opinion?

Yea that's fairly clear. It offers a better explanation than pre-cut girders.
And it's wrong because.....?

Mahatma coat · 13-01-2009 4:46am

and its Right because??????????????????????

seriously man

Kama · 13-01-2009 4:54am

It's not 'wrong' per se, it's just symmetrical with the rhetorics of CT that thou and Diogenes tend to criticise; hence Kernels use of bold.

That the world could be ruled by anarchocapitalist Semitic Lizards wearing Prada

proof, evidence, etc etc. 'Not unreasonable' is another dependable device...nice looping double negative without substantive content, I mean, can't we just be reasonable, unlike those unreasonable people...

Shibboleths ain't just for Christmas...

King Mob · 13-01-2009 4:58am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and its Right because??????????????????????

seriously man

Why would they need to cut girders before hand? How did they do it with noone seeing? Cutting through several large steel girders in a busy office would be quite noticeable? Since it's a fair bet that Bush and Cheney don't do alot of steel work so contractors would have to do it. How come none have come forward?

Occam's razor.
You have to assume alot to make the evidence fit into the conspiracy.
All you have to assume for the other side is that a CT took something out of context. Not exactly a leap of faith.

Mahatma coat · 13-01-2009 5:03am

once you start making assumptions you have lost your high ground of righteousness, so what makes your assumptions any beter than ours

your Occams razor only works if you are in possesion of all the facts, which clearly you are not, so again what makes your assumptions logial and correct and ours baseless speculation.

Urge to use a recently banned word rising

Time Magazine · 13-01-2009 5:29am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

once you start making assumptions you have lost your high ground of righteousness, so what makes your assumptions any beter than ours

your Occams razor only works if you are in possesion of all the facts, which clearly you are not, so again what makes your assumptions logial and correct and ours baseless speculation.

Urge to use a recently banned word rising

This is completely flawed. Just entirely.

From the top:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

once you start making assumptions you have lost your high ground of righteousness, so what makes your assumptions any beter than ours

There's an assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow, and there's an assumption that it won't. Can you see the distinction in the acceptability of these?

your Occams razor only works if you are in possesion of all the facts

Wrong. Oftentimes there are no facts, but the truth always exists. Moreover, Ockham's razor requires assumptions.

again what makes your assumptions logial and correct and ours baseless speculation.

You're completely missing the logic of Ockham if that's your argument. The difference between "logical and correct" and "baseless speculation" is much like "right" and "wrong". Ockham stated that the theory most likely to be "right" is that with the fewest assumptions. What makes assumptions correct are whether they are true -- a universal constant -- or not.

Urge to use a recently banned word rising

Is that a round-about way of insulting someone?

King Mob · 13-01-2009 5:33am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

once you start making assumptions you have lost your high ground of righteousness, so what makes your assumptions any beter than ours

your Occams razor only works if you are in possesion of all the facts, which clearly you are not, so again what makes your assumptions logial and correct and ours baseless speculation.

Urge to use a recently banned word rising

Because mine's a much smaller one and much more likely.
Also the other gaping holes in the conspiracy theory.

Also occams razor does work if you don't have all the facts. When you have two explanations, the one with the least assumptions is most likely the better explanations.

Basically the photos of "cut" girders don't actually prove anything either way.
The suggestion that the photo was taken later than conspiracy theorists claim offers a different explanation. However because there is no date for the photo in question it is in no way proof of a controlled demolition. Nor is is proof against.

King Mob · 13-01-2009 5:40am

Kama wrote: »

It's not 'wrong' per se, it's just symmetrical with the rhetorics of CT that thou and Diogenes tend to criticise; hence Kernels use of bold.

That the world could be ruled by anarchocapitalist Semitic Lizards wearing Prada proof, evidence, etc etc. 'Not unreasonable' is another dependable device...nice looping double negative without substantive content, I mean, can't we just be reasonable, unlike those unreasonable people...

Shibboleths ain't just for Christmas...

Reasonably is fairly easy to judge. Useing language like this is just intellectually honest. It allows for you to be wrong.

Do you believe it unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event, long enough for an ironworker to cut the column?If so why?

This isn't an assumption by the way they do have dated pictures of firemen being at the clean up site in October and November.

King Mob · 13-01-2009 5:54am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Urge to use a recently banned word rising

And way to go against the exact same rule you banned someone for not 5 hours ago. Well done.

Kernel · 14-01-2009 12:16pm

King Mob wrote: »

Most of their references are right there in blue.

Yea that's fairly clear. It offers a better explanation than pre-cut girders.
And it's wrong because.....?

You made the the claim, ergo the burden of proof lies with you. You haven't proved anything, so until you do, stop claiming it as fact. Thanks.

King Mob · 14-01-2009 12:30pm

Kernel wrote: »

You made the the claim, ergo the burden of proof lies with you. You haven't proved anything, so until you do, stop claiming it as fact. Thanks.

See this is why I tend to use words like "probably".
Allow me to clarify.

CTers claim that this picture is proof that the girders where cut before the collapse.
They claim that this picture was taken before the clean up operation due to the presence of the firefighters. Reason that they would not be there after the rescue operation.
However there are dated photos of the site with firefighters present into October and November. This is also backed up by other evidence provided in the link I gave.
Therefore that picture could have been taken at any time during the clean up. Thus it is not proof of the girders being cut before hand unless a date for that photo or another dated photo show otherwise.
This on top of the other problems for the theory about the girder being cut beforehand lead me to the conclusion that they weren't.
Perhaps you can find a flaw in my logic?

So how come I'm the only one you press evidence?

Kernel · 14-01-2009 12:39pm

King Mob wrote: »

So how come I'm the only one you press evidence?

I don't see any evidence, are you trying to dodge the inevitable here? There was no definitive evidence on your link that those support beams were cut by blowtorches, as you claim.

To answer you question, I press you for evidence because you are very vocal about the need for evidence in order to post in the conspiract theories forum. So, I'd like you to apply the same yardstick to your own posts. Otherwise it's a double standard on your part, no?

King Mob · 14-01-2009 12:47pm

Kernel wrote: »

I don't see any evidence, are you trying to dodge the inevitable here? There was no definitive evidence on your link that those support beams were cut by blowtorches, as you claim.

Yea there is some pretty definite evidence on that site showing it was cut. Difference is it makes the argument that this was done during the clean up not, as the CTers claim, before the attack.

So no you can't fault my logic?

Kernel wrote: »

To answer you question, I press you for evidence because you are very vocal about the need for evidence in order to post in the conspiract theories forum. So, I'd like you to apply the same yardstick to your own posts. Otherwise it's a double standard on your part, no?

And I have no problem backing up my stuff, because I can.
So how come you don't ask other people?

Zeitgeist

Comments