Zeitgeist

[Phantasmagoriat]

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.

[Niotex]

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

From what I've heard its mostly just conspiracy theories though.

[Phantasmagoriat]

There are some very compelling arguments, particularly when it gets into the truth behind 9/11 , and it's commentary on social control.

The explanation of where money comes from [in the Addendum] blew my mind.

[Elcalavero]

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.

[Phantasmagoriat]

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.

[guy07]

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.

[Pwolf]

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).

[Phantasmagoriat]

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.

[godix]

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?

[Phantasmagoriat]

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.