Zeitgeist

This forum is for members to discuss topics that do not relate to anime music videos.

Zeitgeist

Postby Phantasmagoriat » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:01 pm

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Supposedly the most important documentary(s) you will ever watch in your life.

There are actually two films, with a third on it's way in october,
so if you check them out, watch them in the right order...(2007, 2008, 2010)

...and don't worry, it won't brain wash you.
Image
Org Profile | AMVGuide | Phan Picks! | THE424SHOW | YouTube | "Galactic Escape"

"Effort to Understand; Effort to be Understood; to See through Different Eyes."
User avatar
Phantasmagoriat
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Status: ☁SteamPunked≈☂

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Niotex » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:33 pm

Downloaded it over half a year ago. I still have it sitting there..

From what I've heard its mostly just conspiracy theories though.
Image
User avatar
Niotex
The Phantom Canine
 
Joined: 08 Jun 2003
Location: Netherlands
Status: Simply Insane

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Phantasmagoriat » Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:19 pm

There are some very compelling arguments, particularly when it gets into the truth behind 9/11 [I swear the way that building collapsed never looked right to me when it happened], and it's commentary on social control.

The explanation of where money comes from [in the Addendum] blew my mind.
Image
Org Profile | AMVGuide | Phan Picks! | THE424SHOW | YouTube | "Galactic Escape"

"Effort to Understand; Effort to be Understood; to See through Different Eyes."
User avatar
Phantasmagoriat
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Status: ☁SteamPunked≈☂

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Elcalavero » Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:08 pm

Ive seen both films prior. Definitely some interesting topics discussed. Worth the watch.
Somehow these documentarys are seen as "the truth"documentarys. When in reality, all they are.... are just theories. Conspiracy Theories.
They sometimes base their evidence purely on anecdotal evidence, which isn't bad, but they also make (sometimes huge) assumptions based on
the same anecdotal evidence as to what may have happened and such.
Assumptions are not facts as far as I'm concerned. and the Zeitgeist films
have been criticized for it ...... for making absurd assumptions....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist, ... ie#Critics

Also I believe there are anti-Zeitgeist films.... Zeitgeist Exposed? , or something of that nature.
People should watch both sides and decide for themselves. People should also investigate the claims
made by Zeitgeist films for credibility.
User avatar
Elcalavero
 
Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Location: Here.

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Phantasmagoriat » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:04 pm

Yeah, it would be nice if somebody did some real in-depth investigation behind the movies...
[so maybe I used the term 'truth' a bit too liberally above]
...but I think that would take as much effort as making the movies themselves :|

Yet, I think the messages are generally good. I haven't seen any criticisms of those.
It says a lot of profound things about power relationships that don't even need evidence to understand.
Image
Org Profile | AMVGuide | Phan Picks! | THE424SHOW | YouTube | "Galactic Escape"

"Effort to Understand; Effort to be Understood; to See through Different Eyes."
User avatar
Phantasmagoriat
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Status: ☁SteamPunked≈☂

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby guy07 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:49 pm

Haha i watched those a long time ago. Pretty much what everyone said; it all makes sense but without sold evidence it's nothing but a conspiracy theory. Except the stuff about the banking system, that's true.
I really like how he views religion, the way he explains it just makes too much sense.
Generally I try to believe people in general are good and that nobody wants to kill people for money but films like this really make me think twice about joining the army or opening a new bank account.
User avatar
guy07
 
Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Location: T.O.
Status: Back in beard.

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Pwolf » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:58 pm

There was a special on the History Channel about debunking all the popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's more science fact that proves the theories wrong then there are proving them right (if there is any fact behind them to begin with).
ImageImage
ImageImage
Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.
User avatar
Pwolf
Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
 
Joined: 03 May 2001
Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Phantasmagoriat » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:33 pm

After some research, I would disagree.

I watched that History Channel special, but it didn't really debunk anything... it just kept repeating the term 'conspiracy theory' which makes people assume they aren't supposed to believe any of it; and if you don't agree you are crazy... even going to such lengths as randomly bringing up patriotism or playing with people's emotions, which are both irrelevant to the matter. This is pretty dangerous since most people [myself included] are very sensitive to the losses that happened that day.

But in all honesty, the "official" explanation of 9/11 sounds weak.
From what I've gathered, there seems to be more science suggesting they were Controlled Demolitions-- primarily the collapse of the not-so-famous Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane, yet it fell like a textbook demolition. When people ask questions, everything is smoothly explained away by saying "trust the experts, they know better than you" yet there are independent experts in the field that contradict the official explanations with sound arguments like:

    The World Trade Center meets all the criteria for a controlled demolition: the destruction followed the path of greatest resistance, the debris was symmetrically distributed, the rapid onset of the destruction, explosions and flashes reported by witnesses, steel elements were expelled from the building at high speed, the pulverization of the concrete, expanding pyroclastic clouds, lack of pancaked stories in the debris, isolated explosions 20 to 40 stories below the wave of destruction, molten steel and thermite traces found in the debris

I know this is a touchy subject, but I think I'm a pretty reasonable person-- call me crazy... but something doesn't make sense.
There's a lot of weird stuff surrounding the incident, and it doesn't help that real evidence is being withheld.
Don't believe me. Look into this yourself. There's a lot more support for this than popular culture would have you believe.

I can't come to any conclusions regarding who did it or why,
so some claims about 9/11 may be taken too far;
but scientifically, it tells me the incidents were controlled, and
somewhere in the official explanation there is a lie.
Image
Org Profile | AMVGuide | Phan Picks! | THE424SHOW | YouTube | "Galactic Escape"

"Effort to Understand; Effort to be Understood; to See through Different Eyes."
User avatar
Phantasmagoriat
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Status: ☁SteamPunked≈☂

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby godix » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:53 pm

Alright, the 9/11 bullshit is total crap. The buildings fell the way they did because they're designed to do that. All skyscrapers are. What goes up must come down, and these things are designed to come down with as little collateral damage as possible. So they're meant to collapse straight down in exactly the way they did. If you watch the fall closely you can even see this, at the start of the fall one of the towers starts tilting as if it will end up falling on it's side then it straightens out and goes straight down. It's MEANT to do that. The designers were at least competent at their job. WTC7 fell because two huge burning buildings right beside it just fell apart and rained burning debris on it (also, WTC7 didn't have the structural support it should have due to a large room for generators IIRC).

A lot of the 'evidence' to support these theories are pretty much flat out lies. I've heard claims that the buildings fell faster than free fall, which is just wrong. I've heard claims of seeing explosions on the building, they aren't explosions, they're tons of material are falling down and forcing the air (and debris) out just below them. Which also explains why the debris was fairly symmetrical, why wouldn't it be? And the steel elements being expelled at a high speed is simple to understand if you consider that around the entire building were large steel beams and when tons of material falls on it then it's going to be moved out of the way pretty damned quickly. The rapid onset of destruction? I seem to recall watching jet fuel burning in middle of the buildings for an hour, that doesn't sound all that rapid to me.

We have video footage of two planes hitting the towers. We have video footage of jet fuel burning for an hour in the center of the building. We have video footage of the towers collapsing, starting at the point where the planes hit. Really, what more do you need?
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Phantasmagoriat » Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:25 pm

Well, I do accept most of the explanations because they are possible, though it seems a little unlikely to me that the jet fuel would have leaked out without igniting the whole thing, somehow made it's way through the whole elevator shaft of the building, ignited, and kindled for hours to weaken the integrity, resulting in collapse of the whole building. Then happen a second time. Then happen the same way to WTC7 where no plane even hit. Actually, WTC7 is probably the only thing that doesn't make sense.

I agree that many of the theories are just plain lies, yet the official story seems so unlikely to call it into question. When has a building ever completely collapsed in on itself like that from fire? Yet it happened three times in the same day.
Image
Org Profile | AMVGuide | Phan Picks! | THE424SHOW | YouTube | "Galactic Escape"

"Effort to Understand; Effort to be Understood; to See through Different Eyes."
User avatar
Phantasmagoriat
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Status: ☁SteamPunked≈☂

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby godix » Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:43 pm

*sigh* It was a lot more than just a fire that brought down WTC. Saying other skyscrapers didn't collapse after a fire so WTC couldn't have is like saying other people survived jumping out of a tree, so all hangings are fiction because the noose around their neck was a trivial detail. Sometimes there are a few more facts to take into account than a straightforward A=B comparison. Since you seem to like connecting together random facts to form wild conspiracies, lets look at a few random facts.

American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were both Boeing 767s. A Boeing 767 weighs between 315,000 to 450,000 lbs.

American Airlines Flight 11 was traveling at roughly 400 MPH when it hit.

United Airlines Flight 175 was traveling around 545 MPH when it hit.

The WTC towers weighed ~500,000 tons each.

Think you can weave a theory out of those facts? Perhaps something about how half the support structures got destroyed when a third to a half a million pounds hit a building? Maybe related to weakened support structures made even weaker by fire? Perhaps include that those support structures were in middle of the building and had to hold up literally hundreds of thousands of tons? Might these facts just maybe make things a bit different than some building half the size being on fire because someone fell asleep while smoking?


By the way, it takes a special type of person to hear that a guy in a cave halfway around the world secretly trained 20 guys to steal airplanes, smack them into building, and kill thousands and then think "Gee, that just isn't an exciting enough conspiracy theory". What the fuck more do you want from your conspiracies, a Bond villain petting a white cat?
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Phantasmagoriat » Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:34 pm

Yes, I know about inductive and deductive reasoning. Very good review.

Okay, so the two towers were under special circumstances.
They got hit by big masses. Damaged support structures. Jet fuel helped. It's possible. I'll accept that.

Then explain Building 7. If it had special circumstances too, I would honestly like to hear them, because it wasn't hit by a plane.
Yet you don't hear much discussion about Building 7, and information about it has been withheld, or even altered in the official 1000 page report.

Also, it certainly doesn't help that everyone blindly accepts the term 'conspiracy' without really looking at the facts.
Image
Org Profile | AMVGuide | Phan Picks! | THE424SHOW | YouTube | "Galactic Escape"

"Effort to Understand; Effort to be Understood; to See through Different Eyes."
User avatar
Phantasmagoriat
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Status: ☁SteamPunked≈☂

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby LittleAtari » Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:56 pm

Phantasmagoriat wrote:Also, it certainly doesn't help that everyone blindly accepts the term 'conspiracy' without really looking at the facts.

It doesn't help that people accept everything they hear coming out of a video without really looking at the facts :roll:

Talk to an architect or engineer or something =/

I mean we can seriously sit around and deduce things through reason but you know that's not the hard facts you're looking for. By just taking godix's logic, you're not looking at the facts. I honestly think that you're just easily swayed :-|

I'll be upfront and say that I havent seen the movie. I think I once saw a conspiracy film about 9/11, but I don't remember what it was. How about instead of focusing on conspiracy theories or anything without solid evidence, you look at everything you know that has come out of this event. I think it's more important to think about how this drew attention to the United States' role in the Middle East or how we, as a country, handle threats, war and security now. However, if you only cared to only talk about what Zeitgeist had to say and not actually do anything about it, then I guess I shouldn't talk about where people should focus the efforts of their action. In the end, talk like that is only for amusement and can cause trouble, so it's only destructive. Now if that wasn't your intention, then please forgive me for assuming so.
User avatar
LittleAtari
 
Joined: 22 May 2005

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Pwolf » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:09 am

the special circumstance for wtc7 was that there were two burning skyscrapers next to it :P
ImageImage
ImageImage
Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.
User avatar
Pwolf
Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
 
Joined: 03 May 2001
Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\

Re: Zeitgeist

Postby Phantasmagoriat » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:00 am

Yeah, sorry, I guess I should present more facts, but I'm certainly not basing what I think on the movie alone.
And I certainly don't believe everything that is said. There is quite a bit I disagree with in the movie because
it seems to extrapolate a lot of information. I could probably put references here, but you're better off finding
the facts yourself (while being critical of the sources).

Since you mentioned it, there's whole groups of Architects and Engineers that don't buy the official explanation:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Notice how in the top right of the site, they emphasize "9/11: Re-examining the destruction of the 3 WTC skyscrapers"

They emphasize the three because most engineers and architects agree that the explanation for the twin towers is possible (regardless of probability), but WTC7 makes less sense. The twin towers are believable because of the plane impacts and how the jet fuel just happened to burn in a structurally critical part of the buildings, weakening them. But WTC7 was not hit by a plane, so it's main structures should have been intact. The official reports say that it was damaged much worse, and even if that is true, the building was not full of jet fuel to reach temperatures like that of the twin towers, let alone result in the type of collapse pattern observed...

Well, anyways this is starting to become too much work to look into... and I'm starting to not care anymore... but if you want to focus on the outcomes of all this, the movie has a lot to say about that too. Actually that's the purpose of it all: it tries to explore where all of this has taken us-- and where it could take us. For instance, scared people turn to the government, which in turn could take advantage of that trust and pass laws that take away civil liberties by implanting microchips in your brains, thus controlling the population :P okay I didn't believe that one, but could that happen? Will that happen? Who knows.

Anyways, I'm not really trying to draw any conclusions here or start an argument, but just suggest that there may be more behind what we perceive than what we think, and it's not such a bad idea to be aware of the possibilities.
Image
Org Profile | AMVGuide | Phan Picks! | THE424SHOW | YouTube | "Galactic Escape"

"Effort to Understand; Effort to be Understood; to See through Different Eyes."
User avatar
Phantasmagoriat
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Status: ☁SteamPunked≈☂

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests