Zeitgeist

Arseface · 12-20-2009

Ok... So I'm fresh out of just having my mind blown. And not in a good way.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, do yourself a favour and see this movie. Actually strike that: If you haven't seen this movie, see it now!

Forget thriller movies, this documentary literally scared me. It starts off talking about religion, specifically Christianity, and uses a whole bunch of comparative mythology (which I really dig) to prove that Jesus (as well as everything else) is just a myth, and that the Bible is just a story. I basically already believed that anyway, this is just stoking the fire.

The next part goes about debunking the official story behind 9/11, which presented some really groovy evidence which emphatically supports the idea that it was a US inside job. I understood the basics of this before, and was open to the idea. Now I'm much more inclined to believe it. But that wasn't the scary part.

The last section goes about explaining the world banking system, and it's various pitfalls. If this is to be believed (and I currently see no reason as to why not), then all the major wars in the past century have been orchestrated by the various corporations purely for profit. At least from an American standpoint. This ties in well with the whole 9/11 theory, and that it was orchestrated by the US government to generate fear in support of the whole "War on Terror" thing, which is sort of a big deal. That's just getting started.

It goes on to say that the corporations behind all of this (particularly this one Rockerfella guy) are controlling the media and the edication system to keep Americans from thinking "too much", and being able to see just how much they are being manipulated.

It finished by stipulating that those same guys are eventually after a single world government, with everyone being microchipped with all their personal information - bank accounts, identity - all on this chip, and that if anyone decides that they don't like the system, then their microchip get's turned off. I'm not sure how true this last bit is, but it's definitely something to think about.

I quite literally started panicing at that point. My heart is still beating pretty fast.

What do you guys think?

Skotekal · 12-20-2009

Sounds like some stupid conspiracy movie meant to scare people. And of course the War on Terror was for profit! You honestly think the government would waste time for a little revenge? Oil. Straight up.

Arseface · 12-20-2009

I used to think it was an extremist sort of thing too - then I watched it. I'm still skeptical of it (I wouldn't be able to respect myself otherwise), but I now feel alot more wary of the world, in particular the big players.

It's also inspired me to try and go into politics, but who knows how long that urge will last.

Aions · 12-20-2009

zeitgeist has been in my sig since ive joined this fourm...
i even made a thread about it (just like this one) long ago
what made you finnaly see it

Arseface · 12-20-2009

I've been meaning to watch it for ages, I just finally got off my arse and did it.

I just finished watching Zeitgeist: Addendum. I like this one better. It's less fear mongering, and more inspirational. Most importantly, it doesn't make claims about things. It (well, for me at least) organises information that I already know in such a way so that I can finally see how corrupt and unsustainable the whole thing is.

Stranger · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

The next part goes about debunking the official story behind 9/11, which presented some really groovy evidence which emphatically supports the idea that it was a US inside job.

If you (or anyone else) could provide a pithy breakdown of the points of evidence, I'll happily do my best to 'debunk' them.

The states got involved in the World Wars to protect our interests, yes. We were selling buttloads of weapons to the allies in the wars, but it wasn't a straight-up transfer, more of a loan. So if they were to fail, we'd be out big bucks, and of course selling weapons to these fallen factions wouldn't sit well with the victors of these wars, so that would have been a threat to our own security.

Six million Jews died and the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, which serves as a nice and 'righteous' reason to get involved, but the economic core of our involvement was to make sure that the allies lived long enough to pay us back. With all the money that the states owes China, if we were to go to war (with someone that doesn't owe money to China) and it looked like we wouldn't be able to make it on our own and there wasn't a peaceful alternative, you can bet that there will be a Chinese army there to help us out. It is not shameless, it is business.

Rockefeller got rich from American oil. Iran, UAE, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, I think Oman too, a handful of other OPEC countries in the world, and Venezuela where we unfortunately get most of our oil, how does buying oil from these countries make Rockefeller rich? Not that I like him, I don't, but we need to be fair here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

What do you guys think?

I think that perhaps there is some truth to corporate and media involvement in politics, but not with 9/11.

I think that perhaps there is some truth to media biases, but not with 9/11.

I think that perhaps there is some truth to some people and organizations trying to steer us towards a one-world government with a balanced global currency and a balanced standard of living where one day someone might suggest that it would be a good idea to have everyone microchipped 'for their convenience', but I don't think that has anything to do with 9/11.

Arseface · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

If you (or anyone else) could provide a pithy breakdown of the points of evidence, I'll happily do my best to 'debunk' them.

I'll do my best to present what I can remember, but bear in mind, I'm presenting Zeitgeist's evidence, not necessarily my own. I haven't had time to properly research the claims (and knowing me, I wont).

Video evidence which strongly supports the idea that the main towers' collapse was a controlled demolition, not to mention the fact that building 7 was demolished in exactly the same fashion, seemingly of it's own accord.

The fact that Bush and Cheney would only submit to questioning by the 9/11 inquiry (enquiry?) on their own terms, ie. both together, no recording of the interview, no transcript, and no witnesses.

The numerous fundamental mathematical inaccuracies in the reasons for the collapse according to the official report. Primarily the fact that the burning temperature of jet fuel is not high enough to melt steel.

The lack of any recognisable aeroplane debris at or around the Shanksville site or the Pentagon.

The fact that NORAD was performing multiple, conflicting wargames which preoccupied or otherwise confused the various mechanisms for air defence.

But especially the fact that the US as a community did not have a collective enemy at the time. The writing was basically on the wall ever since the Soviet Union collapsed. The US didn't have anyone to scapegoat to get what it wanted anymore.

Oh and not to mention that they've been doing this kind of thing for decades. (expanded on below)

And alot more that didn't stay in my tiny mind after the first viewing. I'm sure you'll agree that any of these elements alone is probably not cause for alarm, but together... there's definitely SOMETHING suspicious about the whole deal. The motive is definitely solid

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

The states got involved in the World Wars to protect our interests, yes. We were selling buttloads of weapons to the allies in the wars, but it wasn't a straight-up transfer, more of a loan. So if they were to fail, we'd be out big bucks, and of course selling weapons to these fallen factions wouldn't sit well with the victors of these wars, so that would have been a threat to our own security.

Six million Jews died and the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, which serves as a nice and 'righteous' reason to get involved, but the economic core of our involvement was to make sure that the allies lived long enough to pay us back. With all the money that the states owes China, if we were to go to war (with someone that doesn't owe money to China) and it looked like we wouldn't be able to make it on our own and there wasn't a peaceful alternative, you can bet that there will be a Chinese army there to help us out. It is not shameless, it is business.

From what I can recall, this is my rebuttal.

The first World War: Britain and Germany go ape**** at each other, and the US officially declares neutrality, that being what the great majority of the public wants. The corporations, however, are secretly itching to get involved, so as to make some cash. They decide to send the Lusitania and all her civilian passengers into a warzone, despite prior warning from the Germans that they would fire upon any British ship, and even a last minute warning my the German Embassy*. Lo and behold, the Germans destroy the ship along with all her American passengers and surprisingly enough, this ****es off the American people enough to make them want to punish the Germans. The Americans enter the war.

World War II: Similar situation, with the public not wanting to go to war, and the big wigs wanting to... The US knows it cannot be seen as the aggressor, so it cut's off an already warmongering Japan's oil supply, and funds some Chinese (Japans enemy at the time) things, and that's where Pearl Harbour comes from. You guys even ignored a warning us Aussies (only trying to do the right thing) sent you about an advancing Japanese war machine.

Vietnam: Similar situation once again. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident this time being the catalyst for the subsequent invasion. Not only that, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was later proven to have been a fabrication by the US. What's exceptionally ridiculus is what the USA's rules of engagement were. The most ludicrous of which are as follows:

North Vietnamese anti-aircraft missile systems could not be bombed until they were known to be operational
No enemy could be pursued once they crossed the border of Laos or Cambodia. And most revealing of all..
The most critical strategic targets were not allowed to be attacked unless initiated via high military officials.

Sounds like somebody doesn't want to win a war.

*

Warning, this is a spoiler!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

Rockefeller got rich from American oil. Iran, UAE, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, I think Oman too, a handful of other OPEC countries in the world, and Venezuela where we unfortunately get most of our oil, how does buying oil from these countries make Rockefeller rich? Not that I like him, I don't, but we need to be fair here.

I think that perhaps there is some truth to corporate and media involvement in politics, but not with 9/11.

I think that perhaps there is some truth to media biases, but not with 9/11.

Really? You think there might be some corporate involvement in politics? Do you ever wonder where the various political parties get their cash? It's entirely funded by the corporations! In return, the parties do what the corporations want them too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

I think that perhaps there is some truth to some people and organizations trying to steer us towards a one-world government with a balanced global currency and a balanced standard of living where one day someone might suggest that it would be a good idea to have everyone microchipped 'for their convenience', but I don't think that has anything to do with 9/11.

Think about it. A one world government essentially means absolute power for that government. I'm sure we will all agree that any one body having absolute power is a bad thing.

Stranger · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

Video evidence which strongly supports the idea that the main towers' collapse was a controlled demolition, not to mention the fact that building 7 was demolished in exactly the same fashion, seemingly of it's own accord.

A controlled demolition? I assume you (the video) are/is referring to the floor-by-floor collapse, which isn't hard to believe. Imagine a tower of steel-reinforced playing cards. Now imagine that it was burning, the steel compromised at the top, and the top floors collapsing on the lower floors. The force of the falling floors would be enough to cause the lower floors to collapse, one by one. The escaping gases that some would say are explosions coming out from the sides of the towers below the collapsing floors is from compressed air, mixed with dust and office supplies and scorching hot metal diffusing with the outside of the towers.

Building 7 did not fall in the exact same fashion. Similar, perhaps. It didn't have the impact of a huge plane. And I hate it that so many people think that only the towers and 7 fell that day. Several other surrounding buildings went down too - Building 7 was special though. It didn't have the structural support that other buildings have because it was a venue for rallies. Don't you hate it when you go to a big sports event and there's a cement support beam right in front of your seat? That didn't happen there because there weren't any, which made it easy for the debris of the other buildings to come crashing down the building. It was also on fire for the whole day before collapsing. Metal gets hot, it falls down, so it collapsed.

This isn't hard to believe, but it's easy to disbelieve if you're of the type to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

The fact that Bush and Cheney would only submit to questioning by the 9/11 inquiry (enquiry?) on their own terms, ie. both together, no recording of the interview, no transcript, and no witnesses.

While you and others might dismiss this as a convenient excuse, I will say that this is because they intended to discuss classified materials and these terms provided plausible deniability had there been an information leak. What these classified materials were, I couldn't say. To suggest that Bush and Cheney would discuss something incriminating to those conducting the investigation would be absurd. That would be the same as telling the police "yes, I shot the sheriff, but don't tell anyone, okay?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

The numerous fundamental mathematical inaccuracies in the reasons for the collapse according to the official report. Primarily the fact that the burning temperature of jet fuel is not high enough to melt steel.

They're doing it wrong. Yes, you need to get to about 1500C to melt steel, but you don't need it to get anywhere near that hot to compromise the integrity of steel, especially steel that's supporting a lot of weight. Straighten out a paperclip, then take the flame of a lighter to it. The paperclip doesn't melt, but it bends, it is compromised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

The lack of any recognisable aeroplane debris at or around the Shanksville site or the Pentagon.

Shanksville:
It isn't like it was about to land and then the landing gear failed and it split down the side as is shown in movies, the plane was flying practically straight down at the speed of sound landing in fertile soil. BOOM, it was obliterated. There was debris, there was a lot of it. People came out the day after and said that they had a piece of it. I remember that, I saw it on the news eight years ago. It didn't look like a plane because it was smashed to bits, which again isn't hard to believe.

Pentagon:
I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt here, I believe you may be mistaken, or perhaps the video is just wrong. There were pieces of debris at the Pentagon, on the lawn. If you mean why there wasn't a plane-shaped wreckage, it's because it was flying fast through sets of reinforced pillars through multiple walls in the Pentagon, something like an apple through a fruit slicer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

The fact that NORAD was performing multiple, conflicting wargames which preoccupied or otherwise confused the various mechanisms for air defence.

It is my understanding that there were a dozen military jets in the air over the states that day, more or less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

But especially the fact that the US as a community did not have a collective enemy at the time. The writing was basically on the wall ever since the Soviet Union collapsed. The US didn't have anyone to scapegoat to get what it wanted anymore.

What did we want? Prosperity comes in peacetime. That's why China seeks stability, especially in their region. They don't like North Korea or Iran starting a fuss because war is bad for national economies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

You guys even ignored a warning us Aussies (only trying to do the right thing) sent you about an advancing Japanese war machine.

It wasn't ignored, it was dismissed. This was poor work on our side, it was believed that the only real threat was in the Atlantic, that the Japanese wouldn't steam a navy across the Pacific, that distance kept us safe. Obviously, we were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

Vietnam: Similar situation once again. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident this time being the catalyst for the subsequent invasion. Not only that, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was later proven to have been a fabrication by the US. What's exceptionally ridiculus is what the USA's rules of engagement were. The most ludicrous of which are as follows:

Tonkin, that wasn't our corporations, and was more a blunder than anything else. A misunderstanding that got turned into a good cluster****.

And our rules of engagement still suck today, but that's not a fault of the government except perhaps that they are too weak to stand up to criticism.
If we could have done away with the rules of engagement (who the hell has rules of engagement anyway? It's war.), we could have won Vietnam with bombs. We can win our current wars with bombs. Yes, there's that bit on collateral damage, but it's war. We killed how many in WW2 with atomic weapons? There was reasoning for it, reason being that win or lose, a conventional war would be too costly. Not just in money, but in body count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

Really? You think there might be some corporate involvement in politics?

I didn't see the pizza industry turning a profit from 9/11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

Do you ever wonder where the various political parties get their cash? It's entirely funded by the corporations! In return, the parties do what the corporations want them too.

Special interests, yes I know about that. But Peavey doesn't fund these things, which is why I still say "some".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arseface

Think about it. A one world government essentially means absolute power for that government. I'm sure we will all agree that any one body having absolute power is a bad thing.

I absolutely agree with that. I just don't think it has anything to do with 9/11.

A global government must come with the collapse of government, which doesn't happen if the government is thriving off of wars. Truth is that if war was a profitable venture, we'd be having a lot more of them, and they'd look more like the world wars instead of what we have today where we have whole days with no one dying.

Tyloric · 12-20-2009

Two things:

One, it is a historical fact that Jesus exist(s/ed). Whether he is the son of God or not is another question.
Two, this is a bunch of conspiracy bull**** and you should be ashamed for even considering any of it. lol

Necromancer11 · 12-20-2009

Zeitgeist does sound like some insane conspiracy theory movie that just says "the corporations are taking over!" when you explain it, but when you watch it, you realize that the people behind it are actually very intelligent, and they know what they're talking about. I'm not saying I believe every bit of information in their movie. I don't. But it is well thought out and somewhat enlightening. You need to watch this movie before passing judgment.

Stranger · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer11

Zeitgeist does sound like some insane conspiracy theory movie that just says "the corporations are taking over!" when you explain it, but when you watch it, you realize that the people behind it are actually very intelligent, and they know what they're talking about. I'm not saying I believe every bit of information in their movie. I don't. But it is well thought out and somewhat enlightening. You need to watch this movie before passing judgment.

There have been a lot of brilliant people throughout history who were downright wrong. I hate to use this example, but Hitler was a genius. Pompous, overbold, and totally insane, but a genius nonetheless.

You want to talk about corporations taking over, okay, let's do that. Media propaganda? Definitely. Anything to do with 9/11? No. Look at the media organizations that stand to make a gain in today's politics, particularly proposals on regulated internet, health care and environmental issues. Let's take a look at who owns the television news media in the states:

CNN - Time Warner stands to gain government telecommunications contracts.

NBC - General Electric stands to gain medical equipment and green technology contracts. GE also sells product to the Iranians, so they get the "opportunist" merit badge.

ABC - Walt Disney is the world's largest media company and they'll find a way to make ends meet no matter how things turn out.

CBS - CBS Corp is losing money faster than a tax-cheat being audited. But they're trustworthy, because their only product is media. You don't make government contracts with only media.

FOX - Rupert Murdoch, an Aussie with tons of media outlets and like CBS has only media as their product, which is important because that means that they don't sell medical systems and won't get government contracts should this health care bill pass.

Are special interests killing politics? Yes. We are helping other countries drill for oil but we don't drill at home because GE makes expensive solar panels.
Does it have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11? No.

So please do tell me, how did anyone gain anything from 9/11?

Tsuyu · 12-20-2009

I think it was Penn from Penn & Teller who said something along the lines of: If a government is powerful enough to attack its own country like that, how hard would it be for them to silence people who make these types of movies?

The very fact that the movies exist sorta discredits them, in a way.

Necromancer11 · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

You want to talk about corporations taking over, okay, let's do that.

I never said anything about wanting to discuss corporations taking over.

Firis · 12-20-2009

Zeitgeist:
Religion: One of the prime factors of my dismisal of religion.
9/11: Plausible, quite plausible, I refrain from giving my opinion on it.
Corporations: They have ALWAYS been minipulative cluster****s that steal money and cause wars, but I doubt they are takign over the world any time soon.

Stranger · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firis

Zeitgeist:
Religion: One of the prime factors of my dismisal of religion.
9/11: Plausible, quite plausible, I refrain from giving my opinion on it.
Corporations: They have ALWAYS been minipulative cluster****s that steal money and cause wars, but I doubt they are takign over the world any time soon.

So, religion is why you dismiss religion. The moon exists too, do you dismiss that as well?

Corporate expansion is the heart of capitalism, a global government would take that away, so I'll agree that corporations won't take over the world. Of course, no one here said that they would. However, war causes instability which causes economic downturn, which means people lose money. Wars are expensive in more than one way in that respect. This means that corporations wouldn't want to start wars, not unless they like losing money.

Fun fact: Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have lost 43 billion USD in the last year. The two richest people in the whole world have lost more than the total equity of Microsoft in the last year. What's going on now is bad for business, corporations aren't doing it.

Purple Nurple · 12-20-2009

Wow when I first read this I thought it would be a bunch of douchebag potheads talking about how there's a great conspiracy over 9/11 and how the corporations are 'raping the world for money'. It still might be, as I've only seen the religion section, but it does sound plausible and interesting.

Tsuyu · 12-20-2009

So.... I see nobody has replied as an response to my comment yet...

Zarkes · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skotekal

Sounds like some stupid conspiracy movie meant to scare people. And of course the War on Terror was for profit! You honestly think the government would waste time for a little revenge? Oil. Straight up.

Its not even for their oil. They are using the American Army to destabalize the middleeast so that their will bve no opposition to Isreal when it becomes the world power after America's upcoming economic demise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyloric

Two things:

One, it is a historical fact that Jesus exist(s/ed). Whether he is the son of God or not is another question.
Two, this is a bunch of conspiracy bull**** and you should be ashamed for even considering any of it. lol

It's not a historical fact that Jesus existed lol, yeah right dont believe anything unless everyone does right? Like flies to the trap. That post sounded like its been repeated over and over again until it came time for you to say it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsuyu

I think it was Penn from Penn & Teller who said something along the lines of: If a government is powerful enough to attack its own country like that, how hard would it be for them to silence people who make these types of movies?

The very fact that the movies exist sorta discredits them, in a way.

We live in a democracy, they cant control us with force or we will rebel so they must control our minds. They work both sides the business side and fear mongering side putting all the conspiratists together. If ever there is a website with real information regarding how the world works it is attacked with viruses and its servers are taken out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firis

Zeitgeist:
Religion: One of the prime factors of my dismisal of religion.
9/11: Plausible, quite plausible, I refrain from giving my opinion on it.
Corporations: They have ALWAYS been minipulative cluster****s that steal money and cause wars, but I doubt they are takign over the world any time soon.

Religion is a form of spiritual perversion meant to keep your mind from growing. Corporations own the world lmao I cant believe people are still discussing it like this. They make up a web over the Earth with no borders or loyalty to any one part of it, they want it ALL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

So, religion is why you dismiss religion. The moon exists too, do you dismiss that as well?

Corporate expansion is the heart of capitalism, a global government would take that away, so I'll agree that corporations won't take over the world. Of course, no one here said that they would. However, war causes instability which causes economic downturn, which means people lose money. Wars are expensive in more than one way in that respect. This means that corporations wouldn't want to start wars, not unless they like losing money.

Fun fact: Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have lost 43 billion USD in the last year. The two richest people in the whole world have lost more than the total equity of Microsoft in the last year. What's going on now is bad for business, corporations aren't doing it.

The corporations are just below the banker elites they are finally moving into the final stage of Illuminatis end goal, they want all the power in a few hands, rockstars are rich but just because people let them be. If you think Bill Gates is the richest man in the world your dumb.

Tsuyu · 12-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarkes

We live in a democracy, they cant control us with force or we will rebel so they must control our minds. They work both sides the business side and fear mongering side putting all the conspiratists together. If ever there is a website with real information regarding how the world works it is attacked with viruses and its servers are taken out.

Then Zeitgeist must be false, right? Just as I said; the fact that it exist discredits it. Killing a couple of film-makers and removing any trace of them and their little film is a trivial task in comparison to staging the 9/11 attack.

Firis · 12-20-2009

^Exactly the flaw with the conspiracy. As for John Doe: I never said religion is why I dismiss religion, I was breaking down the three points of the movie: Religion, 9/11, Corporations. I meant Zeitgeist is one of the bigger factors that lead me to "Convert" away from christianity. The others bieng it's own contradictions inside of the bible and the preachers.