http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

interesting stuff... i know someone is gonna come here and say this is so 2 years ago or whatever, but i'm just seeing it now... part 1 and 2 are done, i'm just starting part 3 now.

I just had this terrible image in my mind of Billy Corgan as an actor.

Fuck you Simakos.

great... now watch the movie.

part 1 is pretty interesting stuff that i have always kind of known, i've just never seen it presented in such a clear manner before. part 2 is all about 9/11 being an inside job, nothing shocking here and again everything is presented and argued in a very convincing manner.

part 3 is about the Central Bank, income tax, debt, inflation, Continental unions, the currency known as the Amero, one world government, and RFID chips. this is the most interesting part of this whole movie. scroll ahead to 1:09:00 and begin here if you want to just check out part 3. it makes me nervous to even be discussing this on a public forum like this. scary shit.

just watch this movie.

Just reading the summary above confirms some of the little things that I have scared myself with in moments of solitary thought.

If the premise of this movie is based at all in reality and fact, why is it allowed to exist?

in order to rule a population, you have to let them believe that they are free, when in reality, they are enslaved...

did you watch part 3? watch it. scroll to 1:09:00

I'm as anti-right wing as it gets, but even I have a hard time believing they could (or would) pull off that 9/11 scenario.

I guess I buy that to a certain degree.

edit: That doesn't mean that I buy into this theory, though. Only the explanation of why this would be allowed to exist if there is, indeed, a dark and mysterious secrety society out to rule the world and control our minds.

Come with me, Mr. Simakos.

i wear this black veil over my face, because i see clearly
you wear no veil and yet you see nothing.

why? we did it before with the Lusitania in World War I, Pearl Harbor in World War II, Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam... these were all set-ups that got us involved in wars. our latest war is a brilliant plan because it has no defined enemy, we will be at "war" forever now.

open your eyes and stop listening swedish to electro-pop.

i wear this black veil over my face, because i see clearly
you wear no veil and yet you see nothing.

simakos, when my friend Dennis is back from China next August, I have to get you guys together.

He can go on for hours about how Bohemian Grove, the Free Masons, The Fed, WTC Tower 7, and gay porn stars are all one big conspiracy plot.

How is the 9/11 myth propsed in part II different from the jesus myth in part I? THINK ABOUT THAT DEEP SHIT FOR A MINUTE.

and i hope he understands that all of these things are controlled by the ALIEN GOVERNMENT...

jokes aside, this is not a laughing matter. Part 3 is an eye opener. the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the Amero, holy shit...

My ma's trying to sell me on this. She's reluctant to believe part two, for whatever reason. I'm reluctant to call her with any regularity these days.

Read his book.

Don't worry, the Bohemian Grove/Fed subplot accounts for this.

they aren't a dark and mysterious secret society, "they" are the Rockefellers and associates who own the Federal Reserve Bank.

I think it's pretty safe to say we know who took Simakos' hat. That was a warning shot, Oso.

has anyone actually watched this movie or any of it's 3 parts in their entirety? if so, let's talk. if not, you're loss...

I won't watch any project that promotes a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their theories are offensively stupid and manipulative. It's nothing more than people pulling the myth of government hyper-competency around themselves like a warm blanket to keep them from the reality that we live in a world were a single person or small group can inflict a terrible wound on society.

I prefer to rely less on eyesight and more on common sense/critical thinking.

A friend sent me a link to a scene from this movie about a month ago. Part III is more fascinating than you think.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vuBo4E77ZXo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vuBo4E77ZXo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

So this member of the Rockefeller family just calls his friend one day and divulges the secret plans for world domination?

This is insane gibberish. These people have no understanding of economics, or, for that matter, how the EU works. The sudden jump to talk of micro chips and a one world government is beyond laughable.

It's the lazy habit of paranoid delusional fools to run in the opposite direction of the scientific method. They begin with a conclusion and seek out "evidence" to back it up. Their focus is myopic and disregards mountains of clear cut evidence to the contrary and common sense.

Impossible! They even went through a ceremony and everything!

Granted, I don't think they've presented enough to change the most stern opposer's mind, but I have to admit I was a bit creeped out because I've longed believed that the micro chip is the mark of the beast. As ludicrous as the idea of a new world order may be, I think that with a healthy amount of fear, you can get the majority to sing any tune you want. A few more attacks and even the most ridiculous policies could be passed without much hassle. We are a long way from it, but the foundation has been laid.

Man, I've got some property I want to sell you guys.

Efrim, it is scientifically impossible for the Towers to have imploded the way they did by flying planes into them... just look at what all of these ARCHITECTS have to say about it.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q8XToX7aSdg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q8XToX7aSdg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

it's science, physics, or common sense (just to answer Particle Hustler).

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.911truth.org/

okay, let's use common sense... men who live in caves halfway around the world and are a part of a vast and complicated network, scheme to hijack and fly four planes around our country's east coast, over 2 of it's largest cities, untouched by our military defense system?

yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Tower 7 didn't even get hit by a fucking plane!
http://www.ae911truth.org/11rfa911.php

they never even found any wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon. scientifically impossible. why is there no video of the Pentagon "attack" ?

what kind of "common sense" does an MIT engineer have?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q8XToX7aSdg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q8XToX7aSdg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

beyond all of this simple arguing about conspiracy theory... i really just wanted to say that this movie Zeitgeist is just really well done and interesting as hell. the religious bit (part 1) is basically a comparative religions class' cliff's notes.

Yeah, thanks, I'll be taking my science from here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=1

It's perfectly plausible for it to fall the way it did. People talk about the need to melt steel like it doesn't lose structural integrity before it's reduced to a liquid state:

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat."

And, no WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, it did happen to have a network of diesel fuel tanks throughout it's structure and suffered extensive physical damage from falling debris.

"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."


The simple common sense answer to this insane conspiratorial theory is that it is impossible for such a complex event to be pulled off so flawlessly. Are we to believe the WTC was lined with explosives in the weeks before the attack? That's an incredible feat to pull off with no one noticing and no one speaking about it. Staging 9/11 would have taken an incredible amount of cooperation between government officials at all levels. To say that it was all a set up is to say that there isn't a single decent person with even a shred of morality anywhere in government or the press. I mean, when George Bush can't suppress the dozens of scandals that have come out of his administration its pure insanity to believe he or some other military/government figure could lead a government cover up this extensive without anyone making a peep.

Furthermore, this guy isn't an expert in structural engineering at all. According to his website:

"I graduated from MIT with an SB degree in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major (this was before a Bio-Medical Engineering Department existed), and before settling down to do clinical medicine I worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering. For the past 27 years I have been working full time as a family physician, doing office-based primary care here in the rural San Joaquin Valley of central California."

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Con...the%20Evidence/

Bio-Medical Engineering. How exactly does working on heart valves and such qualify you to talk about structural collapse?

And by "they" they mean "Jews"...anti-Semitic bullcrap.

so this is the point in the thread where i quote some other people saying some other stuff to argue against everything you just quoted, right? well, i'm not going to do that...

let's change gears here Efrim... watch Part 1 and get back to me. i know you will agree with everything in Part 1. i know you, i used to copy your notes in our anthro class.

watch it.


nobody said Jews... are the Rockefellers Jewish?

No but the Rothschilds (mentioned earlier) are, and generally when you hear "Federal Reserve", "bankers", and "international conspiracy" it's code for Jews. Sorry, I've heard these conspiracies one time too many to buy them as anything but nutty racist swill.

well, someone is playing the racism card now and this is when i exit the thread... there is nothing about race in this movie at all. it's more about men in power (religious leaders, politicians, bankers, corporations) and how they can manipulate and control populations of people.

i gotta admit the end bit about the RFID tags is a little nutty, but really not that far outside the realm of possibility when you compare how we exchange money these days (credit cards, online accounts, etc) with how money was exchanged even 200 years ago. what is the next logical step after credit cards?

We can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MTN3s2iVKKI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MTN3s2iVKKI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Zeitgeist Clips on Banking, Bush's, and Entertainment

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1ZdMIrV6XMI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1ZdMIrV6XMI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Well Mr. Simakos, I sat through this thing for your sake. Nothing that really rocked my world. The old religions of the middle east are all intermingled and largely derived from the Babylonians. It follows that a religion such as Christianity would have plenty of connections to Egyptian myth, coming as it did from the Hebrews, who had extensive relations with them. Many other similarities can be laid at the feet of Paul, who had the job of spreading the word and making Christianity palpable to the Hellenistic world. Any honest biblical scholar would admit the relationship between older regions and Christianity. The Christmas date, for instance, is incongruent with even the story of the birth. If the birth did take place in December, there would not have been Shepard's in the field.

Comparative religious/mythological studies are all well and good, but there evidence does not support the conclusions they jump to. Jesus likely was a historical figure, the fact that Roman historians make even vague reference to him is good testament to that considering how unimportant they considered affairs in their backwater province of Judea. But even if you don't buy that, the absence of Roman sources wouldn't be surprising considering the incredibly low survival rate of Greek and Roman texts. Of course he probably did not live as depicted in the bible. Jesus was likely a Rabbi and as such would have been required to be married. Mary Magdeline, typically portrayed as a prostitute was more likely his wife. Jesus would have been the leader of one side in a partisan struggle among the Jews, who were suffering a vicious struggle that was resolved by the sacking of Judea in about 70 CE, which nearly destroyed Judaism forever. That's what going on in the bible when Jesus confronts the Pharisees. He likely was a Pharisee of a different sect or a leader of a different sect all together. Jesus is thought to have lived about 50 to 60 years prior to the 70 CE sacking. 70 CE is about when the gospel of Mark was written, and it probably idealized Jesus in pursuit of this partisan affair. This is not to say he was or was not religious, just that Mark would have been aware of connecting the Torah to Jesus to make his case to other Jews. thus the similarity to Joseph and through that the similarity to older religions.

To make the claim as they do that Christianity was then propagated as a way to control populaces is a really dubious claim. It's no more so than any other religion is used to control populaces. Christianity succeeded despite very strong opposition in the Roman establishment. Paul was a very clever fellow to tailor it to the Roman people as he did. It also had the advantage of not allowing worship with other Gods while one was Christian. Other religions allowed for Gods from various pantheons to be worshiped all at once. Thus, Every time Christianity made a convert it killed belief in several other religions. If you want to make the case for Christianity as a tool of control, then you have to look to the Nicene Creed, which wasn't authored until 325. That really codified Christianity and set it up to be wielded as a weapon.

I get it! It's the "so difficult a caveman couldn't do it" explanation.

Sorry, I've read both sides of the argument on this stuff, and the conspiracy theorists' arguments are riddled with inaccuracies, misleading/erroneous assumptions, and illogical conclusions from incorrect and/or baseless "facts." I have no interest in a point/counterpoint discussion, because it's useless - the only "logic" to it necessarily flows from an unwavering belief that what you've been presented with is true. But the breakdown in logic starts from the very facts/assumptions the entire house of cards is premised on. Add to that a willingness to buy into one side of an argument that feeds anti-whatever-the-subject-is sentiment, and presto - it all sounds reasonable and logical in that cocoon.

It's the same type of phenomenon that allows seemingly normal people to buy into cults. It certainly sounds convincing, but that doesn't make it real or true.

Efrim, you are kind of agreeing with the movie in all of your paragraphs written above.

okay, i can understand your point of view here and one's willingness to believe something before even seeing any real evidence... just don't tell me that there aren't as many or more inaccuracies, assumptions, and illogical conclusions presented in the 9/11 Report.

if you're basically saying you don't know what to believe, then how do you even process what happened?

A bit. I think many of their claims are quite unremarkable. I think it unravels at the end though. The conclusions they arrive at are too far out and not supported.

Particle Hustler, Bob Loblaw, and Efrim? i'm quoting your initial reactions in this thread because i have to ask, do you hold the US government and American media up to this same sense of scrutiny? aren't you offended by our own government or any other power (religious or corporate) for being manipulative?

i particularly like when people criticize a movie but refuse to watch it. that is logic at work.