Zeitgeist the Movie

Mikey 427 comments
  • Documentary
Zeitgeist the Movie

I have been putting off watching this documentary mainly because of the incredible hype and the consistent "you must watch this!" commentary on every blog that covered it.

But after seeing it just now, allow me echo the sentiments with "you must watch this". It's hard not to feel something after viewing this very ambitious documentary, be it anger, fear, hatred or confusion. Zeitgeist is about how information is fed to us and taken as fact. The topics of religion, terrorism and war are the primary focus.

There is a lot to absorb in this two hours, but it's worth watching.

Not a Member!


Monday 2nd July 2007 | 11:48 PM

watch this movie and pass it on to however many people you can!!!!

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 12:43 AM

Thought provoking, for sure. Gilly's favourite movie? Probably not.

Anyway, let's start another round, shall we?

First up - I enjoyed it. To anyone watching it, you have to plow through the first bit, with the sound-overs and coloured lights... it does get better. However - (there's always a 'but' hey?). But before I start, please remember I actually liked this film and I am not Gilly, defending the Christian faith. I just hate bad logic being passed off as intelligence. And this film is rife with bad logic.

This is going to be long so I apologise. If you can make it through my whole diatribe to follow - thanks. :-)

Although this movie spends most of its fist 1/2 attacking Christianity and I know little about this topic, I can still see say that it does so in a very DaVinci Code way. That is, it takes a cool, calm and collected voice... and rationally explains complete crap to you. The method is well rehersed by all conspiracy fims.

Here's the formula. You take something that sounds reasonable (and mix in a little truth). Don't worry about backing it up, coz you're preaching to the converted so there's no need. Plus no one else knows anything about ancient pagan gods so who's going to argue? Then you find references in the Bible that may support this theory.

Let's take some examples. It offers proof that the Christian Bible is based on the Zodiac. For example, it has the word 'fish' in it (we even bold it for you). There's a star sign of a fish! Want more? It's got a bull in it too - and there's toro on the zodiac. Well that's proof right there! What more do you need? This is continued for about 20 minutes.

We'll continue. Did you know there's a flood in the Bible? Other ancient civilations talk about floods, too - proof again the Bible is based on the Zodiac (but please don't look hard, we're moving on to another point). We can prove the 'Christian' Bible stole the flood idea, because it appears in a text from before Christ (The Epic of Gilgamesh).

That's some nice research there, tiger. Pity you couldn't tell the flood from the Bible is from the pre-Christian component of the Bible. Same goes for the supposed plagerism of Moses's life.

He then goes on to tell us that Egyptian mythology is the basis for all Jewish traditions, listing, I shit you not:
Final Judgment
Virgin Birth
Death / Resurrection
Holy Communion
Easter & Christmas

...all of which are Christian concepts.. not Jewish. No matter, it's not like anyone's checking up one you, is it? It's a good thing you researched this so well! Continuing on with the 'no evidence' theme - he tells us these are all Egyptian ideals but fails to susbtantiate that claim in any way.

But don't look to hard, look at the funny monkey!

Next up we hear about Joseph being direct transferance to Jesus. After all they had the same number of brothers / disciples and both had miracle births!

Again, let's fact check, shall we? Joseph had 11 brothers (Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Joseph*, Judah, Levi, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun). Jesus had 12 disciples (I don't know their names). So, we failed maths, apparantly? 12-11 = 1; just in case you needed help. To top if off, Joseph had a regular birth. He had a Mum & Dad. He had 11 frikkin brothers! What miracle are you talking about? The miracle of life?

Now I'm going to leave this topic coz it looks like the next bit is, in true conspiracy nut style, telling us the Twin Tower was blown up (probably by the US govt). This is important. You see, if you make a bad case for one argument, you should always supplement it with another argument that your audience likes. This helps make you convincing.

Don't worry, though. He's got proof. Did you know thermite, when used an explosive, gives off dust? Turns out there was dust thrown off when several thousand tonnes of concrete fell down. To most people, that's a no brainer. To this guy, it's proof the towers were blown up with thermite.

It basically spirals down from here, desperately trying to cram every anti US govt conspiracy imaginable into the next 40 minutes. We wind up with a swastiker over Bush's face, telling us in clear symbolism, he must be a Nazi. No, when he kills 6 million people in gas chambers, then you can put a swastiker over his face. Not when you have unsubstantiated evidence (albeit true in this case) that his grandfather's bank gave a loan to the Nazi party prior to the commencement of the US's involvement in that war.

Next up we learn the US intends Iraq to be a disaster. The proof? Claims that 2 British troops were arrested, dressed as Arabs, shooting at civilians. The evidence? Sorry, we don't go for that here. Look at the funny monkey. The British then had the audacity to claim otherwise. And can you believe when those dastardly British wanted their soldiers returned? Incredible!

It just gets better and better. Did you know they use RFID to "track your every move on the planet". See this is what I'm talking about?! The RFID chip he sites has an active range of 2.5cm. I work with them. That's 0.025m. Track your moves? It's a replacement barcode technology! You still need to swipe it, you frikkin clown! It's no more invasive than carrying a drivers license. They don't even have their own power source, you complete and utter Gumby.

So that sums up my rant and this ridiculous movie. Sure it's enjoyable but only coz it's so funny. It's just not meant to be. I'm sorry my rant is probably too long to read but these sorts of things can't go unchallenged, otherwise people start believing them.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 07:57 AM

Nice review Rodney. The thing that interested me the most was the whole 911 conspiracy - mainly the way in which the buildings fell compared to how a controlled demolition occurs. It looked very convincing with all that expert testimonial. But now that I have had a night to thinking about it I say it's still quite a leap to say Bush and his henchmen did it on purpose as a pre-text to go to war and improve the economy.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 10:00 AM
202 total kudos

Well, in saying all of that, remember that conspiracy is just another form of propoganda. While movies like these, the Dawkins ones, the Loose change series, Al Gore's movie etc are principally informative, all information is greatly slanted towards the makers' own bias, prejudice, translation and interpretation.

The only source for information that is trustworth is you. You do your own research and make up your own opinions (if you feel it necessary). Otherwise, you are left with mindless cretons, sheep if you will.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 10:03 AM

There was once another conspiracy film about 911 on channel 10 one night and I can't remember what it was called. It also claimed the same sorts of things but as it was 1.5 hours dedicated to that one story, it had time to 'back up' a lot of the claims. It seemed quite believable, to me at the time and made a good case. They focused on the fact that the plane seems to be missing in the pentagon crash and that the plane that hit the tower was supposed to be a 757 or 737 or whatever but that's a twin engine plan - but the one in the picture has 4 engines.

Could have all been complete bogus but they made a good job of it, none the less.

But that's the problem with these sorts of films. They present 'facts' to people (and usually a lot of them very quickly, so it's hard to recall specifics). If these facts are correct, then their case is proven but often these are pseudo-facts and unproven urban legends. So they pass of as convincing because we've all heard something similar before but usually fail any sort of scrutiny.

Still, I wish I could remember the name of it because if you want to see something about 911, you could do worse.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 10:36 AM
202 total kudos

I'm very reluctant to regard any documantary as having proof. They may have very well substanciated evidence, but it is not proof until it is ratified or both sides of the well substanciated evidence are examined.

I don't remeber one on channel 10, though it may well have been the 'loose change' doco.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 10:48 AM

Loose Change didn't do anything to convince me of any conspiracy. But I find it ironic the theme of 'Zeitgeist' is of the people taking everything they see in the media as truth, but they want us to take their documentary as truth anyway :-)

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 11:13 AM

Aha! I think this might be it. "In Plain Sight". The date of the article seems right.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1738220.htm">ABC article about it.

It might not be the one but that's probably it.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 12:05 PM

Close. It was "In Plane Site". It's on You Tube, here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7zp-08Axi8"> (part 1)

I'm not saying it's correct or anything - just if you want a 911 conspiracy film, this isn't the worst.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 07:57 PM

if bush was not behind it then why a big cover up why wasn't there any plane wreckage found at the pentagon or at the other site in the woods.. why would the firemen say they heard explosions going off (and they would know the sound ) i guess there are always going to be non believers but can so many experts be wrong?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 11:24 PM

Yes, many experts can be wrong. Especially when the experts cited in these movies are never from reputable universities or institutes.

The question of the plane at the Pentagon is something I admit I cannot understand, however. I believe there should be more wreckage than there is. The video I posted in the comment above yours hammers on this for some time and presents a lot of food for thought.

However, when all is said and done, you & I don't know jack-5hit about plane wrecks. I, just like every other Joe-Shmoe might think I do - but I don't really. The closet we'll ever get (we hope) is an episode of Lost.

So if the experts, and there have been hundreds more of them, and the media and everyone else says a plane hit it - well it probably did. After all, the US government and most other governments, actually have a terrible track record at keeping secrets. The media might be a bunch of fickle money grubbers but if they could prove it was a lie they would. There's money in it.

Don't you think someone at a civilian flight tower monitoring the plane would have said something? There's simply so many people the government would have had to hush up. And they can't even hush up their own secretaries (or interns, as the case may be).

Why would the fireman hear explosions? Probably coz stuff was on fire, I 'spose? Things tend to explode when that happens.

To use the argument "Bush must be behind it because it's a cover up" is circular logic. It's only a cover up if you believe Bush is behind it....if Bush is behind it it must be a cover up...

We all like to believe conspiracies because they're kind of nicer than reality. It's nicer to think the US govt is evil and greedy than to admit we've pissed off so many people around the world who've finally gone and got themselves the means and the motive. I'd much rather believe Kurt was murdered by some skanky ho' than my teen idol shot himself coz he'd lost his battle with smack. Doesn't make it real, though.

I guess I'd just like to see some of the healthy skeptism everyone seems to reserve for religion used elsewhere...

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 11:46 PM

this could go back and forth forever and a day, and true you are right we like to think conspiracy. i just tend to think if a large plane hit a building i just may think a little that there should be more wreckage and yep i have never seen a plane wreckage site only what i have viewd on the news and there is always a hell of a lot of bits and pieces and sometimes larger bits like a wing or two.......................................

Not a Member!


Tuesday 3rd July 2007 | 11:58 PM

The main one that gets me is the pentagon crash as well. But I have seen a few documentaries on the whole conspiracy. They all mention that lack of wreckage but also curiously leave out one of the most publicised pictures from that day. Debris everywhere. Click image below for full size version.

Pentagon Wreckage

Not a Member!


Thursday 5th July 2007 | 08:53 AM

so did some research and horus is not like jesus at all....at least from reliable sources hes not..... but one thing that did strike me was the passport they found...that thing was SO planted....another thing was i found a video on youtube that did suggest some explosions

so at least he got a bit right....i never did watch the last part but only because i was busy looking up egyptian gods....although there is a carving on the pyramid luxor that did support the whole virgin thing with horus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus its the pic near the bottom

so even though there is some fact in this its basicly all manipulated to make you believe it.....and lets face it most of us dont like to do research so most of us will believe it

Not a Member!


Thursday 5th July 2007 | 11:21 PM

There is plenty of evidence that suggest there was A 911 CONSPIRACY, plenty, all of you forget JFK? Honestly the CIA killed the only president for the ppl, this is clear and true, if you dont believe or think that well I dont think you have done your research!!!

In regards to 911 there is so much that points to uncle sam I cant even list it all, Its a whitewash....

Dont forget poor trade center building 7, sure looked like a demo to me, please a building falls simply because of fire? that would be a first in history?? The pentagon is clearly a whitewash, to this day no footage has been seen, as for those photos, most likely planted? just like the passport. In all honesty its impossible for a jet engine to simply vanish after a crash, this has never happened before in history, not once..In the rubble one thing is constant the engines frame..There is ample evidence of a gov conspiracy and this is justified, please do investigate everything especially the links between the ISI and the CIA, always investigate the CIA and never put your faith in uncle sam or a woman...

The proof is always in the coverup..

Not a Member!


Thursday 5th July 2007 | 11:38 PM

I should add, this movie was okay, it was meant to open up your mind simple as that...

Nothing to heavy, nothing to factual but it gets the job done and is entertaining as it should be..

My belief> Religion is a farce, my mind simply isnt that confined to believe this nor do I believe any human especially those that walked 2k yrs ago have any idea as to what all this is..simple as that religion is a tool to ade humans along this life and provide understaning and peace of mind..but religion and politics go hand and hand and both are used to control the masses and both take your MONEY at all cost..without mentioning the pure death both cause..

America is a facist state filled with simple minds of uneducated souls, this is the movies point and if your brain is big enough you dont need a movie to tell you this...

Not a Member!


Friday 6th July 2007 | 01:20 AM

I'm curious to know just what makes you so much smarter than someone from 2000 years ago? Try not to cite other people's work, progress and inventions as evidence of your personal intelligence.

I'm happy (if that's the right word?) to be convinced that the US govt killed it's own people. But to win me over, I'm going to need to see some more evidence than "omgzorz! Bush iz evilz!"

Jake Farr-Wharton

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 6th July 2007 | 09:17 AM
202 total kudos

As much as it would be an imesurable attrocity if the US govt were to have had a hand in the 9/11 tragedy, I really refuse to play into the pseudo 'evidence'. I find it to be just another form of propoganda, out to controll the masses. Controversial as it may be, it is still effective and has plenty of followers and support.

As for the differences in inteligence over the past 2000 years, there are innumerable differences in accumulated knowledge for todays humans, but theoretically nothing to say that we were more or less inteligent. I can tell you that the brain reacts to the amount of stimulus it is given, ie. the more you feed it, the more it will retain, the more outwardly intelligent you appear.

Again, theoretically, if you bought a child from biblical times to 2007 they would have the same potential [+/-] as a child from 2007 [assuming that they were given the same information in the same way] as the evolution of the body and brain had settled by then.

There is really no question that we are more knowledgeable about the universe [I use this term ambiguiously to encompass everything] than that of the people 2000 years ago, but that is simply because science and technology had not evolved beyond irrigation, feudalism and servatude. As for the need for religion, we know from beyond the biblical age, into greek mythology, incan/mayan, mesopotamian/sumerian etc religions that they revered and worshiped gods, which were actually their universe. Their land, sun, sky, stars, planets, water etc were all gods capable of smiting those who did not worship and serve them.

These beliefs evolved and formed into a monotheistic god for some religions. Eventually we will begin to realise that there little to be gained from seeking the external validation that religions require and look within ourselves for what many currently seek outside. That is the nature of evolution, it is not always physical.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Friday 6th July 2007 | 09:28 AM

Why do the last 2 posts have tommorrows date on them?

Not a Member!


Friday 6th July 2007 | 09:35 AM

Thanks Roger.

The date on comments (and articles) is derived from the server's time/date settings. It's an Australian server so the date is correct (today is the the 6th).

Not a Member!


Friday 6th July 2007 | 10:44 AM

Australia, OK.

I thought the movie was well made.
The montage sequences were a bit long, but all in all a decent and very watchable documentary.

On the content; to me all religion is based on superstition and fear of death. So, whether or not the astrological comparisons were 100% correct, it's good to point out that if your interpretation of God's will makes it OK for you to kill people then you are wrong.

I think the film raises more questions than answers. Many of the questions about 911 have not been answered satisfactorily, so conspiracy theories are bound to arise. 911 was a conspiracy by definition, but who conspired with whom remains unanswered.

If the film is in fact just propaganda (and it may be) I still think everyone should watch it, if only to balance the right wing propaganda that is rammed down our throats here in the US everyday.

Some of the posters above have suggested that the message of the film is just a political anti-Bush device and have dismissed it as such. I think it's a little more than that, something just doesn't smell right about the words coming out of the White House lately. The Patriot Act, Gitmo, Plame/yellowcake/Libby, domestic spying, Iraq, Iran, Saddam, Osama the puzzle pieces we are presented with don't fit together neatly. Many in this country associate support for the president and the war as patriotism, though many of the same people did not consider support for the previous president as patriotic.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of Clinton; if he could have kept his hands off the help, Bush would have never been president and we wouldn't be in this mess now.

As mentioned in the film the goal does seem to be perpetual war. Why can't the most exspensive military on the globe take care of some rag-tag insurgents in short order? The US has spent hundreds of billions against an enemy with no budget at all to speak of; so why is it taking so long?

The film draws some scary conclusions, this will turn many away. But, equally scary is every alternative explanation of current events, it's just that the mainstream conclusions are fed to us everyday and seem less scary by dilution.

If for any reason Bush uses the Patriot Act to cancel the next election I will take this film as more fact than fiction.

Not a Member!


Friday 6th July 2007 | 11:51 AM

Simply put, I refuse to accept what i'm fed by uncle sam, there like a cheating lady, you get everything you want to hear while the dirt remains in the dark, If you continue to stay with her you put yourself at risk to get played again.. Knowledge is history, I will forever have more KNOWLEDGE than any man that walked 2k yrs ago, knowledge is a resource for all to use, it is not a invention. TO A FACIST GOV IT IS A INVENTION!!

Humans, Books, and by far the MODERN INVENTION OF RESOURCE the internet!!! This is what gives me the ability of KNOWLEDGE that no man 2k yrs ago had..

Sure I couldent invent shit, I would still be sluggin broads and draggin there asses to the cave.

To be stupid and silly, not a single ancient civ discovered dinosaurs, now i'm sure they found the bones but could they explain them? outside myth, demons and gods?

\this is all i'm getting at....And yes i'm sure a few brilliant men knew what those bones meant, but there knowledge most likely got them gutted, its clear knowledge is the modern day antichrist...Modern Day 0-2007, its ashame we cant get out of this age..

I was raised with eyes wide open, questions need to be asked and if theres no answer? I pay taxes!!

I would never make a claim to know what the real deal is nor do i care to, I'm just here to enjoy the ride, but i surely hope Earths/humans best interest is at hand...


Back to the knowledge 2k yrs ago BS< Once again look to history, the greatest man to ever walk TESLA and his insain advanced genius spit spasm of a mind slaughtered by the same facist gov that is in power today...this is clear and documented..We should all be praying to Tesla

F W and his family dynasty, I will say one thing i knew, I knew about him, his dad, his father long before 9/11, long before. This give me 1 up on 98% of america, I will take that to my grave, I will never vote, nobody should vote.

i'm wasted...something about having a bar in your condo building

Not a Member!


Friday 6th July 2007 | 11:58 AM

"Why can't the most exspensive military on the globe take care of some rag-tag insurgents in short order?"

I think you'll find America could easily remove the enemy. Doing it without killing every single last living person in the entire region - that's the trick. Would you really prefer they adopted a scortched earth policy?

I find it ironic that so many people post that you have to be some sort of simpleton to not believe in conspiracy theories, based on no hard evidence at all, yet you also have to be a simpleton to believe in religion, based on no hard evidence at all. Surely logic dictates you have to pick one methodology or the other? How can you use mutually exlusive logic for two arguments?

I'm not suggesting the film is just an anti-Bush diatribe and dismissing it. I'm saying the film is riddled with blatant lies and made up crap or at best, urban legend presented as fact. That doesn't mean some of its contents are not true but it does degrade the overal quality of the film and weaken its authority, surely? If you wish to present a strong case to make a point you should not need to supplement your arguement with fiction, to make it sound more convincing. Truth must always stand on its own.

I'm not saying Bush is or is not involved and I of course agree that whether or not his govt set the whole thing up, they're making all the milage out of it they can. I'm just willing to concende I can't prove anything and that the mere presence of odd circumstances (of which we only know about through heresay) is not proof of the worst possible thing you can think up.

All up though, it's interesting to get US based input on this and the perspective of someone closer to the ground. You'll find there's not many fans of Bush here in Australia either and most of us are keenly looking forward to him being replaced, in the near, near future.

It'll be interesting to see how the "alliance" evolves over the next year, as the Republicans in the US, Labor in the UK and the Liberals in Aus are all voted out (as they surely will be). Will the alternative governments be any different?

Not a Member!


Friday 6th July 2007 | 12:00 PM

Robert - what's the deal with the anti-female comments?

Not a Member!


Saturday 7th July 2007 | 12:14 PM

Rodney, simple analogy, but it is relevant as all religions and all forms of gov demonize women/sex, this is surely something we all can agree on..myself i worship women lol, happily married 3 years and do whatever she says..

Nothing was anti-female or derogatory, sorry you will haft to excuse the fact i only post after a few cocktails, please also excuse spelling and grammar, i type fast and only post to get quick ideas/thoughts out.

Look in the end its all a conspiracy, The Industrial Military Complex runs the world, it causes only death and delays any advancement of earth ions..

Lets be real, IRAQ was a conspiracy, if you cant believe in UFOS ,9/11, JFK, RFK, Vietnam any CIA activity, drugs etc etc, atleast believe in IRAQ because you witnessed it first hand

Dont forget saddam hussein is dead because of WMD, WMD? of course from the get we knew they didnt have em... Theres sat's in the sky that can see everything, real time all day everyday, they can focus in on a nickel on the ground....They lied about IRAQ and Bin Laden for a agenda, they used 9/11 for a agenda, even if they didnt bring the buildings down, SO YES THERE WAS AND IS A CONSPIRACY!!! this every american should see, and thank god most do..

Just for fun lets say..There is a shadow gov a org of the most powerfull familys on the globe a secret society, what if the Bin Ladens were the Rothchilds or Rockefellers of there sector, and simply connected to the society as the governing power/influence of there sector/middle east..

In the end we brought the buildings down, destroyed iraq, 3k US dead for what reason? shitty 35 yr old hummers??? OMG 2k7 American soldiers should be rolling around in blast proof stealth trucks, invinsible, thats a fact and very doable....

Why destory the middle east with bombs and terror, if we really wanted true democracy and world peace we would start with elec, food, shelter

Conspiracys are real, but that word isnt, invented by them and whitewashed is the word conspiracy..

Saddam never would conform thats why he is now dead

Not a Member!


Saturday 7th July 2007 | 12:45 PM

please watch this video,

Dont pay attention to the last 5 or so min, even tho it is a dumb presentation of truth, pay attention to the demo of
New York, this is governed by the laws of physics I had the privledge of watching data like this during class at Upenn, amazing fun it was talking truth ivy league closed door style...

Compare demolished building, what we witnessed was a clear demo of 3 buildings and a bogus pentagon bluff to add some credit and send cameras elsewhere briefly..

Not a Member!


Saturday 7th July 2007 | 05:01 PM

I am a person that is tired of hearing from those that dont question authority and think they have all the answers at the same time. It just doesnt work that way. I dont believe this was the greatest documentary in the world although bill hicks was in there makes it nice...kidding. But seriously, I liked its measure. Few could probably get through the first half hour.

If you want to talk about propoganda...then dont mention this film. It attempts to inform and it draws from real events. I cant wait for the response to "zeitgeist". If there is one out there already let me know. The "all-knowers" usually cant wait to refute. It has already opened up your mind to opinion.

I think that the last 20 minutes were the most troubling. I need to look into more of this national ID and the chip referred to. I lived in Austin, TX so I have listened to Alex Jones (with a grain of salt) spew about it but he is so overcome with anger that his diatribe scares me. His voice was in the documentary a few times (the angry one). He is entertaining but at the same time he gets in the face of some politicians which is incredibly funny.

Summarizing...I think everyone would not go wrong in watching this if nothing else but to put a little bit of doubt in what the government wants for its people. The elite dont want the best for me and if there is anyone that is blind with patriotism out there (which I know there is) than I think it might be a good way to deprogram them if only for a little while.

Not a Member!


Saturday 7th July 2007 | 08:08 PM

Not one person in here acknowledged the Russo account of what Nick Rockefeller told him 11 months before 9/11.

That in itself shows the power of denial.

That says it all.

Not a Member!


Saturday 7th July 2007 | 08:17 PM

You can argue the religion content forever - as religion is based on faith, not fact. The Zodiac origins are the closest proof of fact available on that.

I poster stated that the evidence related to 9/11 being an inside job was a 'leap of faith' to believe. Ok, by those standards, where in the official story is it not a leap of faith to buy into that? Magic passport, no plane at Pentagon, not to mention what isn't pointed out is the PNAC where the authors clearly wrote that we needed a catalystic event like "Pearl Harbor" to further their agenda. The Bush admin was a joke before 9/11. P Zelikow, the head of the 9/11 Commission wrote an essay a couple years before describing the "before and after" effects of a major American terrorist attack. The official story, if you examine it closely is as absurd as trying to believe an invisible god lives in the sky. A "leap of faith" would be to take that offcial story any more seriously than the bible or the three little pigs.

After seeing this documentary, everything became perfectly clear. Everything makes sense. Of course the Iraq war isn't "going badly". Of course criminal neo con elements created 9/11 - it's the oldest trick in th ebook for gov't to do this. Google "Operation Northwoods" if you think the gov't wouldn't ever do it. Or the recent "Family Jewels" CIA docs where out gov't teamed up with THE MAFIA to kill Catsro. Wake up.

The masses have been controlled by the elite since forever. We live in a owrld where info is simply more readily available - that's all. And until we have a full-scale revolution, nothing will change Nothing. It has been the only effective means of change. If the military realized what blatent pawns they are to the men in power - and they they are dying for absolutely NOTHING less than for the emperical dreams of a few men (as we've seen in every single history book since the birth of paper) - you'd think they'd rise up and storm the White House and remove them by force. You'd think.

Not a Member!


Saturday 7th July 2007 | 09:20 PM

Djiblles - you wanted to know more about RFID chips - here you go: http://www.automation.siemens.com/simatic-sensors/html_76/rfid-systeme.htm

Siemens are the about the largest pushers of RFID at this point in time.

To everyone, carrying around a microchip sounds scary but it shouldn't. RFID is a replacement barcode technology. Please don't think some satellite can track you by it, that's complete bollocks. RFID chips that are pinhead size -never- have their own power source. This means, they must be placed next to a power transmitting device to be noticed. All they then do, is emit a single equivalent to a barcode. The active range of these passive RFID devices is about 2cm. You absolutely cannot be tracked by them. This is no more invasive than carrying a drivers license with a barcode on it.

You can get RFID with its own power but they're generally much larger devices and the power life isn't great. You can also get "power wands" to detect passive RFID from a range of a few metres but they're a) very bulky and b) extremely unreliable.

We use these devices to make stocktakes easier but you still need to scan every counted item from with a few cm. Hardly a great way to "track your every move on the planet", now, is it? It's just more media hype about stuff they don't understand.

My whole point about this movie is that people need to watch these things and think and question the 'evidence' - espicially when there are no supporting references given (or at least any you can actually find). Same goes for what the government says, too, of course. Question things.

Not a Member!


Sunday 8th July 2007 | 12:51 AM

Thanks Rodney...damn..didnt know Siemens was all over it. I worked for a communications company who was getting ready to implement a system that could detect whether the tone of a customer's voice was ready for a sale. I thought that was Big Brother. But for a company like Siemens to have their label on it...that's gotta stop. Everyone has to submit something to this company and if you work for a company that uses Siemens as a software distributor for communications...it has to stop. I love technology but putting chips in passports and national ID's is not right. It's disrepectful and against the Constitution.

Thanks again Rodney.
Keep spreading Truth.

Not a Member!


Sunday 8th July 2007 | 01:05 AM

Rodney, I dont understand how you think that having a National ID with an RFID chip with all your personal information in it is a useful thing. But if you do then I guess you need to become a little more concerned. I'm not worried about the government tracking me from a satellite on my way to work. I just dont like the fact that I am being tagged like a seal in the arctic. If you keep on giving up liberties than we'll have none left. That's the point you dont get. I appreciate your insight but I am against the idea and I think it will only lead to scarier things.

Not a Member!


Sunday 8th July 2007 | 01:45 AM

It's not that I'm not concerned about my info being in a card or a chip - I'm saying it's already there, WITHOUT the chip. Your drivers licenses says enough about you to the authorities without the need for some chip. Therefore, who cares if they add the chip? What more can they know?

Not a Member!


Sunday 8th July 2007 | 02:04 AM

You people are funny. I can't believe how naive. "You can't be tracked with the chip"? Try the company VeriChip. If you see the film "Freedom To Facism" thre is an interview with a VeriChip employee explaining howthe VeriChip will be implanted and used - an having the ability to "turn it off" and "track you" is the entire point of it.

If yo ustay in line and whatever they ask of you - you should be fine, but if you choose to rise up, or simply not pay your income taxt or simply practice your current ability to fight back or use your free speech - they will turn off your chip. It's the ultimate control device.

The technology today is such that Hitler and the Neo Cons hvae been dreaming of. And, it also banks on you sitting there saying "nah, they won't track me.. nah they won't turn off my chip... nah why should I care if they track me? What do I have to hide?"


And again, total ignorance of the Russo Nick Rockefeller statements on the knowlege of an event 11 months before 9/11 and the micro chip - "we can just turn off ther chip" interview.

Reading the last posts of this blog is why they will get away with it - total naive public.

Not a Member!


Sunday 8th July 2007 | 02:08 AM

Here is an interview with a Congressman on the Real ID ACT and how it will evolve into the "microchipped population"

Not a Member!


Sunday 8th July 2007 | 02:15 AM

This is straight from the VeriChip website:

"Wander Prevention
Over 4000 long term care facilities rely on wander prevention technology from VeriChip to keep their wander prone residents safe. The RoamAlert® system provides effective, restraint-free protection for facilities of any size. Whether you have a single door to protect or multiple floors, VeriChip has a cost-effective solution to your needs."

Imagine everyone microchipped. This company VeriChip is the one that has already implanted many human beings. Imagine an entire population microchipped - all money on those chips and sit there and honestly say "nah, they'd never take advantage of the entire population like that.!"

The men behind the gov't don't care at all about human life - and they certainyl don't care about freedom. The same group of people that carried out 9/11, killed nearly one million people in Iraq (by also arming the Sunni's by the way - funding and arming both sides) and the countless amount of disregard for human life in general to reach their goals - you think they won't track and enslave you with these chips? Are you kidding?

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 08:21 AM

Robert writes:
"Dont forget poor trade center building 7, sure looked like a demo to me, please a building falls simply because of fire? that would be a first in history??"

Dominick writes: Sorry Robert, but that is absolutely possible. The bridge that fell in San Fransico this year when a Semi crashed into it, blew up and the intense heat melted the steel and concreate causuing the bridge to collaspse. When the plane hit the building, blowing up, it continued to go through the wall, & windows and managed to get inside the building exploding even more, weakening and melting the structure from the intense heat it created, the same way the bridge collapased, casuing the building to Fall straight down.

There was no conspiricay from America just stupidity!

Jake Farr-Wharton

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 9th July 2007 | 09:50 AM
202 total kudos

Conspiracy suggests that there was someone/people conspiring to perform the act, of this I'm not convinced. As for there being coverups, with the current governance, I would not be surpised. Intelligence is greatly surpressed in the US, I can only assume as a method for controll... keep the people ignorant and they believe anything.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 11:03 AM

How many sons had Jacob? There were ten older brothers and Joseph and Benjamin. Joseph was now seventeen years old. The older brothers were shepherds, and Joseph was sometimes with them. He brought to his father report of their wrong doings. They hated Joseph, too, because his father loved him best of all his sons and made him a beautiful coat of many colors, or as some understand it to mean, a long garment with sleeves. Joseph also had dreams, which he told his brethren, and they hated him for these. What were his dreams? (Gen. 37:5-11)

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 11:04 AM

10+2= 12

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 11:12 AM

miracle of life?

Rachel was enabled to conceive and bore a son, Joseph
[either "may the Lord add' or "He has taken away"]
(GEN 30:22-24).

GEN 30:22-24 "Then God remembered Rachel; he listened
to her and opened her womb. She became pregnant and gave
birth to a son and said, 'God has taken away my
disgrace.' She named him Joseph, and said, 'May the LORD
add to me another son.'"

*This son, Joseph, would become Israel's favorite
because he was Rachel's child (GEN 33:2, 37:3);

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 12:23 PM

10+2 = 12
...what's your point?

The movie claims Jesus had 12 disciples... that makes him one of THIRTEEN. Jospeh had 11 Brothers. That makes him one of TWELVE. So the comparison is bad.

As for the miracle birth, yes there were some events but it's hardly the same. One claims a late birth. The other claims a complete and total "miracle".

My point is the links are spirious at best.

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 03:56 PM

Anyone that compares a bridge in San Fran to WTC7 - might as well compare apples to oranges.

More on that point here:

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 04:00 PM

Not one person in here acknowledged the Russo account of what Nick Rockefeller told him of "an event" that will start a "war on terror" and "lead us into wars in the middle east" 11 months before 9/11.

That in itself shows the power of denial.

That says it all.

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 04:01 PM

I love how the "Emperor" uses bible quotes. Why don't you also use quotes from the "three little pigs" too?

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 05:02 PM

Eric, have you watched the movie?

Emporer was quoting frm the Bible because the movie tried to disprove the Bible, based on the section Emporer was quoting. I then pointed out the movie had misquoted the sections and Emporer was discussing this point - the movie is not entirely about 911....

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 06:24 PM

There might be some factual errors in the movie, but how is it possible to deny the big picture - it all makes sense and goes totally in tune with the World History - these things have happened so many times in the past. Its great that we have internet now - its the only hope for the truth to spread - still there are so many people who just wouldnt believe in anything unofficial - no matter how believable it is in fact. Go to the http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ - read the statement and a list of literature

Asking why there aren't many prominent scientists and media people who speak out for the cause? - they have a career to lose, as they will be ridiculed by the ignorant majority that wouldnt even bother to think and analyze

This is all so very sad

Not a Member!

big sexy

Monday 9th July 2007 | 06:37 PM

you guys are fun.

jesus follows the traditional hero story, as well as many other coincidences, if you will. like it was said before, chumps from 2000 years ago maybe had not the access to the knowledge of today, but they were curious, had imaginations, and liked drawing conclusions as we do today. the stars were sure to be of great wonder and inspiration.

and so the documentary may not be perfect, but remember, it also wasnt made by jesus :)

all in all, you couldnt help but raise an eyebrow a few times. the video was a form of media, of course, which the author despised more or less, but being the society we are, as described by the video, this is also the best way to reach us. the inconsistencies may not be a fault of the video but of you yourself - there was a lot of info left out to concretely prove its points, but at already 2 hours, it was long. it also left out a lot of info to further strengthen certain points, so, i suppose, if nothing left, keep an open mind that, at the very least, its a real possibility.

could this all not fit into our history books?

Not a Member!


Monday 9th July 2007 | 09:26 PM

Yes Rodney I have seen it. I may have misread his entry.

Not one person in here acknowledged the Russo account of what Nick Rockefeller told him of "an event" that will start a "war on terror" and "lead us into wars in the middle east" 11 months before 9/11.

More on WTC7 here: ??

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 12:14 AM

The things that really reached me were the WTC 7 lack of explanation, the pentagon plane crash, the Russo account, the VeriChips, and the fact that by doing away with the Mexican and Canadian borders(North American Union), the Constitution would no longer be valid.
I did do some minor source checking, and the only similarity I could find between Christ and the Egyptian sun god Horus was the birth from a virgin mother.
Never did I find evidence of the many similarities that were stated, such as 3 kings following a north star.
Although the whole zodiac concept was very interesting.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 08:46 AM
202 total kudos

Horus and Jesus similarities:

1. Both were conceived of a virgin. 2. Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh) 3. Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary. 4. Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph. 5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent. 6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable). 7. Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel. 8. Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East). 9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. 10. Both births were announced by angels (this si nto the same as number 7).
11. Both had shepherds witnessing the birth. 12. Horus was visited at birth by "three solar deities" and Jesus was visited by "three wise men". 13. After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered. 14. To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to "arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt." 15. When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah. 16. Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual. 17. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30. 18. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan.
19. Both were baptized at age 30. 20. Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. 21. Both Anup and John were later beheaded. 22. Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set. Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Satan.
23. Both Horus and Jesus successfully resist this temptation. 24. Both have 12 disciples. 25. Both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind. 26. Horus "stilled the sea by his power." Jesus commanded the sea to be still by saying, "Peace, be still." 27. Horus raised his dead father (Osiris) from the grave. Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. (Note the similarity in names when you say them out loud. Further, Osiris was also known as Asar, which is El-Asar in Hebrew, which is El-Asarus in Latin.) 28. Osiris was raised in the town of Anu. Lazarus was raised in Bethanu (literally, "house of Anu"). 29. Both gods delivered a Sermon on the Mount. 30. Both were crucified. 31. Both were crucified next to two thieves. 32. Both were buried in a tomb. 33. Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days). 34. Both had their resurrection announced by women. 35. Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign. 36. Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one. Jesus was known as the Christ (which means "anointed one"). 37. Both Jesus and Horus have been called the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, and the winnower. 38. Both are associated with the zodiac sign of Pisces (the fish). 39. Both are associated with the symbols of the fish, the beetle, the vine, and the shepherd's crook. 40. Horus was born in Anu ("the place of bread") and Jesus was born in Bethlehem ("the house of bread"). 41. "The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following prophecy: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'" (See Point 13) 42. Both were transfigured on the mount. 43. The catacombs of Rome have pictures of the infant Horus being held by his mother, not unlike the modern-day images of "Madonna and Child." 44. Noted English author C. W. King says that both Isis and Mary are called "Immaculate". 45. Horus says: "Osiris, I am your son, come to glorify your soul, and to give you even more power." And Jesus says: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once."
46. Horus was identified with the Tau (cross).

Also good:

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 10:55 AM

I don't see why this surprises anyone. The whole Christian Bible is borrowed from bits and pieces of other people's stuff.

However, the thing I question is the sources. See I can bung up a website that says stuff and then reference it. The thing is, I and no one else here knows, if any of the Horus stuff is true, or if it's just an urban legend made up by people to deny Christianity. I sure as hell haven't got any detailed knowledge about ancient egyptian stuff, although the at gallery here is about to open an exhibit which I plan to go to :) The question is, are the web sources reliable or biased?

See, there are a few errors I noticed, even at a quick glance. Bar Mitvzah is at 13, not 12. Bethlehem could be translated to house of bread but also to place of prey, fruit, meat, just about any type of meal, or a type of offering. It's kind of a catch-all for meal. So to stick on bread for this purpose is a little contrived.

So who know about the rest of the stuff?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 02:20 PM

If you all want to keep up-to-date on some of this stuff go to infowars.com and subscribe to the Alex Jones Show. He has podcast as well. He's based from Austin, TX and has been confronting big business and politicians for years. He can be a little outrageous but he does have good information. I dont take it all as fact because I know he is trying to make a name for himself. But he's a cat that was a serious Public Television guy trying to spread the word of injustice and now he's syndicated. Check him out..you wont do wrong.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 03:00 PM

I am a fan of Alex Jones, he does good work. I was pleasantly surprised to see some of his material in this documentary as well as Bill Hicks.
I thought the movie was very well done. A lot of the points are debatable (the christainity / pagan stuff) but don't forget that theory as it currently stands it debatable as well. I don't think it will ever be laid out in stone for us because that time has passed. But it's the IDEA that's important. The myths were never suppose to be taken as literal historical fact but metaphorically.
And lets face it, it is not physically possible to break out the electron microscope and do our own research. And if that did happen then its possible that many different people would still reach many different conclusions. We do the best we can with what we have and sometime we have to rely on other people to do the dirty work and bring forth new ideas. Not so we can take them as fact, cling to them, close our minds and shun everything else but so we can move foreward. GEES!! If you're gonna bicker about 'oh he got this number wrong' and 'no, I checked wiki and thats not right' bla bla bla shut up and listen to the message. No, I'm just kidding and you're probably right. The government wouldn't lie to us and Jesus saves :P

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 05:10 PM

I found Part I by far the best of the three. However I think it would be foolish for anyone to take the claims made in the movie at face value without doing a bit of research first, especially since most of the correspondences mentioned between the Bible and other sources were scrolled up the screen so fast you couldn't read it. If it stimulates people to look into it themselves then it's a good thing, it's difficult to present an in-depth argument in 30 minutes of a movie. I think there definitely are similarities between Jesus and other mythological figures such as Horus. It's not like you have to be an "expert" to recognize this. Just read a book or two on Egyptian mythology sometime (one that isn't trying to push some agenda or controversial theory).

Christianity also incorporates a lot of Pagan elements, as this was how the early church thought it would be best to get Pagan populations to accept Christianity, since they wouldn't have to give up their Pagan ways 100%. For example, Easter is the Pagan festival of Oestra, with Christian symbolism grafted over the top. I don't think that similarities between Jesus and other figures is 100% proof that Christianity is fake, since a "saviour" with those attributes had been prophesied for a long time, and so obviously there would have been various figures at different times claiming to be the "messiah". If you view Christ as one in a long line of prophets like Muslims do, then it doesn't prove anything.

I think that some people are being overly skeptical here though, the commonalities with Mithras for example are quite striking. I think that Jesus was mythologised at the Council of Nicea (when the present Bible was put together out of various extant sacred texts) and given certain attributes consistent with the religious traditions of the time, in particular those of the Gnostics.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 05:51 PM

If you're gonna bicker about 'oh he got this number wrong' and 'no, I checked wiki and thats not right' bla bla bla shut up and listen to the message. No, I'm just kidding and you're probably right. The government wouldn't lie to us and Jesus saves :P

No one here is saying anything of the sort (that Jesus saves or the govt wouldn't lie). But you have to be kidding surely that "near enough's good enough" when it comes to evidence of consipracy? "It feels right" - since when is that evidence?

The reason I pointed out that numbers are wrong and figures are incorrect is to get people thinking that hey, if THIS little bit of info is incorrect - what about the rest of it? Maybe the rest is just as flawed. Please tell me why we should "just listen to the message" when it's based on bad evidence? Should we "just listen" to every message we hear?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 07:17 PM

The reason I pointed out that numbers are wrong and figures are incorrect is to get people thinking that hey, if THIS little bit of info is incorrect - what about the rest of it?

Why don't you fact-check the rest of it then, instead of just assuming it's likely to be false because one or two things are? I mean, it's probably not worth doing that just as a result of a movie, but these are pretty important issues regardless.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th July 2007 | 10:38 PM

You must be new to this internet thingy. We pick holes in ideas, not offer alternatives :-P

Not a Member!


Wednesday 11th July 2007 | 01:31 AM

Im sorry, I cant believe how stupid some people on this site are...There are some conspiracies but what about the facts. The core of the building that was cut so that the building falls in unison, certainly a planned fact and no conspiracy and if it was a terrorist that wanted to blow up the buildings, they would not need a plane since he had already managed to plant explosives on there and cut through the metal long time before the airplanes came. I mean they will have jus blew it up normally without needing a plane to cover up the fact that the main damage were the explosives

Not a Member!

Wednesday 11th July 2007 | 02:49 AM

People are so foolish and blind to truth. They have been brainwashed since birth. Congratz on those who are not bashing the movie and respect it. You just cannot argue with a brick wall everyone. Some people are just so totally ignorant and are zombies to what the news and a book about some guy tell them.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 11th July 2007 | 10:39 AM

That's some tops evidence guys. It takes more than screaming "its the truth" to make it so... How am I ignorant for pointing out that the movie contains flawed information? What makes you so smart by saying "it doesn't matter of the movie is full of errors, it still must be true coz it's in the internet!"?

There are some conspiracies but what about the facts. The core of the building that was cut so that the building falls in unison, certainly a planned fact

I'm sorry? Where's the evidence of this fact? What fact? Who ever said the building core was cut? Do you have ANY idea how LOUD that sort of work in a building is? I work in a large building and if anyone even uses a drill on any floor, we all hear it. Why did not one single worker in the building ever hear such action and mention it? Are you seriously contending the the entire building empties at night?

As I've said many times, I'm "happy" (except it's not a good thing if it's true) to be convinced. I agree the whole thing is fishy. Everyone does.


If you need to make stuff up in your movie that's easily proven wrong, it turns the whole movie into a strawman (if you like). It doesn't aid your cause to make stuff up to try to support you. This is what small children do. Even if all the messages in the movie are 100% true, the message will be lost because they tried to use urban legends and known mis-truths to support their argument.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 11th July 2007 | 11:59 AM

I don't get the impression this guy is making this stuff up for malicious reasons. I do think it's important to think for yourself and have a certain degree of skeptisism.
I do take issue when people find one thing slightly wrong and just run with it. For example some people have the mentality that if one fact is incorrect then all of it is false and dismiss it without any further thought. "hmm that reference between so and so and Jesus is slightly skewed so this guy must be lying. I guess the only other rational explaination is that Jesus IS really the son of God and my eternal saviour. " You can see where I'm going with this. This guy did the best with what he had available to him at the time. And if you can find faults/inaccuracies in a 2 hour documentary then don't even get me started on the Bible ;)
I also have issue with people who watch this and get all hyped up and freak out and preach this as almighty fact. That is the other extreme.
Relax, it'll get worse and in another 20 years more information with surface that will piss us off even more.

My suggestion is to print off a copy of the sources listed on the documentary read them ALL and present to the world a different way of looking at this.

Not a Member!

big sexy

Wednesday 11th July 2007 | 08:13 PM

"If you need to make stuff up in your movie that's easily proven wrong, it turns the whole movie into a strawman (if you like). "

hey now, dont assume he made it up for his own benefit or what have you. humans make errors, again, he isnt jesus. if you start drawing conclusions like this without all the necessary information, youre doing exactly what youre accusing him of doing, yes?

and on the topic of the building, how does a building falling from the impact of an airplane hitting it from the side (even there, maybe the plane's pilot, under the command of the terrorist, with the glorious luck of allah, just happen to hit the building's weak spot, eh?) cut the key support beams at such an angle? nevermind its perfectly consistent with controlled demolitions and the architects of the building itself said it was designed to absorb the impact of a plane hitting it. now, im not saying my own lack of imagination/understanding as to how it might happen is proof it cant, just wondering how it might happen.

Not a Member!

Fake Person Name

Friday 13th July 2007 | 02:01 AM

Does anyone know who produced the film? The whole thing seems really anonymous. I've been exposed to the Pentagon/911 stuff before and fully support all of it, but I have never seen the zodiac stuff and I'm absolutely intrigued by it. I want more.

One question though, the bible has been translated numerous times from Aramaic, correct? So why does the film make comparisons of the names in English? Or are the names also comparable in Aramaic?

Also, is the part about MOST of you federal tax money going to payt the interest on the dollar to the Federal Reserve true? I've heard about the borrowing for purposes of war, but the idea of most of my income tax going to pay interest is surprising. State taxes seem to cover more functional things like roads and schools, so where are my Federal taxes really going? Interesting.

Not a Member!


Friday 13th July 2007 | 02:03 AM

making fun of the way this movie was put together does not prove it to be false. if he (the director) went into every area like i'm sure he wanted to, this movie would have gone on for 5 days. and most people can barely sit still for a 2 hour movie unless bruce willis is involved

Not a Member!


Friday 13th July 2007 | 11:30 AM

Actually, if Bruce Willis is involved, probably much less than 2 hours... :-)

Not a Member!


Friday 13th July 2007 | 02:40 PM

It's kind of funny. Over at PrisonPlanet.com, Alex has put up a censored version of the movie Zeitgeist. He took out the 1st 1/3 of the movie because it proves Jesus is a pagan sun god. And Alex is a born again Christian. Which means, as good as his intentions are, his loyalty to the church is destroying his loyalty to the Constitution.

Not a Member!


Friday 13th July 2007 | 05:03 PM

The fact that a government will sacrifice it's own people from time to time should not be hard to believe by anyone on this planet. What is the real purpose of any WAR? It is pretty basic actually, no matter where the war is fought, when it was fought, or how the war was instigated in the first place. War(at least in our modern sense) represents the dominance of the few over the many, and how the elite kings, royal families, presidents, prime ministers, senators, etc can toy with the people's lives for any cause they deem necessary. If this is not an example of a government sacrificing it's own people, then I am yet to understand the nature of our political system.

My main point/question is--
If the government (the US govt in this example) was so quick to go to war in Iraq with false information, knowing that thousands of Americans would give their lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would also be killed(mostly innocents bystanders), then why can't people comprehend that the government might have caused the terror attack (9-11) which directly preceded the war?. Human life is human life, no matter what country you call home or what government you follow. I think most people would concur that human nature is naturally greedy- (which is why communism failed and capitalism is in a way a necessary evil in modern society)- and that war does not fall to those power but only to the lowest rungs of a social structure. And since very large profits are connected to wartime atmospheres for the military contractors, who are in turn controlling the politicians pushing for the war, the prospect of war becomes also becomes a necessary evil in our world.

I wish the military industrial complex was just a myth, and if anyone wants to try to convince, please do so. And I hope some people can help me believe that the people in charge actually give a fuck about my life, or anyone of our lives. But all one has to do is look at our sad and short human history - slavery, war, power-struggles, empires, crusades, revolution, depressions, genocides, xenophobia, artificial borders, holocausts, torture, false prophets and idols, politically motivated religions, fundamentalism, and on and on and on and on..... The world is a fucked up place and it has been like this since the human race took it over. At least the movie proves this point very clearly by dissecting the evil, lurking shadows of religion, politics, empire, and "terrorism".

So the only real question you need to ask yourself, is not whether governments/terrorists- (I sort of use the term interchangeably here)- are inherently evil, basing their power on morally backwards ideals and protocols- but whether you think "your" government/terrorist or some "other" government/ terrorist is out to get you. And after awhile you sort of realize that your life really don't mean shit to any of the parties involved......

well.... have a good night anyway.......

Not a Member!


Friday 13th July 2007 | 05:51 PM

You know I'd love to tell "Pain" he was wrong... but you can't really, can you?

Not a Member!


Saturday 14th July 2007 | 03:58 AM

What a cop-out, Rodney. I do respect your overall paradigm even though I think your better points are weakened in light of your baseless Fox-News-like attacks on this film. Specifically, terms like "lunacy", "pseudo facts" and "urban legends" offer absolutely no value beyond the content-free, ad hominem attacks courtesy of dipshit bimbos like Kirsten Powers and Michelle Malkin, who similarly refer to "conspiracy theorists" as "lunatics".

And you are simply, irrefutably wrong with respect to your claim that people/items/objects "absolutely cannot be tracked" by RFID chips. You even use bold font to make your point, but it's reflective of sheer ignorance.

Finally, blogger "Pain" among other thoughtful folks on this page make some good arguments, and when you wrote...

"You know I'd love to tell "Pain (Steve) " he was wrong... but you can't really, can you?"

....it struck me, because that was almost verbatim what was said to me by idiot business acquaintences of mine in November in 2004 when I questioned the electronic voting results from Ohio.


Not a Member!

big sexy

Saturday 14th July 2007 | 10:18 AM

"What is the real purpose of any WAR? It is pretty basic actually, no matter where the war is fought, when it was fought, or how the war was instigated in the first place. War(at least in our modern sense) represents... "

wait, if youre now defining war just in the MODERN SENSE, what use does the preceding sentence have? attenton to the bit "no matter ... when it was fought."

anyway, best case scenario: the documentary is totally wrong, and were safe from these evils.

worst case: its right, and were fucked without drastic action.

odds are its somewhere in between there, as most things lie between the extremes.

the documentary makes some pretty bold assumptions and criticisms, but criticism of these criticisms isnt something to get so worked up about, or even really something to take sides with. rodney seems to be the only one questioning it. if youve already taken sides as to which personal conclusions to believe, arent you just allowing yourself do be another pawn of the media (this VIDEO) as the documentary so warned against? arent the conclusions someone else's anyway?

so i suppose, dont believe everything you might think.

Not a Member!

A. Nonymous

Saturday 14th July 2007 | 02:07 PM

First of all, thanks to everyone for your thoughts. They have enlightened me on the different views people have taken on this movie and given me a more neutral standpoint as I make my own comment.

In the middle of this argument attempting to prove this movie's information correct or incorrect (which has branched off into several other topics, by the way), I believe that you guys have somewhat missed (what I believe) is the meaning of the movie: we are human. All of our lives are important. All of us are completely free, just because we exist. And ABSOLUTELY no one has the right to take those two things away from us. And the fact of the matter is, that's exactly what is being stolen from us.

This part of the movie (aside from the ending, which was very inspiring) caught my attention. It occurs right before part III. A news person is talking:

"....It's like everything everywhere is going crazy so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller and all we say is 'please, leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radios and we won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well I'm not going to leave you alone. I want you to get mad. I don't want you to protest, I don't want you to riot, I don't want you to write to your congressmen. I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first, you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a human being, god damn it! My life has value!'"

"'I'm a human being, god damn it! My life has value!"

And the worst part is, we seem to forget that we have the final say. And soon, we might not even legally have the rights we are entitled to. We need something to shock us into acting. And that is what this movie is attempting to do. It has certainly changed my perspective. In fact, another meaning of the movie is to not believe everything you hear or see without your own research.

Of course, this is all my opinion, and I am by no means an expert on this issue.

Not a Member!

big sexy

Saturday 14th July 2007 | 02:36 PM

i loved that part.

Not a Member!

Johnny Thief

Saturday 14th July 2007 | 03:34 PM

Ironic that the first third of the movie debunks Christianity, then ends with the threat of a one world government, as predicted in Revelation:

7He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.[b]

9He who has an ear, let him hear.
10If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity he will go.
If anyone is to be killed[c] with the sword,
with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
The Beast out of the Earth
11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

P.S. as to why WYC 7 collapsed, asked Ghouliani. His police crisi headquarters was intered there, along with 6000 gallons of diesel fuel that was never approved by the FDNY or the EPA.

Not a Member!


Saturday 14th July 2007 | 10:53 PM

Sorry, Steve, seems I need to get clearer with what I write. When I said "you can't argue" with what Pain has written, I meant I agreed with the post. I think it was on track.

However, I do stand by my comments about RFID, which is a tecnhology I work with. They're no different to high tech barcodes. Yes, you could theoretically track someone by RFID or by barcode or by library membership card. None the less, it's a completely inappropriate technology for this purpose, due to the very close proximity required to detect the barcode or RFID or library card.

A FAR batter technology to track someone, as I stated above, is either mobile phone or credit card. With mobile phones, they already know exactly where you are (or your phone anyway but same diff for RFID) and with credit cards, you do all the work for them - PLUS you tell them what you like to spend money on. If you want to worry about being tracked that's where you should be looking.

So to make my point crystal clear to people too lazy to read more than 3 or 4 posts up... YES I think 911 is fishy. YES I think Iraq is far more complicated and probably more horrible than we know. HOWEVER, I think trying to make your point with unprovable stories and easily combatable mistruths does not do you any favours. I just ask that you question everything you're told, even the stuff you want to agree with.

Finally, if you search this web page for the word "lunacy" or "lunatic" - YOUR post, Steve, is the only one containing those words (until now), so please don't try to put words in my mouth...

Not a Member!

Johnny Boy

Sunday 15th July 2007 | 06:50 AM

It sounds like we should all watch 24 for 'Real' instances of our government doing nasty things and proof that religion always turns people into violent terrorists!!

Come on people! We all love a good conspiracy film, but they are not real! Yes Religion has been a tool used to control and provide social order. There are similarities between many religions. Yes, some have assimilated ideas from others. Religion took many societies and made civilisations out of them. It has played a vital part in shaping the world we enjoy today. Some could also say it has been the cause of many wars and atrocities. However, it is the people who are to blame. Everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of religious expression -to a point. That point is where their beliefs affect other people detrimentally. Religion doesn't cause wars. People cause wars in the name of religion - taking age-old texts literally and out of context not only gives people a cause or excuse for violence and appression, it limits personal choce. (There is no modern need for circumcision. There is no reason that some animals should not be eaten. You don't have to punish yourself for masturbating. Women are indeed equals to men and should be allowed the same freedoms. If God really existed as described, I hardly believe he would be so arrogant as to say that you have to get on your knees to pray - he can read your thoughts and if you believed in or loved him, he would know)

Some religions like islam forcefully further their own longevity and propogation. For example in islam, it says in the Q'ran that you must only marry another muslim, that non muslims are infidels etc etc. But Islam is not the only religion to do this, they all do it, but they just use different ways to ensure self propogation.

I am atheist. I can see the place that religion has held in our hearts and in the formation of modern society. Some of the middle-eastern religions obviously hold back progress compared to others, but they also started the progress. They are all as good or as bad as each other. But Christianism is just as bad too. FDie-hard christians are trying to teach Intelligent design instead of accepted scientific knowledge to our chuildren. This is what happens when you take a 2000 year old text (Or much older in the old testamnet) and apply it literally and out of context to a society that is totally different to the one that created it. Without translation it will of course be largely irrelevant and people will feel inclined to blindly believe total rubish. The same can be said for the 1600 year old islam. Even the 50 or 60 year old Scientology is out of context. IT was invented by a man who wrote a book on how to make money from a cult. If people will believe in this, they will believe in anything.

I can see that the need for religion is slipping away, however, we can't knock religious people just because they believe in something. What isn't real to some of us is definitely real to others. We can criticise religion, but the fact is people believe. We can't knock them for believing, they are not stupid or anything. We can show them it is false though.

Films like this are fun. They do not open up the real truths in the world around us. Read other posts for critiques of the film. It is just pure fiction.

Let's stop discussing the film as if it has revealed a stark truth. There are many other reasons to dislike the US as there are for most countries. We don't need to invent conspiracies to do this. We don't need to involve something as personal as religion to implicate a government in a conspiracy.

The best this film can do for us is to prove that religion is a man-made thing and hopefully free up many oppressed people globally. If we can see formal religion as the farce that it is, maybe we can put our energy into more productive endeavours like cutting greenhouse gasses, reducing pollution, finding cures for diseases, reducing poverty and starvation in third world countries, imp[rovong human rights in opressed states. I think time would be much more wisely spent following this tack, putting energy and resources into worthwhile causes like this rather than blindly paying and praying to non existent entities named as gods. Religion is a massive worldwide industry but it is not productive at all. it breed contempt, prejudice and empowers people with the fake morality to hurts others and believe they are in the right.

Whether Iraq and Afghanistan were right is open for debate - I have no real stance on this, but I do like the fact that women are bullied less out there now. One thing is for sure. The US [and allies] is looking for an easy way out. Bush was right when he said it would get worse before it gets better. Let's see it get better Well let's see him put his money where his mouth is and protect the vulnerable people he has exposed. Let's see him make it safe and leave - allowing the countires to enjoy a chance of self rule free from the militant groups that oppose such freedom. Let's hope that the nasty situation that is the result of the invasions can be turned into a better one for the people who live there - not the oil barons and other financially interested parties.

Let's use this film as what it is and see it as an eye-opener to the farce that is religion. We no longer need religion to control society. We have laws. I am much more scared of a speeding fine than I am of a potential plague of locusts or it raining frogs. God simply does not strike people down.

Not a Member!


Sunday 15th July 2007 | 06:44 PM

From a previous post- "Religion doesn't cause wars. People cause wars in the name of religion - taking age-old texts literally and out of context not only gives people a cause or excuse for violence and appression..."

This is true, that people cause the bloodshed and manipulate ancient texts for personal gain and empire, etc. But man-made "religion" is still the main tool used for centuries to blind the public into submission and fear. But all in all, it is still human nature that allows these religions to rule their lives and set their agendas.

I am actually still trying to figure out who to blame, as it is a mind boggling paradox. Is it the people who run these organized religions who are to blame? Or is it the people who blindly follow in these groups, to appease their own self-doubt and fear of the unknown universe, who deserve the blame? All I can truly hope for in my own soul is that one day people will realize that any kind of "group-think", whether being fierce nationalism, or religious devotion, will only lead us backwards from realizing the existence of god- (or whatever universal spirit you wish to include here) within our selves.

I sometimes try to imagine a world where religion does not offer a strangle hold over society, but rather preaches unity, global communion, and all that other good hippy shit. Whenever I do imagine such a world, I just can't see how this will ever be possible in our lifetime or even hundreds of years from now. If there was some magical evidence that somehow proves that these religions are based on purely political agendas, I don't even think people would want to know about it. And I don't blame them. Ignorance is definitely bliss when there is so much hatred, bloodshed and chaos in the world around else. This also leads me to believe that Big Brother/ Religion or any other power structure also knows this, and has been milking this weakness of human beings for centuries.

It always reminds me of that scene in the "Matrix" when that bald guy is eating dinner after betraying Morpheus and says -roughly, "...I know this food isn't steak. It looks like steak and feels like steak but I know none of this is real. But I've come to be content with pretending these pleasures are reality." It is much easier for any rational thinking creature to accept a traditional theology, or be patriotic in their government, but this does mean these societal answer givers are correct or even out for our best interest. All I know is that after believing in a faith(catholicism in my case) for over 18 years of my early life, I made the choice that I would rather not know the answers, or put my faith in the answers that were given to me, just because they were there to believe.

So anyway, yes, human nature is to blame for the perversions of religion. But I also believe that religion/theology in its OWN true nature, (or at least in the nature we have to come to know) is a volatile, dividing, fear-driven power base. But this disgust of religion might also just come from the nuns who tortured me and told me I was going to hell for touching myself throughout catholic school.

Lastly, isn't it kind of fucking ironic that the "bible belt" in America is located in the same place where lynchings were once rampant, segragation flourished, and military/nationalistic muscles are flexed the most. I am not saying the red states, or the south does not offer great culture, and a beautiful section of Americana, but seriously, have you ever seen one of those mega churches and the bullshit they throw at these people. But maybe, just maybe, we can get the bible belt of the American populous to put more effort into ridding the world of poverty, racism, and war instead of getting up in arms over gay people marrying and the so called "war on Christmas tree decorations". Yes, maybe the so called bible belt can finally live up to its holier than thou reputation.

I would say here that I hope I am not offending anyone, but I really don't care about being offensive anymore. Come on, go read some Thomas Paine, or listen to some Woody Guthrie or Bad Religion. There is much more truth and passion here than in any religious service I have ever attended.

Not a Member!


Monday 16th July 2007 | 05:21 AM

Well done. Thought provoking. Cannot be taken as gospel (is that a pun?), but certainly closer to the truth than we're probably ever bound to see. Where IS the Pentagon plane anyway? WTC - clearly an inside demolition. Loved the use of the movie "Network." Who IS Zeitgist's filmmaker?

Not a Member!


Wednesday 18th July 2007 | 06:23 PM

How brainwashed are you? Can’t you see that the burden of proof lies with the one who claims that “the son of God” walked around in Asia 2000 years ago? Not the opposite. Being a Scandinavian, the idea that Jesus is fraud is not that speculative or as absurd at it seems to be for most Americans.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 18th July 2007 | 07:09 PM

obviously new to this thing...stumbled onto this site. had to comment. some of you ought to proof read before submitting. you start off sounding intelligent (so i start thinking) ... then you use incorrect grammar or misspell something (so i stop thinking - about your point). and i'm not talking about 'coz' in place of 'cause. i'm talking about 'sites' when 'cites' would be correct. not to be pedantic, but it ruins your blog (for me).
anyhow, all i really have to say is governments do not give a flying f*ck about poor people. when has war ever been about what governments tell their citizens it is about, anyway? where is my proof? i am a refugee of war. i was born in the 70s in a little known country in which the vietnam war just happened to spill into. my dad was a lt. gen. in my country's army. he met with cia agents. he came to the states to 'teach' in texas at a u.s. government base. the u.s. made promises they broke. sorry for the tidbits, but it's all shit i cannot even begin to explain in one quick paragraph.
as for jesus, i cannot say anything. i was raised a buddhist.
i am very happy to see that people are thinking, though.
thank you.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 18th July 2007 | 07:32 PM

Dear newbie,

Thanks for the input. But please don't judge every blog by the grammatical misgivings in the comments. Most people are aware of errors the split second before they hit the submit button, but it's not important. What's important is what they have to say. And stats show that even when you provide a spell/grammar checker prior to posting (http://www.digg.com">Digg.com is a perfect example), people don't even bother using it.

Even I have been guilty of using 'Internet short-hand' on occasion :-) In the heat of debate, some things matter more than others.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 18th July 2007 | 08:04 PM

My english is certainly better than your swedish... Who's beeing ignorant?

Not a Member!


Wednesday 18th July 2007 | 08:38 PM

There are dozens of mistakes on this page. If this was an assignment or something that mattered, we'd all care - but it's not.

It's a chance to voice ideas. Let's look at them instead of grammatical issues, which as Mike says, are mostly to do with fast typing and not intentional. This can be seen by the fact that I wrote 'site' instead of 'cite' once - but then used the correct spelling on all occasions, since. I could point out to you that you haven't capitalised many proper nouns or words leading sentences. You've also lead "but" with a comma, which is shouldn't be done either...

This whole discussion detracts from your rather unique perspective as a refugee and someone with actual first hand experience dealing with the US government at its worst. I've heard quite a few stories about the US promising safety, sanction and a life in America to translators and locals in Iraq, in return for assistance and then never delivering. It seems this has become a long term strategy.

However, if anyone needs help with their English, this comic is an excellent resource (and extremely funny):

Not a Member!


Thursday 19th July 2007 | 04:36 PM

Greetings. I'm new here, so please bear with me. I've read most but not all of the posts above, so I apologize if I tread on something already covered. I love all of this great global conspiracy stuff, and to that end this is a very entertaining movie.

That said, most of it is old wine in new bottles, from the bunk about the sinking of Lusitania to the widely debunked theories about the collapse of the WTC. As an architect with lots of friends in various engineering fields, it has always been surprising to me that so many people seemed so convinced that the buildings were demolished by some other means. The fact is, that given the punishment they took it is impressive that the buildings survived as long as they did- but in the end, the materials and the structures behaved exactly as they should have behaved. This isn't rocket science- anyone with the wherewithal to research a few rudimentary facts about general structures, common construction techniques and the melting temperature of steel should be able to figure it out.

One of the major problems I had with the film- one of the things that puts the lie to its thesis: it is rife with blatantly incorrect factoids. One that comes to mind is the statement that 2 hundred million dollars in the early 1920s is worth close to 2 trillion today. This is either a bold lie, and the producers think their audience is a clutch of boobs; or an example of gross editorial incompetence. If you expect me to push against the grain of Ockham's razor, at least get the small stuff right.

The great irony of the project is that the producers challenge the viewer to question their conclusions and do their own research. They even generously provide a list of their sources. However, a cursory perusal of the these calls into question their validity as credible source documents at all, and reveals the bulk of the movie as unsubstantiated- at least by anyone resembling a credible expert. Fact checking this movie is more like calling someone's bluff than it is actual fact checking (I spent a short time working as a fact checker while in school).

Ultimately, it strikes me that those dazzled by this exhaustive presentation of loosely strung together "facts" and sound bites have an odd kinship with those seduced by the organized religion the first third of the movie purports to disprove.

Not a Member!


Thursday 19th July 2007 | 07:17 PM

sorry guys. really wasn't trying to make an issue out of grammatical stuff. as you can see, i don't even like using complete sentences (or the shift key). it's just that i won't be persuaded by someone who doesn't spell correctly as readily as i would be by someone who does spell correctly. i understand some people type very quickly and hit return very quickly. for example, 'adn' i know is actually 'and.' i can forgive those mistakes. but 'to' instead of 'too?' come on!
ok, must apologize again (michael). now i'm just having fun wiht you ;-)
did i mention i was new at this?

please ... let's move on.

i cannot say whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not. there is proof beyond my family's experience that big/rich governments do not care about poor people, perhaps not even their own people - rich or poor.

$$$ (in their own pockets) is paramount.

as for iraq, go back to the economic sanctions of the early 90s. how many killed? m. albright's infamous statement (which may have been a thoughtless faux pas on her part, but i'm willing to bet everyone in office felt the same way. she was just the clown to say it aloud). and the resolution? oil for food! ... OIL for FOOD!!
all that occurred during, of course, bush sr's tenure.
global crossing ltd. the carlyle group. go wiki

as for 'zeitgeist'... war=$$$ theory. plenty of proof of that, yes? no? i'll get back to you. it's my bedtime.

p.s. does anyone know how many pow's stayed in southeast asia even after being freed because they felt they no longer had a home in the states serving a government which they felt had blatantly lied to them?

Not a Member!

big sexy

Friday 20th July 2007 | 08:46 AM

" One that comes to mind is the statement that 2 hundred million dollars in the early 1920s is worth close to 2 trillion today."

hey fact checker, check this: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/clarifications.htm">http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/clarifications.htm

Not a Member!


Friday 20th July 2007 | 10:18 AM

I guess that proves it was merely editorial negligence, rather than of of the many attempted deceptions. I feel much better. I guess I'll move on to a a much more glaring exampled of the producer's lack of due diligence, not explained away in the clarifications page.

So, to elaborate on the WTC's collapse. What the architect, and others in his camp actually said, many times (rather than the selective quote usually advanced by collapse theorists) went something like this: the building was designed to withstand the impact of a much smaller aircraft, like the B-25 or 26 that hit the Empire State building and caused little damage. Not a fully loaded, fuel laden modern jet airliner traveling perhaps 200 miles an hour faster than passenger aircraft usually traveled in the NYC area 30 years ago.

The aircraft didn't hit "key support beams", per se. The WTC was supported around its perimeter by columns, and again by a structural core. The aircraft (in both cases, although to differing extents) destroyed or damaged a number of the perimeter columns and damaged portions of the core. Well designed buildings (like the WTC- not the Oklahoma City Federal Building) have a fair amount of redundancy, which results in the loads being transferred to other members. The buildings could withstand a certain amount of damage this way. However, the impact of the airliners also blew the concrete fireproofing off much of the building's otherwise undamaged structural system, exposing the steel- which is not a fireproof material, contrary to the assertions of many conspiracy theorists. Thus exposed to the jet-fuel-fueled fire (buildings are designed to be fire resistant to certain degrees- but jet fuel burns much hotter than a typical building fire)- the steel eventually turned to spaghetti, and the structures collapsed.

Which brings us to the collapse- which looked nothing like a controlled demolition to anyone who has ever seen one. It was big and messy- not the progressive detonation that is typically used to bring down tall buildings. Sure, the buildings fell straight down. Inertia! How would they do otherwise? Evidently, the people advancing alternative collapse theories didn't pay attention in high school physics. Skyscrapers are not composed of a singular structural member, as is a tree. What immense force would be required to push all of the steel and concrete at the top of the buildings off to the side? One floor pancaked onto another, and another and the ones above followed suite. Perfectly logical, and predictable.

It seems impossible for anyone making a supposedly well researched and sourced documentary like this one to be unaware of this. Couldn't they at least made some crazy shit up to explain it away? Instead, they ignored the obviousness of the facts, and gave us a collage of clips and sound bites from a bunch of talking heads speculating. The same mainstream media sources we're encouraged to question in their "statement". Nice work, guys.

Not a Member!


Friday 20th July 2007 | 02:50 PM

After reading through the posts I saw some people saying that Saddam Hussein did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many of you will remember that Saddam was hung for war crimes against the Kurds and the court proceedings were heavily televised. What they failed to mention was that Saddam carried out the mass killings of the Kurds with what. . . NERVE GAS. Which is a WMD.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th July 2007 | 04:35 PM
202 total kudos

Yes, but the original invasion of Iraq was under the guise or premmise of disarming Saddam of his WMDs, not dethroning him because of his war crimes.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Friday 20th July 2007 | 05:33 PM

Previous post- "Saddam carried out the mass killings of the Kurds with what. . . NERVE GAS. Which is a WMD."

Yeah...i remember people talking about that whole nerve gas thing that happened in the 80's, before the rush to invade Iraq. Saddam was a ruthless dictator and no-one would argue that he was quite a bastard and that he ruled with no regard to human life. It's just too bad that Saddam got these chemical weapons from the united states, and that we used him just like we use so many other ruling pawns for our own monetary gain. But the only question I have is when did the JUST WAR DOCTRINE become obsolete?
Aren't we constitutionally obligated to go to war when their is only an immediate, and clear danger, with no questions from our own intelligence??? There will never be anyone in this current administration or in whatever sad replacement is to come, who could justify another preemptive war which was absolutely not in this country's interest- (maybe it was in the interest of the military contractors and their cronies, but it was not in the interest of our armed forces and our American families- who have to give their lives for this bullshit.)
So..wow....there was an evil man who killed his own people and tortured his own soccer team because they sucked, named Saddam. And he was once a solid ally of the US when he was at war against Iran. What else is new in the history of the modern world, or actually in any era you wish to research. Empires are not built on peace and truth, but rather war, war, war, and propaganda. out the ass. Now, if it is an empire you want, than the United States is the top of the line in that category. The most wicked military spending in the world mixed with the most mixed group of races, social classes, languages and religions is the perfect recipe for separating and dividing. This is indeed the ultimate goal of empire in the first place- separate by fear and terror and then once the people are appeased enough, do whatever the fuck you want.
I know many might take this as anti-american and tell me to move to pussy France or Canada because I don't know how good I have it here. But I don't believe this country was founded to be taken in this direction and I think true patriots like Jefferson, Paine, and Andrew Jackson(to name just a few) knew this and failed to warn enough people of the evil of empire building/nation building/ spreading "democracy" and "freedom" to the third world, or whatever you wish to call it to sleep better at night.
In my own moral code, it can be boiled down to this- "The killing of innocent people can never be justified- whether it is an Israeli commando sniper shooting into a crowd, or a Palestinian strapping a bomb on his chest and running into a crowded restaurant of innocent people, or a terrorist flying planes into a building or a bomb with the USA on the side killing a village of suspected hostels. Chomsky's view of this universal justice along with Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and MLK and Gandhi's view of change through peace is the only true way anything can be accomplished. War is actually pretty useless and repetitious, although it can make very attractive large profits to those in power and raise nationalism if portrayed properly to the populous. This seems pretty simple to anyone who believes in human rights and isn't afraid to die for justice and peace.

So anyway, I am not that smart of a person and I really don't know if the explanation given by "NIXIE" as to the collapses of the WTC is accurate or not, although it raises some points I guess that can be easily debated. But I've come to the conclusion that anything is possible and the 9/11 commission could not even explain everything that happened that day properly. I have never heard a good explanation for WTC 7 by any talk show host or any skeptic for example and I still continually see such a strong motive and almost pre-meditated plan by the Neo-conservative agenda(CFR). Just reading what these people(Neo-Cons) believe and what the Religious Right in America(the fools who voted for Bush twice) believe, make me scared shitless of what this country may be becoming.

The constitution was made by us and for us and we need to defend it with the greatest temerity no matter what threatens it's principles. Believe me, I want to believe this country is going in the right direction and is doing the right thing to protect us is there is ever a threat to our security, but saying Saddam is going to kill us all one day just like the Kurds 20 years ago is completely ridiculous. I guess we will attack the Sudan in 20 years too, since another fucking holocaust is going on over there.

This shit is just really too complicated and depressing to get a grasp on I guess, but I don't think anyone on this page really knows 100% what is really going on, so I would pretend to know either. But I definitely do know that this war in Iraq is morally wrong (and the leaders- not the military- should be forced to answer some fucking questions for once under oath and in public). For fuck's sake, where do these people in power get off in distorting so much information and just fucking with our country's moral backbone and our pride as Americans. Is it too much to ask to sit the fucking President and the Vice President down and try to make some sense of this shit? But I guess they are scared that someone will ask a tough question that demands a truthful response for once-- sort of like the time when Rumsfeld went to Iraq and an acting combat soldier asked him why the government can't provide proper armor and protection while they risk their lives ever day and night, or why it took until this week to start producing a new type of tank-vehicle that better defends against roadside bombs and ambushes.

Trying to get some answers is the least we can ask for, and it is quite a fucking shame that our media won't even try to find out some of these blaring questions....

Not a Member!


Sunday 22nd July 2007 | 06:09 PM

Pain, I have no doubt that there are very few people on the planet who know 100% the agenda behind any of the above mentioned topics.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 25th July 2007 | 05:46 AM

I was advised of this effort to tag us like seals from a young medical student about 13 years ago. I for one do not wish to be tagged at any point ever! My passport and driver's id are more than enough invasion of my privacy.
As a child I was told that there would come a time when we would be marked by the beast and would not be able to eat unless we had that mark. Seems like the chip and the mark hold some resemblance to eachother. (scarey!)
The worst part about these topics seem to be the hopelessness I feel to stop any of it. My vote doesn't matter, my life doesn't matter my childrens lives won't matter. We will all be here to feed some greedy God called Rockefeller and die and kill to feed his family and all without even a God, or saint, or angel to pray to, for help or hope or salvation. What a sad existance. Maybe I'll keep my God for now since even an inconsistant God is better than what seems to be coming for me now.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 25th July 2007 | 09:03 AM
202 total kudos

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. - Carl Sagan

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Wednesday 25th July 2007 | 09:21 AM

This movie was very entertaining. Having said that, it is mostly useless as a serious argument. I'm an atheist, so I have no visceral opposition to the idea that Jesus was a fraud. However, it is pretty widely accepted by historians that Jesus actually lived. Also, I picked up on the wordplay used to make Jesus and Joseph appear the same. Joseph was one of 12 brothers and Jesus had 12 disciples. Jesus was one of 13 not one of 12. Thanks for pointing that out Rodney. It really falls apart with the 9/11 conspiracy though. One the one hand, building 7 fell down perfectly without damaging the buildings around it, one the other hand, buildings 1 and 2 spewed out debris for many blocks. So if the neat “demolition” of building 7 is proof of conspiracy, isn’t the messy “demolition” of 1 and 2 evidence against conspiracy. So now let me apply conspiracy logic “It would have been too obvious if the demolition of 1 and 2 didn’t damage surrounding buildings.” OK so I guess the conspiracy masterminds didn’t think of that with 7. What about the perfectly “cut” piece of steel. Two things come to mind here. When was the picture taken? Emergency workers did cut beams when trying to rescue people from the debris. Even if it was taken directly after, how am I supposed to know what happens to a steel beam when all those tons of steel and concrete comes crashing down. Maybe it got sheered off somehow and looks like a clean cut. The molten steel argument: When objects collide heat is generated. Don’t believe me? Clap your hands really hard and see if they don’t feel warm. Now imagine how much energy is released by tons of concrete falling 110 stories.
What about the story that Rockefeller told Russo about 9/11 ahead of time? This is crap. I would first want to see evidence that they were very close friends before I’d even consider this. A picture of the two of them smiling together in a photo doesn’t cut it. Do you think these “masterminds” keep everyone in the dark by blabbing to just anyone? This is just the word of one man against another. It proves nothing. Russo could have many motives to lie.
The bankers make a lot of money to be sure, but by any objective standard Americans are better off than ever. Certainly better off than when the gold standard was abolished. Also, the government doesn’t have to borrow money. They do it because we demand social services. The debt was driven up more in peace time than even war time. Also, this idea about war for money is only partially true. Some companies do engage in war profiteering, but war is risky and destabilizing as well. Most companies want stability so they can safely keep making profits. The arguments in this movie just don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 25th July 2007 | 09:25 AM

Zeitgeist is an important movie, not so much for the information that it contains, much of which is available from multiple sources. Rather, it is the way the makers have presented the content. The choreography of the facts is compelling and seems to have created a strong resonance in most people who have seen it – even those who are not familiar with the subject matter. I’m currently taking some time out at my cabin in Sweden researching material for a book on a similar subject. I must confess that I’ve now seen Zeitgeist 3 times in the last week – it certainly raises the bar in terms of delivery!

I guess a lot of folk feel that if they have seen something similar in the past on a particular point, or can exemplify where a mistake was made in the film; it serves to make them smarter than the film, its makers, or those who found it interesting – at least in their own minds. I know it’s cool to yawn and be dismissive… But some of you better wake up.

The question is, what should we do if the political and economic implications are true? If it looks like a turd, and it smells like a turd, it probably is a turd. I would say that if we are not careful we will start chasing our own tails, looking for cracks in the wall. This fact was off, that fact was badly presented, this date was wrong… No!

We are blindsiding ourselves, finding excuses to avoid the important, and probably suicidal answer to that question. What shall we do if this is true?

I have been researching everything I can on these subjects for the past 18 months. I have lived all over the world (my father was a diplomat in the UN and UK Colonial Service, I was in the British Military Intelligence) I KNOW that much of the information presented in this film is true. I also believe that we are in for some really interesting times ahead. We really better start to focus on the question. What shall we do?

Not a Member!


Wednesday 25th July 2007 | 10:09 AM

I just took some time to read Pain's comments above. Wow, from the heart! You truly feel what you write. And what you write makes so much sense. Big respect!

Not a Member!


Wednesday 25th July 2007 | 06:24 PM

Hi Jake
Your very opinionated, fortunately so am I.
Rod the Jew reckons he saw a few errors in the Jewish bit, I found a couple that are glaringly wrong in the Christian bits.
The similarities between Christ an Horus are amazing, in fact I would go as far as to believe they are a copy of the same person. If only if Christ was born on Christmas day. He wasnt you know, and the heralding star, more a betraying star 9 work it out). 3 wise men Hmmm. Check those facts and figures again. Baptized at 30- says who? Shepherds witnessing the Birth???? The often pictured fish sign is a representation of a female vagina, let me distance Christianity from that fallacy (search it). The Beetle as a representation of Christ, What. The Vine is a representation of the Christian Church NOT Christ, and nowhere in the Bible is Mary called immaculate, NOWHERE, only in the secular Catholic type churches is this crap preached as Christianity.
A little knowledge is dangerous.
What you or they have used to justify there story is not representative of Christ, it is not based on Biblical facts, more the uneducated fallacy of Christianity. Another thing, it does not snow in Bethlehem in December. Somebody is telling you lies. Dont believe everything you see on a Christmas card.

I am on dial up so I cant watch the movie. Hence I am reluctant to comment.

Armageddon is a valley in Israel, the world, will come to an end there. Oil, Terrorism and Israel are keys to what happens here on in.
Is Bush the antichrist? Na he aint Jewish, I think the antichrist has to be a Jew.
9/11 Coulda been the Yanks (saved us in WW2) Thanks for that Guys, we do owe you.
Coulda been Terrorists.
Coulda been a Freemason conspiracy to justify a war.
Who cares, I cant stop it. The people who we are spose to trust cant be trusted. You are all on your own.
They will tag your wrist or forehead with a number like it says in the Bible. How, I dont know. Its been prophesied in the Bible. The conspirators want us to be servants.
It will happen. Enjoy life while you can.

Not a Member!


Thursday 26th July 2007 | 07:57 AM

People like "Miramichi" make me sad. It's too bad people like him hold so much skeptism toward new information, yet blindly believe what authority tells him as true. Anything that goes against "Miramichi"'s comfort zone just "can't be true". The Russo comment is very real, the relationship was very real. Yet, "Miramichi" makes himself feel better by simply having his own faith that it's "crap". Even if he sat down with Russo and Nick and they both said "it's true" - he'd find a way to convince himself otherwise. As for 9/11 being an inside job, even if you exclude the WTC 1, 2, & 7 - the official story can't hold a candle to the evidence that was omitted from the official reports, and the overall means, motive and opportunity - not to mention the historical precedent. But if he wants to put his money where his mouth is - this lecture from an ARCHITECT who recently founded "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" has given the most comprehensive and successful lecture to date. But, I'm sure "Miramichi" wil find ways to convince himself "its can't be real". Hey, "Miramichi" if you convince yourself that you can defy gravity, try walking on the wall. If you convince yourself that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, try looking at the facts. You can see the lecture here:


Not a Member!


Thursday 26th July 2007 | 08:52 AM

If you want some info on the 9-11 thing, the best movie to watch is Loose Change. There's a link on YouTube's front page, last I was there.

They probably removed it though. YouTube has a tendancy to remove yummy conspiracy films.

Since I didn't have the time to read the super long list of comments I wont address any of the other issues that I saw that Rodney mentioned at the very beginning.

Suffice to say, 9-11 was just as planned as Pearl Harbor was known about in advance. And not planned by the terrorists.

The truth may hurt, but do you really want to live in a country where people are WILLINGLY accepting R.F.ID Chips in their arms? (It's happening. I just saw a news article. Right now it's just companies saying it's for the "greater good" [Haha... new Harry Potter book referance] but pretty soon the government will take it over. They've got nothing to lose by doing so, eh?)

Thanks for reading. :-)

Not a Member!


Thursday 26th July 2007 | 12:33 PM

I re-read this from "Miramichi"

"The molten steel argument: When objects collide heat is generated. Don’t believe me? Clap your hands really hard and see if they don’t feel warm. Now imagine how much energy is released by tons of concrete falling 110 stories."

Please "Miramichi" - begin to research. Trying to find ways to convince yourself that the molten metal magically manifested itself for the first time in history is a prime example of the lengths people to mentally fool themselves into thinking an apple is an orange. Basic physics eliminate flowing, molten steel"like lava" that needs to have oxygen fed fires of over 2000 degrees F to maintain. The only other explanation is a compound found in controlled demolition called "Thermite" which burns that hot and maintains it's heat for a while. There is simply no other scenario possible to explain it. Igniring it doesn't explain it. Pretending an apple is an orange doesn't explain it. Remember WTC7 had the exact same molten metal underneath that burned the same amount of time.

"Miramichi" what you need to do before doubting the facts, is to look at yourself and ask yourself, "no matter how much proof is given, would you even alow yourself to believe this was an inside job?" If the anser is no, then you will remain stubborn and will create more elaborate excuses for your denial. But, if your answer is "yes" then you will take the time to review the relevent information and it will help you logically realize the truth. Truth is not told. Truth is realized.

Not a Member!


Friday 27th July 2007 | 04:51 PM

I just don't get the whole "fire can't melt steel, it must have been thermite!" argument. This is absurd. Lay off the Michael Bay movies. A thermite explosion, while it briefly produces immense heat, immediately exhausts its fuel- and its oxygen- leaving nothing to burn, and effectively putting out any fire that it might have started (note the common use of controlled explosions to extinguish large fires). This is why its effective and relatively safe as a demolition compound. In any case, demolishing the WTC with thermite would have been incredibly invasive and thus difficult to do without anyone noticing. You'd have to strip off all the finish materials, and wrap a significant number of the structural members, all under the noses of thousands of employees, including a host of maintenance and security personal and building engineers.

On the other hand, even a regular building fire, as I explained above, can melt steel, and one fed by aviation fuel can do an exceptionally good job of it, especially after the concrete fireproofing was removed. Anyone with the wherewithal to crash a fully loaded, speeding passenger airliner into a building wouldn't need anything else.

This Richard Gage guy is some kind of crackpot- also, hes a moron. I'm an architect, and I could spend all night picking apart his presentation- or at least the first half, which I watched. He makes plenty of broad statements, "a team of experts did this- without a doubt!"- plays some sound bites, shows some pictures, and offers little, or nothing in the way of explanation. Suffice to say that he starts by comparing structural concrete buildings to structural steel ones, which does not say much about the diligence of his research- this sets the tone for the rest of the presentation.

The "squibs"- for instance. "You tell me what those puffs of smoke are!"- says Gage. Fine. This happens when non-structural concrete column jackets are blown off- literally exploding outward as the columns crush- these aren't puffs of smoke, they are clouds of dust.

I can't explain why he has taken his positions, but I can't explain why there are well educated professionals who deny the obviousness of global warming, evolution, or the holocaust either. I can, however, point to countless other architects and engineers who do not share his views.

Not a Member!


Saturday 28th July 2007 | 12:39 PM


"This Richard Gage guy is some kind of crackpot- also, hes a moron. I'm an architect, and I could spend all night picking apart his presentation- or at least the first half, which I watched. He makes plenty of broad statements, "a team of experts did this- without a doubt!"- plays some sound bites, shows some pictures, and offers little, or nothing in the way of explanation. Suffice to say that he starts by comparing structural concrete buildings to structural steel ones, which does not say much about the diligence of his research- this sets the tone for the rest of the presentation.

Please forfeit yourself as an architect Nixie... Please.

Not a Member!


Saturday 28th July 2007 | 12:53 PM

Nixie: "Lay off the Michael Bay movies"

Nothing could be more "Mr. Bay" than "19 Muslim highjackers defeat every level of United States security and crash 3 airliners in a span of over 90 minutes into the most well-protected buildings in the USA, while also evading all anti-air defenses, passing up the target of the largest nuclear power plant on the North East Coast, executing a 330 degree, 3 minute downward spiral inot the pentagon - a feat that the most expereienced pilots can't do in less than 9 tries on a simulator - as trying it in real-time would be suicide. Then, collapsing both twin towers and a 3rd 47 story building at the rate of free-fall, no resistance collapse (while the public at large thinks it was due to jet fuel); Atta's passport was found unscathed in NYC near the towers BEFORE they fell - Atta also accidentally left his will behind - accidentally his bags never mad eit on the plane - Atta got $100K from the head of ISI, who was havin breakfast with Biden the morning of 9/11; then 6 of them turn up alive the next week saying "why is my pitcur eon the news?"; then the pentagon officials wont release the EIGHTY (80) camera that would show whatever really hit the pentagon - yet to say other wise, regardless of NO PLANE would be silly says the news!; then! we find out multiple highjacked airliners beign highjacked crashed into buildings was the EXACT test drill being run teh morning of 911; and then Norman Mineta said that Cheney himself gave a standdown order to not shoot down #77; THEN we find zero evidence to link Osama to the planning stages of 9/11 - AND the FBI themselves says "we didnt put 9/11 on the FBI most wanted site next to Osama's name as 'we dont have proof he did it' - we used 9/11 to go to 2 wars : (1) Afghan: Now has the highest Opium production in history - wonder why??? Would the CIA participate in that? nah! Thats crazy! ... (sigh) (2) Iraq: the largest most lucrative war for profit since Veitnam! ... to name a few -- and the American public at large thinks there is NO reason to think there is a cover up.

WOW. That is power folks. That is mass incredible ignorance. People simple cant accept the idea that their govt doesn't work fo rthem anymore. Just like Christians cant accept that Jesus isn;t real. Or Tom Delay who thinks that the RAPTURE is real.

If you think 9/11 was an attack on America due to Islamist extremists... you need to seriously consider massive therapy.

Open 30% of your mind and take on honest look around you.

Not a Member!


Saturday 28th July 2007 | 04:45 PM

So, Erico, I should "forfeit myself as an architect" (whatever that means) because of your incredible ability to cut and paste some of my post? Good detective work. You've really cut me off at the knees there.

You can believe your government doesn't work for you anymore without buying into some harebrained theory that it murdered several thousand of its own people for some mercurial, nefarious end.

A willingness to ignore intelligence and allow a terrorist plot to unfold, and later use it as an excuse to rush into an illegal war for political and financial gain is substantially different the sci-fi conspiracy theories espoused by the countless exciting websites Erico has obviously been reading. Most of the crap you've cut-and-pasted here has long ago been overwhelmingly disproved, or is so silly and unsourced I can't even begin to address it. But here goes. . . again.

The flying on September wasn't indicative of a highly trained pilot, it was exactly the shitty flying you'd expect from someone with little training- what with the looping and rolling. Hitting a structure as large as the pentagon at an oblique angle, probably aided by auto pilot certainly did take some luck, but isn't the nearly impossible feat you make it out to be. Likewise, navigating across Manhattan and hitting the twin towers on a clear morning is hardly an impossible task. And why would a hijacker try for a nuclear power plant? Reactor containment domes, unlike high rises, ARE designed to withstand the impact of fairly large passenger aircraft, and make for smaller targets. The result, even if it did result in, at best, a small leak, wouldn't have been as telegenic, or nearly as deadly as the WTC attack.

Incidentally, much of the footage from the Pentagon security cameras has been released- in May of last year. Even if it hadn't been- how does one explain away the hundreds of eye wittinesses who either saw flight 77, or its wreckage on the ground? In fact, there are plenty of pictures of wreckage (available online), much of which has been independently verified by the likes of aerospaceweb.org and others. Sure, there aren't any sheared off wings, like you might find in a more typical runway plane crash. But most aircraft don't slam into reinforced concrete and steel buildings at 400 miles an hour. Is it really difficult to believe a mostly aluminum airplane would be reduced to shreds?

Erico, you and others of your ilk broadly accuse others of ignorance, or complicity- but at the same time you demonstrate the same willingness to fabricate and exaggerate that you accuse the government of. Concurrently, you refuse to address the logical rebuttals of the myriad of experts and ordinary eyewitnesses who contradict you- and the common sense arguments of people who just paid attention in physics, like me.
Nice unfocused rant though.

Not a Member!


Saturday 28th July 2007 | 11:06 PM

"Erico, you and others of your ilk broadly accuse others of ignorance, or complicity- but at the same time you demonstrate the same willingness to fabricate and exaggerate that you accuse the government of. Concurrently, you refuse to address the logical rebuttals of the myriad of experts and ordinary eyewitnesses who contradict you- and the common sense arguments of people who just paid attention in physics, like me.
Nice unfocused rant though."

Precisely our argument for you people. I fyou look at the information that scientists, engineers, witnesses and the like that are NOT funded by the US gov't that have looked into this event as an inside job, you will find it to be true. If you blindly watch the mainstream news and read hte 9/11 Commission REport, Popular Mechanics and the like and treat them as fact w/o question, you will not see it. That is the problem you have. You don't look. You blindly say it's not true without looking. Watch the entire lecture of Richard Gage. Watch the entire lecture od William Rodregeuz. One is a witness who was there, the "last man out" the other is a highly qualified Architect. Also when you go to Richard's site you will see nearly threee hundred other scientists & engineers that agree this is an inside job. Former White House officials, FBI, CIA, the list goe son for days. All the offcial story has going for it is a giant leap of faith based on consistant contradictions and rule after rule broken withint the laws of nature to support itself.

You won't look at them as you will blindly judge those hundreds and thousands of people who have taken the time to look as "crazy". You will notice they were all like you at one point. They thought those who thought it was an inside job were crazy - until they took the time to look.

It is very agonizing to see the reality of an inside job. It's not easy to accept. But once you look at it ALL - ALL the available evidence, it's impossible to see it otherwise.

You are ignorant on the topic. You don't look. Therefore you will likely remain blind to what the rest of us see.

Not a Member!


Sunday 29th July 2007 | 05:35 AM

But so many are missing the point. The movie does not set out to prove that "Jesus is a fraud" by any means, but rather that he is a current representation of the divine. As time moves forward, the names change and the religious leaders change but the essential core and essential truth remains the same.

Not a Member!


Sunday 29th July 2007 | 10:13 AM

Erico, I'm confident you wouldn't know a highly qualified architect if one sat in your lap. I didn't finish watching the Gage video because he starts off with a fat line of bs- his claim that steel high rises have never collapsed in fires. This argument is tantamount to leading an elephant around on a leash while claiming they are extinct. In fact, fire resistant steel structure collapse in fires all the time. I have seen the aftermath of such fires with my own eyes. How do you expect me to put any stock in someone claiming otherwise? Sure, they are very seldom high rise office buildings, but the principles and materials involved are the same. It is also worth noting that the buildings cited by Gage didn't have their structures severely compromised by the impact of a speeding aircraft, and that the sample set of 40+ story buildings best by major fires is extremely small. Of course, I explained how this happened above and you chose to ignore it there too. And the molten steel in the basement- supposedly "scientific" proof of the use of thermite? A massive contradiction here. How does an explosive some how linger for days or weeks, keeping steel near molten? Explosives. . . blow up! And even if thermite could magically leave some kind of laws-of-thermodynamics violating residue - it wouldn't be used as a demolition compound in the first place. The last thing wrecking crews want to deal with is molten steel chunks sitting around.

You claim that people like me don't look. You won't even think for yourself- holding up hacks like Gage who spout off objectively untrue drivel in lines of italicized text (yeah, I've seen his website). You simply ignore the experts and witnesses (the overwhelming majority of them) who contradict your position- claiming, in many cases, that they are government shills. Amusingly, the Christian apologist historian in Zeitgeist does the same thing, explaining away the uncanny resemblance of pre-Christian mythology to the cult of Christ as the work of the devil. Very neat- it keeps you from actually having to refute their positions on a fact by fact basis.

I have no trouble believing in a massive 9-11 cover-up. However, crackpot publicity hounds like Gage and the producers of the Zeitgeist movie aid those whose interests are served by concealing the incompetence and hubris of the federal government, by allowing them to paint all skeptics as crazy zealots with the same brush. If anything, you're the shills.

Not a Member!


Sunday 29th July 2007 | 01:46 PM

"I didn't finish watching the Gage video because he starts off with a fat line of bs- his claim that steel high rises have never collapsed in fires."

Therein lies your problem. You can't find what you don't look for. Truth isn't told, it is realized.

"crackpot publicity hounds like Gage and the producers of the Zeitgeist movie"

You opinion based on ZERO research on your own. You are unable to look at the facts becasue clearly you don't like what might be uncovered. Your probelm is clearly larger than trying to debunk the research.

There is a reason 1000s of new people every singel day realize 9/11 was an inside job. They take the time to see why it is being said so. Once people realize, there is no "converting them back". You can't convince a person an apple is an orange when he has grown up knowing an apple is an apple.

You are no different than a Christian blindly believing in the existance of Jesus.

"The last thing wrecking crews want to deal with is molten steel chunks sitting around. " This is telling. I guess you missed the photos, video and witness tesimony of molten metal under not just WTC 1 & 2 - but # 7 as well. Thermite was found. It wasn't speculated. It was found.

I guess all the Pilots, architects, engineers, former CIA, FBI and White House employees - they are all hacks too right?

You are basing your conclusions on a predecided idea - and not holding an open mind. Just like those who blindly accept Jesus as real. This is why the comparison with Christianity and 9/11 was made - they are both equally large lies sold as real history to effect a mass population of people.

You also miss the other mountains of evidence outside of the Towers. Even is you exclude the towers altogether, the official story can't hold a candle to the evidence of an inside job, excluding the tower evidence altogether.

Look ans you will find what thousdans of others have found. People just like you and me. The truth is there, some choose to accept it, and others, like you choose not to allow your world to be changed. That in and of itself is why the lie of 9/11 has been so successful.

Not a Member!


Sunday 29th July 2007 | 04:05 PM

So I was watching some of the you tube democratic party debate on CNN, and I thought one of the most compelling speakers was Mike Gravel(i think that is the spelling). He kept preaching to "Follow the money trail" to "find out who these other candidates are really working for". He really made sense and did not have to worry about offending anyone since he is quite a long shot to win a nomination.

So I started to think about 9/11 videos I have seen over the years and began to wonder- Where in the 9/11 commission report does it deal with the financiers of the attack? No mention of Mohammed Atta or the money deposited to him? No Pakistani Connections? Or Saudi Arabia? Or anywhere else? Why hasn't this question been answered or demanded to be answered by anyone in the media? Isn't this the first step in any investigation- be it a murder, or terrorist act? Just another disturbing thing that doesn't fit into this complex puzzle I guess.

But anyway, why do people insist on fighting on stupid details that can't be explained 100% by either side? Over 50% of the American public now insists on a new investigation of 9/11 or at least concede that their was prior knowledge of the attacks. And the only defense the mindless demagogues like Hannity and O'reily can come up with is- "How can you hurt the 9/11 victim's family by making these crazy speculations?" Well, if anyone in my family had died in 9/11, I would not be able to sleep until I knew the truth- every fucking detail of every fucking scientific law and all that other shit.

To get deeper again, this is the real question that has debated mankind for centuries I guess. Do we want to live our lives separate from reality if this propaganda is pleasant and profitable to the majority of us? Or do we put justice above these comfortable thoughts and lies and refuse to rely on that numb feeling you get in the front of your brain when you watch day time talk show paternity tests or the latest Lindsey Lohan cocaine sighting on CNN? Would you rather just accept the world around you as it is or would you rather fight for civil rights, start a revolution over taxation without representation, challenge the catholic church law that the world is flat or that the earth is at the center of the universe, or go on a hunger strike to help solve civil war between local Hindus and Muslims? These are of course some pretty gutsy examples of changing the world for the better- each taking place in an era full of ignorant leadership and a scared public. But there are always those great minds that fight the system- not for personal glory or money, but for justice, peace and human rights.

So where are these people today. They certainly don't seem to be the ones in power right now. If this global leadership- New World Order- shit is real, will it make the world better? I had that though the other day with some friends. Wouldn't the world be better off if the world was unified and ruled equitably regarding trade, economics, and type of government? If the world was united, would this not end the need for war, fear and poverty? I then thought about the impossibility of a one world government and how crazy it would be to create an environment where all religions and systems of law could be integrated together into a worldwide system of order. Although I liked the fact that artificial borders would be removed and less time would be wasted on negotiating trade and military treaties and international relations, I doubt we are evolved enough to create such a one-world government without relying on rule by force, abusive power and an easily corruptible system of law.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I really am curious what the world will look like in 30 - 40 - 50 years. Do you think it is possible - i mean really possible- to have a global government? Or would this just be the same old elitism - wealthy- war profiteers- in charge in the background? Is it possible that a world government can be beneficial for the human race and this New World Order really knows what they are doing? I mean what is their goal?

According to some of the websites and movies I have seen, they(the alleged NEW WORLD ORDER) are going to rule by martial law and implant chips in us, then combine the north American continent under the Amero currency, and then form a global government eventually with the G8, WTO, World Bank and other organizations at the forefront of this effort I would assume. What is their ultimate goal if they achieve global dominance??? I mean doesn't this seem like a good thing when you really look at the benefits of having a more united world? Or am i just being really idealistic and naive that this unified world government would make the lives of ordinary people better in the long run?

Some one please try to clarify this shit for me or explain the real agenda of the Neo-CONS- Project for a New American Century- CFR- and all that other conspiracy shit.

Not a Member!


Sunday 29th July 2007 | 04:21 PM

" I don't know if this makes sense, but I really am curious what the world will look like in 30 - 40 - 50 years".

I can tell you sort of what it will look like. It will be far more corporate. You want a one World government? Well, it's coming and it's owned by Macdonalds and Pfizer.

You'll even get your one world with no borders. The Poor people in Crapslapistan can make the raw ingredients and then have them assembled in China and you can buy the for a ridiculous sum of money in the US, paid for by your drone existence in cubicles.

Sound like fun?

Not a Member!


Sunday 29th July 2007 | 11:35 PM

Dear oh Dear, What a pathetic attempt to appear intelligent Rodney. Your review smacks of someone who thinks they are far smarter than they actually are. I wouldn't bother going through the many faults in your review except to say Baptism, Crucifixion etc Egyptian 'IDEALS'!! Enough said. It's obvious that all religions have their ancestory, their lifespan and their offspring. It's obvious that the Patriot Act and other US government moves of recent times try to restrict civil liberties and 'freedom'. It's obvious and it is well documented that the US army left whatever arms dumps they found in Iraq ungaurded to be looted, broke a major rule of 'liberation' forces by disbanding the Iraqi army thus humiliating and rendering over 600,000 armed and trained men unemployed (to do what?). It's obvious that Waron terror is a War on a noun? Oh quick here comes 'horror', run away!! It's obvious that War increase Terror therefore they are fighting that which they are helping create. It's obvious that US doesn't care about democracy in Iraq or anywhere else that that democracy would produce a government that wont act in the US interest (Haiti, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Vietnam, Palestine, Egypt, Greece etc etc etc...) US tried to bar the first elections in Iraq because their chosen candidate was sure to lose (he got 14% of the vote). Less than 3% Iraqi's believe the US is there to help them. US spent a mere 300million dollars only on rebuilding of Afghanistan, the same amount they spent on their new high security embassy there! US called the countries in Europe that did not support the invasion by following the will of the vast majority of their population 'Old Europe' and 'antifreedom' while those who went with the US were 'New Europe' even though they defied the democratic will of their people who marched in their millions on the streets. Who supports democracy? "The US makes the UN work when it wants it to work and that is exactly the way it should be because the only question for the US is 'What's in our national interest' and if you don't like I'm sorry but that is the fact" John Bolton, US Ambassodor to the UN!!..... On media collusion- When Colin Powell lied through his teeth in his career sacrificing speech to the UN about WMD there was a full size replica of Guernica in the room that was noticed at the last minute by the TV stations and requested that it be covered up by a blue sheet and Flags placed in front of it should the reality in human terms of this illegal march to war should offend the viewers. This is the power of Art, to shame, as a universal reminder that War is humanities greatest failure and indiscrimate in it's effects on the innocent. The media thought Guernica in bad taste but were happy to collude with the US's outrageously brazen manufac turing of the motivations to invade, thus killing over 600,000 people so far most of whom despite the insinuation of civil war were killed in the initial bombing that prceeded the ground troops. I am a devout atheist but I have more moral fibre in my fucking toe nails than religious apologists like semi literate Rodney. I am getting very sick of having to read half wits ALL OVER the net. The difference is by our very nature because we do not believe in absolutes the atheist position is to live and let live. By our very nature the moderates of this world don't go out waving flags and charging off to battle like lap dogs. Just as with Vietnam it will take US body bags and lots of them to end this conflict but not before the radicals who by their very nature are willing and motivated to do ANYTHING to get their way, including mass murder , and don't give me anymore of this 6million and you're a fascist crap... How many do you actually need on your score card Rodney before you qualify for that honour? What's the exact amount? 1 million? 750,321? Tell us Rodney so we may know. In your joke of a country you can get yourself gassed in a chamber for 1 murder yet 'steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king' . They have the name of all the Americans who were killed in Vietnam. They don't know how many Vietnamese exactly cause nobody bothered to count them but it's in the millions. Is that enough for Fascist statis Rodders? "A barbarian is he who belives his traditions to be laws of nature" George Bernard Shaw.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 12:17 AM

Man, Friedlon7, you've got issues. Not just with punctuation, either.

I'd attempt to counter your arguement, if you made one that was coherent and lucid enough to read but since you haven't there's not much point, is there?

It does seem you think I'm in some way pro-war? Or pro-Christian? Or even American? Can you not read more than 4 lines of text? Or are you just one of the many clowns who turns up late to a discussion, reads a snippet and just charges in?

I have clearly stated that I am against the US's war and I am not a Christian. I've even gone on record on this very page stating I agree the whole 911 thing is fishy as hell. I just think this movie is badly made. You don't have to agree with a movie to agree with it's overall "message". As I have stated, again on this very page, movies like this do damage to their own cause by being too shoddy.

I'd like to point out my "joke of a country" doesn't have capital punishment, either. Do you even know what country I live in?

You may now return to your rant.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 06:38 AM

I don’t think we’ll ever see anything resembling a single world order. Firstly, I think this is precluded by irreconcilable non-secular differences. We see this now on a micro-scale in Iraq, with the fragmenting of various dogmatic allegiances- so briefly unified under one flag. These issues aside, cultural differences are so deeply ingrained in the corporate structures of the world that I don’t think a single government would ever be able to serve them all. I’m skeptical that this is the ultimate agenda of anyone, neo-con or otherwise. There are simply too many players, to be served by one system. Power and money stem from conflict and competition, not unity.

Regardless of what the neo-conservative agenda was for the “new American century”, I think we’ve seen its high water mark. The deep divisions in the Republican Party have manifested themselves in a fragmented, poorly qualified field of candidates, none of whom have both the desire and electability to further the neocon agenda. We’ve already seen the failings of neo-conservativism, whose ends have been so poorly and ineptly served by this administration. It’s cast grave doubts on the primacy of US foreign policy, and together a faltering economy and America’s eroded stature abroad, this calls into question America’s ability to compete with emerging superpowers in China and India.

The traditional channels of American imperialism- the World Bank, IMF, WTO and others will also fade from power as new sources of foreign investment (China, Japan, the EU) become available to developing nations. The Euro is already beginning to supplant the US dollar as the vehicle of choice for large transactions- further eroding the standing of American currency abroad. And with its increasing economic might, the far more liberal EU will increasingly be able to mount challenges to American policy abroad. Additionally, for the first time in history private charitable concerns can challenge, or in the case of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation- even exceed the spending power of government investment vehicles.

As I think I made pretty clear above, I don’t believe there is an overarching 9-11 conspiracy. Never attribute anything to brilliant planning that can be more easily explained with monumental incompetence. And this administration certainly hasn’t displayed a propensity for brilliant planning- what haven’t they fucked up these past few years? And some would have us believe they miraculously pulled off the greatest coup in history? Great, unifying conspiracy theories are a simpleton’s way of explaining away the menacing complexities of the world we inhabit.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 06:52 AM

Erico- additionally, I think that unless you've been stalking me you have no idea what kind of research I've done- just one more unqualified statement on your part. Certainly, my background- seven years of professional schooling, followed be several years of professional internships, accreditation, and practice, in an extremely relevant field make me more than qualified to comment. Poking holes in some dumb hack architect's conspiracy theory isn't the most difficult thing I've done this week.

I see from your latest entry that you've really bought this Zeitgeist thing hook, line, and sinker. Well, you'll want to see the Transformers movie. . . Now THATS a great conspiracy. 9-11 has got nothing on the all-spark.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 09:06 AM


You show no sign of being able to think critically. You show no sign of being able to face the things you are afraid of head-on. You only boast irrelevant educational background, and throw accusations around that you are unable to defend. Calling people "hacks" that have decided to devote much time to a subject that is the most important event of our time; calling people "attention hounds" because they have virtually sacrificed their careers as professionals to speak out against the obvious cover up and obvious inside job of 9/11; calling ME a stalker only becasue I challenge you to look deeper.

I will give you credit for one thing, you compared the 9/11 events to the Transformers movie - which is admirable, as the official story of 9/11 equally subcribes to the same absence of science, reason, and physical laws of nature as that animated film. They even have created their own computer animations that defy laws of physics to defend their impossible claims, and you have clearly believed them - that is if you have even looked THAT far.

This conversation ends up where it always does with individuals like you Nixie - you do the only thing you know how - you attack personally, rather than dissecting and analyzing the actual evidence.

I will challenge you to pick on aspect of the "official story" that is of relevance that you find outweighs the "alternative theory " of that day - and I will prove to you it is untrue, or at the least unable to be proven as true.

You won't, as you refuse to look at it. You will find whatever excuse you can to deny it's existance. I'm not saying it's a concious effort, you have likely been that way with everything in life.

It is people like you, and your ability to conform to and to accept your authority as your truth, rather than truth itself as your authority - it is you and the like that allow people to get you and the masses to believe such an outrageous story of the "offcial story of 9/11".

False flag terroism as a pretext to push an agenda and convince a populaton to go to war is so old and used it's boring. That's all 9/11 was.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 10:03 AM

Erico, you're the one making the personal attacks. You've called me ignorant, while ignoring the explanations I've given for my positions. You've called my background irrelevant, although as an architect I have the same background as both supporters and detractors (like Gage) of the "official" 9-11 story. My background is irrelevant here, I suppose, because my personal experience contradicts the shit you've read online. Likewise, you ignore the positions of the majority of professionals on the subject. I've explained my positions and challenged you above to debunk them; you haven't. Why the offer at this late stage of the pissing match?

You haven't had the good fortune to have the first hand experiences that I have, instead, you rely on what you've read on the internet, the purported experiences of a minority of others. So yeah. I challenge you to explain to me how thermite was used to demolish the towers, and how the impacts of the jet could not have. Go ahead. Put your money where you mouth is. Good luck.

And I call you a stalker not because you "challenged me to look deeper", but because you claimed to know what kind of research I've done. Something you obviously could not know.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 03:16 PM

Okay everybody. It is time for us all to wake up! This movie is another trumpet call. There have been many people such as David Icke who have gone through much personal persecution (including his own family, especially his children being harassed) to get the truth about what is going on in the world out to us. Michael Moore is another warrior for the human race. Of course, he has been ridiculed to discredit his efforts on our behalf. We have been the cattle, fed with the fodder of fascination and pleasure by the media, prodded with our need for comforts, isolated by our enslavement to corporate jobs. We are being made ill by dead and contaminated food. And while we are down, both mentally and physically, we have been herded into the pens of drug addiction (both mental and physical) by the FDA and have been misled into believing we need these drugs to get better and become healthy. The more we need, the more money they get! We are being led to slaughter because we refuse to believe the truth about what is happening to us.

We continue to malign and persecute everyone who has tried to warn us about what is happening. Why do we do this? Is it because we just want to live in "La La LAND?" Is it that we just want to believe that we are being taken care of by our goverment(our surrogate paret) ; that that our so called "elected" govenment cares about us? We have to wake up!!! If it means marching "en masse" to our nations capital, then so be it! Organization and peaceful force made great change in our country during the civil rights movement. Its only fear of losing our jobs that prevents most of us from doing just that. Again, they have enslaved us by fear. If we want change we have to be fearless. We have to say that we know what is happening and we won't stand for it! We must be warriours for the cause who will sacrifice everything for the welfare and liberation of mankind. Who will lead us into a new tomorrow for the human race? I believe there are many spiritual warriours among us who will sacrifice everything for the cause. If we stand together, we can overcome and liberate ourselves from the power and control by members of secret societies (see the movie where President Kennedy was trying to warn us about the secret societies before he was assasinated). This is not a hopeless situation. We can and must take action to reverse this situation. It is the natural response to try to discredit this information. We simply don't want to believe any of it. It is not pleasant and it is not convenient! But to do this, we must wake up from the lethargy we have allowed to overcome our waking consciousness. This is a call to arms. The war is not against some foreign enemy. This war is on our home front. This war is with the powers that be that we look up to for our sustenance and well-being. This war is with the government we have believed in and trusted with our very lives. The time has come for us to admit that our government has lied to us. Our welfare is not paramout in its agenda! See past the propaganda. Open your hearts and minds. Its only then that the truth will set us free. Its only then that we will be able to change the world and bring all human beings into the sanctuary of unity, brotherhood and love. We have the power within each of us to unite and overcome anything. Open your hearts and minds to new possibilities and embrace the possibility of a new creation and a new reality. Erase fear from your consciousness and realize that each of us can make a differece and, united, we can create a new world.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 04:50 PM

Camella that was beautifully said and so true. I hear you loud and clear! Can I share your words with others? They need repeating.

Not a Member!


Monday 30th July 2007 | 09:42 PM

Before anything else, talk is cheap, so people do your homework before ranting about real, copied, made up or plagarized. Zeitgeist The Movie has a website wherein all the doubting Thomases can check out their sources. Better yet, here they are. Do the homework people. Talk later. Otherwise it's just mental masturbation.

Basic Sources:

Part 1:

* Special thanks to Acharya S for her consultation for this section*
Massey, Gerald - The Historic Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree
Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning Book Tree, 1998
Acharya S - The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press
Massey, Gerald - Ancient Egypt: Light of the World, Kessinger Publishing
Churchward, Albert -The Origin and Evolution of Religion, The Book Tree
Acharya S - Suns of God, Adventures Unlimited Press
Murdock, D.M. - Who was Jesus?, Steller House Publishing
Allegro, John - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus Books
Frazer, Sir James: The Golden Bough, Touchstone Pub., 1890
Maxwell, Tice, Snow - That Old Time Religion, The Book Tree
Rolleston, Frances: Mazzaroth, Rivingtons, Waterloo Place, 1862
Cumont, Franz: Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans Cosimo Classics 1912
King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman
Fideler, David: Jesus Christ, Sun of God Quest Books, 1993
Berry, Gerald: Religions Of The World, Barnes & Noble Pub., 1965
Leedom, Tim C - The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, TS Books
Paine, Thomas - The Age of Reason
Wheless, Joseph: Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion 1930
Remsburg, John E. - The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, Prometheus Books
Massey, Gerald - Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta, Kessinger Publishing
Irvin, Jan & Rutajit, Andrew - Astrotheology and Shamanism, The Book Tree
Doherty, Earl - The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?, Age of Reason Pub.
Campbell, Joseph - Creative Mythology: The Masks of God, Penguin
Doane, T.W. - Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, Health Research
Maxwell, Jordan: The Light of World (Film Series) IRES
Singh, Madanjeet: The Sun- Symbol of Power and Life, UNESCO, 1993
Flemming, Brian: The God Who Wasn't There (Film) 2005
The Naked Truth (Film) IRES
Jackson, John G. : Christianity Before Christ, American Atheist Press, 1985

Part 2:
Griffin, David Ray - 911 The Myth and the Reality
Ruppert, Michael -The Truth and Lies of 9-11
Berger, Michael - Improbable Collapse
Avatar, LLC - 911 Mysteries
Hilder, Anthony J.- Illuminazi 911
Mugford, Dustin - September 11th Revisited
vonKleist, Dave - 911 In Plane Site
Hufschmid, Eric - Painful Deceptions
Rodriguez, William - What really happened on 9/11?
Zwicker, Barrie - 911 The Great Conspiracy
Duffy, John - 911 Press For Truth
Jones, Alex - Martial Law 9/11
Jones, Alex - TerrorStorm
Hilder, Anthony J.-The Greatest Lie Ever Sold
Avery, Dylan - Loose Change 2nd Edition
Humphrey, George - 911 The Great Illusion

** Important Reference Books **
Ruppert, Michael - Crossing the Rubicon, New Society Publishers
Griffin, David Ray - The New Pearl Harbor, Interlink
Griffin, David Ray - Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Olive Branch Press
Tarpley, Webster - 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Progressive Press
Griffin, David Ray -The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, Olive Branch Press
Marrs, Jim - The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty, Disinformation Company

Part 3:
Perloff, James - The Shadows of Power, Western Islands
Marrs, Jim - Rule by Secrecy, Harper Paperbacks
Dye, Thomas R. - The Irony of Democracy, Wadsworth Publishing
Greider, William - Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country, Simon & Schuster
F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, Duell/Sloan/Pearce
Allen, Frederick Lewis - "Morgan The Great"/ Life Magazine - 4/25/1949
Simpson, Colin - The Lusitania, Little Brown
Pool, James - Who Financed Hitler: the Secret Funding... ,Pocket Books
Epperson, Ralph A. -The Unseen Hand
Sutton, Anthony C. - Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, G S G & Associates Pub
Sutton, Anthony C. - The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, G S G & Associates Pub
Allen, Gary - The Rockefeller File, 76 Pr
Lundberg, Ferdinand - America's Sixty Families, Citidell Press
Mcfadden, Louis - On the Federal Reserve, Congressional Record 1934
Allen, Gary - The Bankers , Conspiratorial Origins of the Federal Reserve, American Opinion
Larson, Martin - The Federal Reserve
House, Edward Mandell -The Intimate Papers Of Colonel House, Kessinger Publishing
Sutton, Anthony C. - Wall Street and FDR, Arlington House
Wilson, Woodrow - The New Freedom
Russo, Aaron - America: Freedom To Fascism (film)
Iserbyt, Charlotte Thompson - The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, 3d Research Co
Stinnett, Robert - Day Of Deceit, Free Press
Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America, spp.gov
Jaikaran, Jacques S. - Debt Virus, Glenbridge Publishing
Benson, Bill -The Law That Never Was
Griffin, G. Edward, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Media
Grace Commision Report - 1984 - Reagan Admin

Not a Member!


Tuesday 31st July 2007 | 01:38 AM


All the proof of thermite in the towers can be found by watching Gage's Lecture and Steven Jone's lecture.

You have challenged nothing. You rant on and on without any sort of defense. You wouldn't even watch the entire lecture of Gage based on your predecided judgment call on him saying "no other steel building in history has fallen due to fire." when that statement is in fact true. Is that stement not true? Planes hitting it and their jet fuel have zero relevance to them caollapsing thru the path of most resistance at teh rate of virtually free fall. That idea in and of itself, allowing yourself to accept that idea, being a man of moderate physics and science is astonishing. WTC7 was not hit by a plane. Aside from everyone having warnings is was going to collapse since noon that day, and the BBC getting word 30 minutes before it was going to collapse that it indeed DID collapse, and Guiliani himself being told it was going to collapse. The talk of the towers is a pissing match in and of itself.

Since I am so thickheaded, please Nixie, give me one example - since I am unable to recall such examples you've given and I'm to imcompetent to remember them, please repeat one example of the 'nutty sci-fi" story you speak of that I didn't debunk for you?

Waiting with baited breath.


Not a Member!


Tuesday 31st July 2007 | 05:32 AM

Thanks Carlos -

It's true, it's truely sad to see how people dismiss things as plagurized, or simply calling the people involved as hacks or without merit. It's truely fascinating. All three parts have been maticulously researched, and anyone who tries to say any of it isn't true simply hasn't done their homework, and more importantly, this information runs too contrary to what they have always been TOLD as true. The important word here is "TOLD" as true. Children are TOLD Santa Clause is real, they eventually REALIZE he is not.

We were TOLD Jesus was real, we eventually realize he is not. We were TOLD that we were attacked by Islamist Extremists that 'hate our freedom', but we realize we were not. On that note, if Islamist extremists hate freedom so much, why have they not bothered to bomb the Netherlands or Sweden? I mean, they are far more free than we are. You see.. it makes no sense... until you realize the TRUTH of what things really are, then everything begins to make sense.

Knowing the truth truely does set one free.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 31st July 2007 | 05:53 AM

The phrase 'Conspiracy Theory' is an unhelpful distraction and arguing about the minute details of a movie like this is a complete waste of vital time and energy. Michael Moore is the dumbed down version of the argument but it works. He got across the line to the mainstream in a way that Chomsky could never. This movie is highly entertaining and therefore may have a chance to cross over and be watched by some of the vast majority of people out there, who's minds this would NEVER have crossed. For me even if every word of the movie was a lie and all the Biblical stuff groundless it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to what the movie's long term achievement may be. Truth? Lies? Facts or Fabrications? You can argue for years about exploding basements but you are truely wasting your life if you ever think you or anyone will conclusively prove it. Meanwhile the world goes on outside. You can argue for the rest of your life about whether the Bible is or isn't astrological. I don't need a scientifically proven 'truth' to know that Jesus is NOT the son of a god that doesn't exist or that Iraq was a crime aginst humanity, OUR Vietnam. Everyone always asks 'how did the German people allow the killing of 6 million Jews in their own backyard, how could they not have known about the Halocaust? Surely they must and if they did, why didn't they raise up in arms against their government and stop the genocide? How could they turn their backs on so much human suffering? We can look directly at ourselves to see how such a blind spot to the perpetuation of the suffering of the defensless can exist. What did we do? A few marches down a few streets and they waited till the dust cleared and business as usual. We just had elections, and our countries involvement and continued involvement in the INVASION of Iraq was not mentioned ONCE in the entire campaign. They rely on our miraculous ability to endlessly squabble among ourselves about the quality of research in movies like this and eventually lose interest. Do you have to have it PROVEN beyond all doubt, every scrap of evidence verified before you can DISbelieve. There'll always be someone able to think up some madness to drop into an argument and call it an element of doubt. Look at the evolution debate. A 'debate' about evolution!! How can this be in our day and age? Because we have been educated/indoctrinated back into the peasantry of the dark ages and the rest of you with half a brain in your heads spend your time arguing over stats and quality of film making. 'I agree with the movie but I'm just saying it wasn't very well made, so here are my list of complaints for us all to discuss....' Probably, the interested intellectual classes, the 'free' thinkers of German society argued a lot in living rooms and bars up and down the country trying to prove or disprove the horrific rumours. Meanwhile the world went on outside.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 31st July 2007 | 05:58 AM

You're right, I did jump in without reading the whole post. And my puctuation is a disaster but I talk fast. I apologise for both.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 1st August 2007 | 02:19 AM

Here is a great article from today about an Iraqi vet and controlled demolition expert on the "collapse" of the 3 buildings on 9/11.


Not a Member!


Wednesday 1st August 2007 | 01:16 PM

For someone who is supposed to have done extensive research of their own, I'd expected a better explanation than "its in the lecture." Sounds like someone's been "told" rather than doing their own homework. "Debunking" requires a certain amount of "explaining" on your part- "exposing a false claim" as it were.

This: "Planes hitting it and their jet fuel have zero relevance to them caollapsing thru the path of most resistance at teh rate of virtually free fall." is not explaining- its probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

How exactly does the impact of a +/-130 ton aircraft carrying +/-30 tons of highly flammable jet fuel have no relevance to the collapse of the buildings in question? And free fall- terminal velocity- is well under 200 miles per hour for most objects- the aircraft in question were traveling 470 and 590 mph, respectively.

This- quoting myself, above- is an explanation. Its not an exhaustive one, but its a start:

"The aircraft didn't hit "key support beams", per se. The WTC was supported around its perimeter by columns, and again by a structural core. The aircraft (in both cases, although to differing extents) destroyed or damaged a number of the perimeter columns and damaged portions of the core. Well designed buildings (like the WTC- not the Oklahoma City Federal Building) have a fair amount of redundancy, which results in the loads being transferred to other members. The buildings could withstand a certain amount of damage this way. However, the impact of the airliners also blew the concrete fireproofing off much of the building's otherwise undamaged structural system, exposing the steel- which is not a fireproof material, contrary to the assertions of many conspiracy theorists. Thus exposed to the jet-fuel-fueled fire (buildings are designed to be fire resistant to certain degrees- but jet fuel burns much hotter than a typical building fire)- the steel eventually turned to spaghetti, and the structures collapsed.

Which brings us to the collapse- which looked nothing like a controlled demolition to anyone who has ever seen one. It was big and messy- not the progressive detonation that is typically used to bring down tall buildings. Sure, the buildings fell straight down. Inertia! How would they do otherwise? Evidently, the people advancing alternative collapse theories didn't pay attention in high school physics. Skyscrapers are not composed of a singular structural member, as is a tree. What immense force would be required to push all of the steel and concrete at the top of the buildings off to the side? One floor pancaked onto another, and another and the ones above followed suite. Perfectly logical, and predictable. "

A side note: the reason we've been the target of Islamic jihadists is not because they "hate us for our freedom" (just another Bushie oversimplification", but because of our occupation of the middle east- Saudi Arabia in particular- since the first gulf war. Bin Laden has said this many, many times.

Not a Member!


Thursday 2nd August 2007 | 01:41 PM


... I wouldn't be surprised if that's where we're headed.

This is my first post on this topic, I wanted to see what people thought about this movie and this blog has proven to do just that.

I found the movie to be interesting and entertaining and whenever I watch a documentary or conspriacy movie, etc. I think what is most important are the questions that are raised rather than obsessing over how factual the "facts" are.

I think what matters most is not the facts about Christianity, whether Jesus was an actual person or not. Or if 911 was conspired by the US Government. (well I guess that does matter...) BUT MORESO... in my opinion, it is more important to dwell on the influences and the affects that these things have on all of US.

Feel free to disagree with me on this part but... aren't these all facts:
- Christianity influences (even if not intended) one to believe, act and create values and morals in a certain way. (i.e. ten commandments).
- Media (television, internet, radio, print) influences (even if not intended) one to believe, act and create values and morals in a certain way.
- Government... you get the picture

And my question is simply: Who has the right to tell us what to believe and how to act?

I guess this can be argued by saying, "well it's your choice to believe and act the way you want".

BUT! When there are laws set by government that take away liberties, and laws set by religion which 'require' (used loosely) you to act a certain way in order to practice your faith... then aren't these institutions giving you a limited choice in what you can do. When society, which is impossible to escape, is based on these institutions and these guidelines and these rules... they take away our choice and freedom.

I'd like to know what you think, please bash me if you feel it is needed...

Not a Member!


Thursday 2nd August 2007 | 02:01 PM


If the pancake theory is true, riddle me this...what law of physics allows for 110 floors to "pancake" onto one another, creating 0 resistance in the process, therefore allowing the entire buildings to "collapse" in 8 and 10 seconds, respectively?

The architects who designed the WTC towers are on the record stating that they specifically designed the buildings to withstand possible impacts from MULTIPLE Boeing 707's, the largest commercial airliner at the time of construction.

Also, building 7 wasn't struck by a plane...yet it collapsed in the same way. Silverstein, the leaseholder on the WTC complex since July of 2001 (2 months before the attacks), who also got 7 billion dollars from his insurance co after the attacks, is also on the record saying "they" made the decision to "pull it" (building 7), which is widely known as industry slang for demolish it. Explain that.

As for the Thermite arguement, I'd refer you to Steven Jones, Professor of Physics at BYU. The dust samples collected from the rubble at ground zero contained all the chemical elements of Thermite, (actually, it's Thermate since sulfur was added).

Uncontrolled fires burn at aprox. 1200 F, the steel used in the construction of the WTC complex was rated by UL to be fire resistant up to at least 2500F...

"Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."

Jet Fuel is a Hydrocarbon, a high grade Kerosene..The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, about 1,000°C...this is fact.

Even when you acknowledge that fire can indeed weaken steel, which I do, one can still not explain how the core of the structure collapsed, all of the steel in the entire stucture wasn't subjected to the flames...the pancake theory does not explain this.

Whilst I would love to attempt to convince you that you should indeed research this matter further, it seems as though your mind is made up. If you do however, have any questions you'd like answered please refer them to me and i'll do my best to find you an unbiased qualified answer.

As for this movie, I've just begun my research into the religious aspect, but I can tell you that these guys are spot on with the Federal Reserve, 9/11, WWI & II, and Vietnam...they present reliable and verifiable facts.

It just takes a bit of time and curiosity to sort it all out. Good Luck to you all...we're gonna need it


Not a Member!


Friday 3rd August 2007 | 10:20 PM

Can everyone see what is going on here? It's quite obvious, isn't it?

Internet forums are littered with them, people who are in place to discredit anyone who argues the official 9/11 story. They know an awareness of what really happened is growing and they are desperately trying to undermine this movement by infiltrating chat rooms and trying to presuade people, especially ones who haven't done the research, into believing that this lie is too big and couldn't possibly have been pulled off in front of everyone's eyes.


Don't be persuaded by others opinions. Once the truth is realized these people stick out like sore thumbs...........Rodney.


Not a Member!


Friday 3rd August 2007 | 10:42 PM

Quote Carlos----Do the homework people. Talk later. Otherwise it's just mental masturbation. ----End Quote

Carlos that is Pure 24ct gold. Tears in my eyes.

Not a Member!


Sunday 5th August 2007 | 12:38 AM

A classic case of what you can do if you mix facts with a large amount of conjecture and paranoia and lead the viewer the "connect the dots". The originator of this movie is guilty of the same crime as he accuses the powerful in his movie of - leading the dumb "viewer" to make links that cannot be proven but are suggested by giving them a whole pile of "dots" to follow.

There are many things in this movie that may be true. Others that i agree with, but the connections made are iffy and too loose to base any "revolution" upon.

Not a Member!


Sunday 5th August 2007 | 07:52 AM

Wow this film felt like a kick in the nuts to me. The only thing that really helped was to remind myself that the one world government plan will never happen. Anyone here think that Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Russia, China, India and all the countries of the world will allow America to rule them? Cause if it is meant to be a one world government I assume they mean America as leader of this. I fear for America though. The leaders dont seem to realise that if they dumb down the population the country cannot hope to survive for long. Lenin once said that America would destroy itself through its own greed. It seems he was right.

Not a Member!


Sunday 5th August 2007 | 03:20 PM

Most people want peace most of the time. That's a big problem for rulers bent on war for profit and control. Attack your own people and blame it on your political enemies. Putting yourself in the shoes of these megalomaniac madmen for a bit, what better way exists to convince your people to support your war agenda, and into surrendering your civil liberties in exchange for so called security? We've seen this facet of history repeat many times in many other countries. Most notably, Nazi Germany. We're the USA. We do everything others do, and we do it bigger and better. I'm afraid we're going to see a police state unfold here that puts Hitler and Stalin to shame.

I'd much rather believe that foreign Muslim terrorists found a chink in our armor and attacked us back for all the atrocities we've committed in the middle east, than our own government being responsible. So don't accuse me and people like me of taking the "comforting" position. Being the government/military industrial complex that is carrying out these acts of terror against its own people, I KNOW I'm not safe ANYWHERE in this country.

Our borders are wide open, the media fear mongers us every damn day that we're going to be attacked again soon. Not if, but when, while telling us all we need a national ID card as a primer for an RFID chip. The government takes our liberty in response. Who are the real terrorists? It's crystal clear. 2+2=4.

Not a Member!


Sunday 5th August 2007 | 08:34 PM

Haha Steve you're a champion! You reckon I'm some paid US govt operative "infiltrating chat rooms and trying to presuade people.." ... That's the funniest thing on this whole page.

For the millionth time. I am not an American. I have never been to America. Just because I think this movie was badly made does not mean I agree with the US's stance in Iraq or anywhere else.

I have said so many times now on this page that I think 911 was fishy. I agree something odd is going on.

That doesn't mean I have to like badly made films. This page was originally a frikkin film REVIEW before it go hijacked into discussions about how evil America is. As a FILM, this movie is not well made.

The rest is up to you.

Not a Member!


Monday 6th August 2007 | 02:32 AM

Rodney, since you're so smart ~er .... at least you like to think you are, going all out with an actual "review" and all - why the hell didn't you read the "Bibliography?" I mean, after all, is not this one of the first important actions BEFORE arrogantly writing a REVIEW - we learned this in grade school, here in the US. Even though you're not an "American" you like to post in America and this means you are somehow directly interested in what is being posted to and for Americans .... hmmm, this is what Shakespeare would love to write about but he would not be so ignorant as to write just a "rant."

Not a Member!


Monday 6th August 2007 | 11:47 AM

Hi Biloxi, it's nice to hear from someone so far away.

Point 1: This site is neither hosted nor maintained in America. This site is run by people who live just around the corner from me. The World is not in America. American's might like to think the World = America but sorry, it's not true...

Point 2: Why the fk should I have to read a bibliography? If the movie was well made I WOULDN'T HAVE TO now, would I? A well made point doesn't require additional reading, or didn't you learn that in "grade school"? If you make a documentary, you should make it stand alone, not require research.

If you say this movie is good because it inspires thought and additional research, THAT, I can accept. But I am not going to say this movie was wonderful, just to fall in line with the rest of you.

Not a Member!

I like beer

Monday 6th August 2007 | 12:32 PM

The US will not be the seat of a one world government. It will be based on the European Union. They will do it, no matter what you think, and it will fail, because Europeans hate each other.
Europe will become the worlds leading nation. For a time.

Not a Member!


Monday 6th August 2007 | 03:15 PM

Rodney, snap out of it and realize that the chance for you to play the "look how much I don't care and I shouldn't have to look anything up" card expired a month ago; the amount of time and thought you've put into this movie by filling the comments page with your prejudiced, narrowminded ramblings is a testament to the thought-provoking content.

Whether you agree with anything they said is irrelevant, the point was to make you think and ask questions, which you obviously do. Just put some effort into it (you've put more than enough time into this subject at least), don't stop asking why just because you have to pick up a book or even worse, visit a website and a couple links.

I think this film will get a lot more people thinking, I just hope the rest of them aren't as lazy as you and decide to know it all instead rather than humble themselves by reading a simple bibliography.

Not a Member!


Monday 6th August 2007 | 04:02 PM


I care. I'm not playing the "I don't care card". I just don't care in the way you do. I don't think the whole 911 thing is some uber conspiracy. Maybe I'm wrong, time will tell. What I think is *far* more likely is that the US govt took advantage of (and continue to take advatnage of) a bad situation, in ways they shouldn't have.

My whole original point was nobody should be basing their opion of the World on a movie that is full of errors and this film is full of errors. Anyone who says otherwise needs to justify that opinion.

When someone tries to convince you to change your view of the World and then uses logic that does not add up, you shouldn't blindly praise them and blindly attack anyone who doesn't. You should admit that they've made mistakes because anything less is pure zealotry. If you cannot admit this film has errors then you need to address your attitude because it blatantly does.

So yes, I care but I care about the logic of the film far more than its content. Why? Because I don't really believe the content is true.

After watching "In Plane Site" the first time, I found it a much better conspiracy film and I found myself taking it seriously. If any film was going to convince me that it was a US govt set up, it would be that one.

Arguing here is completely pointless as everyone all has their mind made up before watching it or reading comments by others. This is ok, coz no one here has made a compelling argument in any direction. I don't excuse myself from that group.

So I'm done talking on this topic because the only response I ever get is "you're a moron coz you don't think exactly what I do!!!"

Not a Member!


Tuesday 7th August 2007 | 04:02 AM

Rodney, you said you're done but we both know that's a lie. In response:

No, you're a moron because you have poor reading comprehension and you jump to unfounded, persecutory conclusions. I also like how you ignored the second half of the card you've been, again, playing for a month.

I never took a position or said the video was right/wrong, that 9/11 was an "uber conspiracy" or that it had changed my worldview. I merely said that you have been ranting about how you shouldn't have to look anything up quote:"[Point 2: Why the fk should I have to read a bibliography? If the movie was well made I WOULDN'T HAVE TO now, would I?]", but again you ignored that issue and decided to randomly attack the thoughts and opinions I never expressed about the film.

Ironically, you have been ranting about how poorly the film is made without any sources of your own to disprove anything the film or anybody here has said (unless you have a website with a bibliography a mouse click away, my bad).

Again, (assuming you actually read responses and don't let your persecution complex take over after the first paragraph) I never even took a position on the film, since the issue here isn't whether or not "9/11 was an inside job" it's just about your lack of critical thinking and obsession with a movie that has clearly made an impact on you in some way.

If you aren't as predictable as you seem, and you really are done talking on this subject, maybe you should try researching it now. Good luck.

Not a Member!

Mr. Mew!

Tuesday 7th August 2007 | 04:34 PM

wow nice to see 139 comments on this movie... albeit maybe 100 of them are just from the same guy who likes to see himself talk. same goes for every blog about this movie. just the same guy, debunking as much as they can. Hey, we could go to Screw Loose Change and then go to Screw Screw Loose Change. sooner or later there will be a Screw Zeitgeist (dot) com. welp, lets get started.

the usual comment to these things come from those who are christian, trying to argue that the earth is 6000 years old and everything in the bible actually happend (oldest man=969 years old.) Reminded me of those high school kids with the "just a theory" stickers on their binders, against anything having to do with evolution. to think no student will have a sticker that says "just a book."

the next are anti-911 conspiracy assholes. purely just against anything that could be considered unpatriotic. might as well be just grandpa who got out of Dubya Dubya 2, racist against all asians and "darkies." regardless, whatever you bring up that says 9/11 isn't what the commission report says, people close their ears and go LALALALALA. i actually asked my sophomore high school history teacher *this was yes 3 years ago* about the pentagon and why there wasn't a plane there. he told me, and i shit you not, that it was so hot the metal melted into the ground. he actually asked me "you remember that movie The Terminator?" right after that. god, elections are never going to be as easy as i thought.

i'm not saying everything in the movie is true, but it just makes me believe even more that nobody knows shit anymore and anyone who says otherwise is just an asshole. thats the whole point of agnosticism and having no specific political party. i'll never post in these again... great movie by the way ^_^

Not a Member!


Wednesday 8th August 2007 | 06:36 PM

Watch and Learn........

Part 1

Part 2

Now look up "Gladio" (Black Flag)..........

Not a Member!


Thursday 9th August 2007 | 10:26 AM

I can not believe the idiocy going on here. How can anyone take the Zeitgeist movie seriously? Im not here to debate parts 2 and 3, its hard to argue those, but part one is absolute garbage!
First of all, any bone-head who does their own reserch, or knows alittle bit about mythology will tell you not one single deity mentioned shares any similarity to Jesus. Horus? not born of a virgin. nor was Krishna, nor was Dionysus. and not one of them were ever crucified! Gods like Horus, Attis, and Dionysus all were around wayyyyyy before crucifixion was ever used as a means of execution. Anyone who took the first part of Zeitgeist seriously should look at this website:
what the people at this site did was acctualy go back to the religious holy texts of the religions of gods such as horus, and found out their real story. what you will find is that Horus, Attis, Krishna, and the host other deities mentioned in the film share absolutly NO COMMONALITIES WITH JESUS. and the claim that the movie makes about their not being eveidence that Jesus was even a real historical figure is bullcrap as well. their are numurous non-religious historical accounts of Jesus being a real person. not to mention the mentions of him in the Koran and the Talmud. I could go into detail about ever single flaw this movie made but Id be typing for hours so ill just leave it at that. Zeitgeist part one is 100% grade A BULLSHIT.

Not a Member!

Richard Robertson

Thursday 9th August 2007 | 10:49 AM

I read Jay Kinney's review of this film today on BoingBoing.net and was rather irritated at such a lack of consideration for the film. He just parroted every cliche he could muster. You could replace the subjects and title and it could have been a review for anything.

I wrote him an email and decided I had to post it for the public to see.

Here's his "review".


Here's my response:

Dear Jay,

I saw your Zeitgeist review today. Thanks for taking the time to review it. I have a few questions in general in regards to your review. I also have a few suggestions/comments since others think of you as some sort of voice of relevance to the opinion of others inrelation to the film - particularly your knowledge of bricklaying organizations and symbolism that people think relate to those bricklaying organizations, and, apparently, to the editor of Boing Boing that knowledge somehow relates to the film Zeitgeist.

You began by calling it "guerilla media". May I ask you: what is the difference between a film you see on the internet vs. a film on TV, vs. a film you rent via DVD? What qualifies "Zeitgeist" in your personal opinion as "guerilla media"? And why was that important to point out? I am trying to understand that one. Are you also in a form of ""guerilla media" since both Zeitgeist and yourself are both published on the internet? Please explain.

I noticed you also said "purports to tell the truth about "Christianity, 9/11, and the International Bankers." On what grounds or by what reference are you to say what is in the film is incorrect or not true? Why is your "opinion' different than what was painstakingly researched to go into the film. I don't see how or where you debunked anything that was said in the film.

This comment: "exactly how all this fits together is left to the viewer's imagination or, presumably, the film-maker's hash pipe."

- This statement was in my opinion childish and irresponsible, and purports to claim that the creator smokes hash. Again, what proof or assumption have you found to assume as such? It seems the most common sure-fire-knee-jerk response to most subjects and perspectives that people feel uncomfortable with or or simply don't understnad is to insult. High School students do it alot. "Look at that guy with the touban, he must be a terrorist." The insult serves as a distraction to the issues discussed. Next time stop and recognize it. Recognizing unhealthy and close-minded traits are the best way to prevent them from happening again. It helps you actaully face issues head-on instead of insulting or making fun of them. I noticed you were not currently in high school, but a middle aged man. It was at this point in the article I found the relevance of you opinion of this film losing it merit further. I decided to trudge forward nonetheless...

...only to read (this next one almost made me fall out of my chair):

"Are those who manipulate Christianity for control purposes in cahoots with the Bankers, and were the Bankers in on the 9/11 caper? Zeitgeist sidesteps such logical questions through the use of the all-purpose term, "the elite," a shadowy group of rich and powerful men who want nothing more than to enslave humanity and reap block-buster profits through the promotion of wars and financial crises."

How is "the elite" a side-step? Is it not your opinion that you might feel an elite, and not necessarily the exact same elite group, might be responsible for these tactics? Haven't they on smaller scales? Aren't elite CEOS constantly manipulating their employees, the market and the like? Aren't elite clergy manipulating their church members? Aren't the people in the White House and Pentagon (who are by most people's standards an elite group) guilty of manipulating the public and the world into wars and genocide? Didn't the elite Nixon admin manipulate the public with Watergate? The elite Reagan admin with Iran-Contra? Didn't the elite of Enron try to boost it's stock by shutting down parts of California's power grid? Why is this behavior only on a largeer scale seem so unsual to you? Where is the side-step in Zeitgeist's points? What proof do YOU have to say any of what is put forth in regards to this is incorrect?

What defense do you have for this statement? Is that really your picture or are you hiding behind it and are actually not a high school, but a middle school student?

"For conspiracy buffs, this is all pretty standard fare, and, indeed, aficionados of the genre will find little new in "Zeitgeist.""

- Who are the conspiracy buffs? Do you buy the official story of 9/11 shrewdly fed to us? Is it not by definition a conspiracy (given we accept the definition of a conspiracy in that more than one person committed a crime together, in this case 19 highjackers conspiring to attack America because they don't like our freedom? (watch our Netheralands! Legal HASH in Amsterdam! Why not fly airplanes into THAT city?) Is that not a conspiracy? The people that buy the official story of 19 highjackers or the people that buy that criminal elements within the US govt created a false flag event on 911? Where is the difference? Who is the buff? You? Me? Are you not a conspiracy buff if you believe the conspiracy that 19 men defeated the most sophisticated defense system in the world and then changed our entire future and way of life? Who is the conspiracy buff? Have you taken the time to look up the definition? Is George Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Guiliani not all also conspiracy buffs for constantly yammering on about terrorism with every breath they have for the past 6 years? Do you think they will also love "Zeitgeist" given they have such an interest in grand conspiracies?

This part is classic: "The nefarious International Bankers meme has been propagating itself since at least the mid-1800s and has long been a mainstay of radical right-wing circles where it has often overlapped with mutterings about Jewish cabals."

- You HAD to throw out the J word right? It shuts everyone up right? Again, nice parrot tactic. When in doubt, insult! Polly want a cracker? Not once did the word "Jew" come up except to descibe them blowing on rams horns in the religion section. That, again, disqualified your whole pathetic 'review'. Next, you are going to call the producers Holocaust deniers! Why didn't you just say that and get the parroting over with. You lost all credibility at that stage. You are no different than the southern mayor of his town blaming the rising crime rate on "niggers"... must be them "niggers". You should be gravely ashamed of yourself for that utterly irresponsible nonsense. What don't you just start calling the film the "spawn of satan" as the die-hard end timers are calling it?

Just disgusting.

"Breaking new factual ground is not what Zeitgeist is about, however. Rather, the video is a powerful and fast-acting dose of agitprop, hawking its conclusions as givens. Unfortunately, like most propaganda, it doesn't play fair with its intended audience. At times, while watching it, I felt like I was getting Malcolm McDowell's treatment in Clockwork Orange: eyes pried wide open while getting bombarded with quick-cut atrocity photos."

- Again, how is this any different than mainstream TV or news? The 9/11 Commission is hawking it's onclusions as givens. So is the bible. Where teh f*ck is the difference. The more I read the more I sat back in awe of your utter immaturity and ignorance as a 'reviewer' of anyting that isrelevant to this film. Please, try reviewing golf, much less intricate and thought provoking.

"At other times, Zeitgeist engages in willful confusion by showing TV screen shots of network or cable news with voice-overs from unidentified people not associated with the news programs. If one weren't paying close attention, the effect would be to confer the status and authority of TV news upon the words being spoken. Even when quotes or sound bites are attributed to a source, there's no way to tell if they are quoted correctly or in context."

- No, this shows your simple igrnorance on the topics presented. Are not CNN or FOX or the WHite House or Pentagon released Osama tapes the exact same? Where is the difference? Is not every single news show around, and including this article just a mish-mash of one-liners and wuick editing?

"Late in the video, there's a supposed quote from David Rockefeller, which, if genuine, would be an astounding confession of complicity in mass manipulation. But, of course, the quote is not sourced or dated, which renders it useless. (The video's website does feature a Sources page, but a hodge-podge list of books, with no page numbers cited, is of little value for source verification.)"

- I guess you missed the part about the soon to be interactive transcript and reference section. Maybe you didn't bother to read the entire statement. That's ok, why pay attention to detail while reviewing? And again, what is the difference btwn no source for 19 highjackers attacking America, and no source for the Rockfeller quote? Since when is definititve sourcing relevant to information given to the public? Since when has anyone cared? We would know the truth of 9/11, wouldn't be in Iraq and you wouldn't have a job if people cared about 'sources'. I bet you totally glossed over the Russo statement with Nick Rockefeller speaking of 9/11 a year before it happened. Oh, that must not be true right? No witnesses.

"It's a shame, really, that Zeitgeist is, ultimately, such a mess." - Thats interesting, people are calling it the most important movie of our time. The most incredible documentary ever made, peroid. How did all these people miss the messy part?

And finally: "Too bad it also runs off in three directions at once, and is so indiscriminate in its sources and overly certain of its conclusions."

It seems that what the three directions have in common flew right past you. That doesn't mean they did. Just as the film tries to point out, you don't think. You didn't think. You likely aren't thinking right now.

I am not the creator or participant in the film, but I felt necessary to write you. Among many of the points being made in the film, one is that authority or those who consider things as authority, whether it be the news, or government or writers like you... should not be considered anymore of worth than the people themselves who are reading watching or listening to that said authority. No one is more worthy than the other. Instead, there are people that realize truth, and others that are told it. You have clearly been "told" the truth for some time.

Th public at large assumes what is being told to them is true. And since the majority of the people believe what is being told, everyone else thinks it must be true. The problem is, most of the public, including yourself, don't bother to dig deeper. You take things for face value and tend to follow with the ideas that are shrewdly imposed upon you without giving it much more thought (see: "the world is flat"). This is a problem. This is how Hitler rose to power. This is how that exact same thing is happening here. (See May 9 2007 exec order whitehouse.gov), the 2nd 9/11 might be this month while Washington is on recess, Paul Craig Roberts (Former Sec of Treasury of the Reagan Admin) sure thinks so. Keep that one on that back burner, or try that "thinking" thing I recommended.

Instead of digging deeper, you made up excuses like "he didn't give page numbers, so it must not be valid". You are a parrot. This is what has to change. People need to begin to not listen to those of the likes of you, but to dig for themselves, including you. Your review could be posted online, and you could charge money for it so that when FOX, CNN or ther media company wants to review it, they can just pay for and use yours. Anti-semetic low blows and all.

Dig deeper. You can't really review anything by being a parrot. You are the subject of the film, and you don't even know it.

Richard Robertson

Not a Member!


Thursday 9th August 2007 | 12:18 PM

Just watched this and thought it was great. I was raised a Christian and still hold very strong spiritual beliefs and go to church. I was not offended by the first part of this movie (or any of it), especially after watching the rest of it. Isn't the underlying theme to seek your own truths and not take in whole what is given to you in by the media, government and institutions? Righteous indignation you won't get from me, but a drive to find truth, whatever it may be, and also a deep belief that truth is sometimes felt, but can't be proven. If your beliefs are easily shaken, they aren't very deep seated, and if you stop (or start) doing anything as a direct result of this movie without doing your own research or looking into your own heart, then didn't you miss the point of the whole thing? I think it is great if people get mad if it gets them moving, even if it is for no other reason that to prove that "Zeitgeist" was total crap and lies. Whatever works and gets people thinking. Frankly, I think that we have to accept the possibility that their may be some conspiracy and evil in the institutions we hold so dear.

Not a Member!


Thursday 9th August 2007 | 08:39 PM

It blows me away the amazingly poor criticism written here about this film. Rodney's review at the top is simply some of the most idiotic garbage i've ever read. It's appalling to think this person believes himself to be logical and credible.

Zeitgeist is probably one of the most important films ever released on the internet. Simply put, it's a well researched essay on "the myth" and its potential for being used as a device for social control.

This beautiful film is more than just a documentary. It tries to frame the essence of mankind and how over the years man has been led away from what is truly important in this world.

It's an amazing work, one that should be in the mainstream media. But as you see, they don't want you to see stuff that actually requires you to think!

Not a Member!


Thursday 9th August 2007 | 09:04 PM

"Not one person in here acknowledged the Russo account of what Nick Rockefeller told him 11 months before 9/11."

This section of the film really brought it all home for me. I think that anyone who argues in favour of the Bush administration has got some serious issues, and I truely believe that there will be an American revolution within the next 10 years. I am Canadian, however feel so strongly about these issues, that i would be willing to cross the border to join in the revolution and drive out these fascist mother fuckers.

Peace and Love,

Not a Member!


Friday 10th August 2007 | 09:27 AM

J-Man, that is a pretty bold prediction. Why do you think the US will go to civil war?

I'm not so naive that I think the next US president will be able to fix all of the civil rights issues (from the unscroupulous minimum wage to the health system). However on a recent trip to the US, I found that the majority of those people who have an opinion on pollitical issues do not vote.

Based on that reasoning, I think it is fair to say that while people have 'strong' opinions about the 'issues' in the US, they are not willing to take those issues to the ballot and make their opinion known. Basically, if they're not strong enough in their own convictions to make their opinions count, I doubt they will rally to make those same convictions heard.

Not a Member!


Friday 10th August 2007 | 09:32 AM

Sorry Rodney, but the movie is right about Joseph. Joseph had 11 brothers.... and one sister. That makes 12. 10 brothers older than him, and one brother younger.

Joseph was also a miracle birth as well. And I quote from my bible Gen 30:22"The God remembered Rachelm and God hearkened to her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son, and said, 'God has taken away my reproach"; and she called his name Joseph, saying, 'May the Lord add to me another son!' "

So much for your research.

Not a Member!


Friday 10th August 2007 | 09:42 AM

Oh, some people commented that the Horus being born of a virgin is wrong. Ah, how little you know. Here is a Wikipedia link to the picture used in the movie.


what it says:

"Image from the temple at Luxor, depicting Amenhotep III applying to his own human wife the legend of Thoth announcing to Neith (the primordial waters) that she would become pregnant with Ra (the king of heaven), the actual impregnation delivered by Kneph and Hathor via the ankh, leaving Neith "ever virgin", the subsequent birth over a birth brick, and the praise raised to the child by her courtiers and the gods. The form of Ra at this point was Ra-Amun, who was becoming identified as Horus. The child, that is consequently described as being Ra/Horus, went on to become Akhenaten."

So, Ra, the "King of Heaven" was born to a virgin. Ra eventually became known as Horus. Hmm...

Not a Member!


Friday 10th August 2007 | 01:47 PM

Jesus wasn't born of a virgin either. His divinity and virgin birth was voted upon in the council of nicea in circa 200ad.

Regardless, the similarities between one religion and the next are completely subjective, dependent on the view of the person reading/interpreting them.

Regardless of that, each successive religion is a societal evolutionary step ahead of the preceeding religion, using variations of the preceeding figureheads to attract followers. Followers = power.

In saying that religion has always been used as a way to explain the unexplained, and by praying to the 'god' responsible for that unexplained thing should appease it enough to forgoe its wrath. When religion evolved to become monotheistic (one god), it reached its pinacle.

From there, followers seperated into different sub-religions (the main judeo-christian religions) and worshiped their evolved god in their own way.

The next logical step is to realise that as the living, breathing, doing centre of your universe is you, you are god. You controll what, how, when, why, etc things happen/happen to you.

Not a Member!


Saturday 11th August 2007 | 01:11 AM

I think America has no other choice but to go into cival war within the next 10 years. It will most likely be portions of the US Military that participates too. They are slowly realizing how they have been used are mere pawns for way too long. Taken agvantage of and sent to die not for the protection of the country, but instead the protection and selfish profit of the state.

Not a Member!


Saturday 11th August 2007 | 05:21 AM

In response to my fellow Canadian J-man...Do you think that America will enter civil war? In the words of Dr. David Griffin, America seems very "tolerant" of the deterioration of its civil liberties for the so called war on Terrorism. I live smack dab in the middle of the US and many people around me, including some of my family, believe that the government had no involvement in 9/11. I am trying to get as many people as I can to see this film. Because it really does help bring you out of the fog that seems to be enveloping America's people. Many people are working hard raising families and just trying to make ends meet. They don't have time to get involved in something they don't even want to believe might be true (that the government has blatently misled the public and is waged in an illegal imperialistic war. And that the public is so easily manipulated through the media).

There isn't enough cohesion among the American people right now to wage a revolt against its government. People have forgotten that it is their duty to make sure their government adheres to the laws of the US Constitution. As we can see Bush is pushing so much garbage through congress right now, and in the blink of an eye our rights are being subverted. I fear that the American public will easily slide into whatever kind of society their government lays out for them as long as they have their limited freedom and their own universe of materialistic junk and trash television to sedate themselves.

Patriotism seems to be dead here, Blind Nationalism is the norm. Can we change this? I would fight for the republic, i won't fight in the name of imperialism.

When the next 9/11 like event happens, it may be too late for America. If martial law is declared America will believe it is in the best interest of the country. Freedom taken by force can be restored by force. Freedom relinquished volunatarily can never be restored.

Not a Member!


Saturday 11th August 2007 | 07:16 AM

One thing overlooked by all of the conclusion drawn about controlling money is the simple power of bartering.

The movie is filled with unsubstantiated, non peer-reviewed, non-documented, lies that it is hard to believe that someone wasted their anonymous time to produce such shit. Apparently they want a piece of the power when the wind blows their way.

Yes, unfortunately the current gov't is borderline facist - it will take incredible will of the people to peacefully take back our constitution.

Oh, one more thing - I think it's hysterical when any media outlet uses fragmented, out of context sentences to justify frenzy. 1984 anyone?

Not a Member!


Saturday 11th August 2007 | 11:15 AM

Poor, poor Joe. I love this line "The movie is filled with unsubstantiated, non peer-reviewed, non-documented, lies". Wow. All teh documentation in teh world, and if something makes Joe feel uncomfortable, it MUST be lies! The 9/11 Commission report for instance is "unsubstantiated, non peer-reviewed, non-documented, lies", but that doesn't seem to bother Joe.

Yet he still leaves you with "Yes, unfortunately the current gov't is borderline facist - it will take incredible will of the people to peacefully take back our constitution."

All that insight, but no ability to look deeper. I bet Joe didn't even watch the film. To people like Joe, which is a large amount of people mind you, anything that makes Joe feel uncomfortable must be "shit". It's similar to the "that guy wears a tourban, he must be a terrorist" - or "the crime rate is clearly due to the black people." Joe hasn't found the ability to look deeper. He, like the Christians and other people who blindly follow faith - blindly aceepts that it's simply "not that bad" - regardless of how much DOCUMENTED historical precedent there is for the information shared in Zeitgeist.

Poor Joe. I urge him to pick up a history book - learn how Hitler came into power... and most importantly watch the entire film.


Not a Member!


Saturday 11th August 2007 | 11:23 AM

I recommend everyone read this article:


And if you haven't yet, please see the add'l links at the bottom of this page:


Joe, in particular, could learn a thing or two - if he pays attention to what he is reading and hearing and doesn't stop in the middle.

Not a Member!


Saturday 11th August 2007 | 11:25 AM

Please listen to this Webster Tarpley interview,
where he details what is going on and the severity of the issue.

The article below details the little known truth regarding the The Fascist Nazi interests of George W Bush's Grandfather, Prescott Bush, as he and others attempted to overthrow the US government in the 1930s in order to install a fascist dictatorship. This is important in order to understand the true motivations behind The Bush Family and why they need to be stopped.

Richard Gage presentation: "How the Towers Fell".
This is one of the most well presented, clear cut, honest and compelling presentations regarding evidence as to the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center. Please watch if you have any doubts that the Towers were taken down by explosives.

Not a Member!


Saturday 11th August 2007 | 02:07 PM

I got out of the religion in my later teens mostly because of the hypocrisy that I saw in my Christian school and church, but also because of what i've learned in college during a writing exercise. I wanted to do some research for a story I was writing; the story was about Lucifer, and the angels. I started scouring all the online Bibles for verses, and was shocked to find only one passage, one verse, that contained any reference to his name explicitly. I thought, that's kind of weird, since he's such an important character in the Old Testament, I could have sworn reading more verses and chapters that contained his name. After much confusion, and research, I came to realize that this character, Lucifer, was a mis-translation of the original Hebrew text to Latin. The original story was about a fallen Babylonian king, and not a fallen angel. The term Lucifer was a mis-translation of the original Hebrew description of the king before his death, which was literally Day star, son of the Dawn. Lucifer, in Latin, is the Morning star, the star in the sky during Dawn... Venus.

That's when I had my biggest epiphany: that the Bible is nothing more than an old story that was translated, mis-told, mis-informed, and that persisted through time from scared people to scare and control people. This fits in well with part 1 which describes much of the Bible's stories and myths corresponding to astronomy. It also firms my beliefs that religion is outdated and no longer relevant in society.

Not a Member!

Interviews with ZEITGEIST

Sunday 12th August 2007 | 04:33 AM

I find it really helps people to hear interviews from the creator of Zeitgeist himself:

1). 6/28/07 [Full] Interview with "Zeitgeist The
Movie" creator:

2). 7/13/07: Creator of "ZEITGEIST The Movie"
Interviewed by Jeff Farias

3). 7/22/07 [Full] Interview with ZEITGEIST THE MOVIE

Not a Member!


Sunday 12th August 2007 | 06:52 AM

As a seasoned 911 researcher, I can tell you in all sincerity that just the mention of hijacked planes in Zeitgeist, or in any other quarter, is the product of either dis-information or ignorance.

For those who are interested, NPT (no plane theory) represents a growing number of individuals who, through meticulous observation and analysis, have come to realize that the media broadcast fake images of planes on 911.

Believing the government’s fairytale of planes is the central problem with fully understanding the 911 event. There were no planes, only spoofed images, manipulated witnesses and falsified evidence.

Many will scoff at the idea of fake imagery shown on national TV, after all, everyone saw the planes hit the buildings live on their faithful TV sets - didn’t they?

No, they didn’t. What was shown were manipulated film clips created in advance and fed to a shocked, frightened, angry and confused public.

The evidence of the media using fake video imagery is becoming clear. False-flag ops are well known to influence political agendas and the media has long been a working partner in government propaganda. When study of the 911 event includes government controlled TV video evidence, any research will reflect a disparity between fact and fiction.

NPT explains many of the problems that often confuse 911 researchers.

A Boeing jet’s body is not solid - it’s composed mostly of thin aluminum sheeting around a lightweight aluminum frame. As soon as a plane makes contact with a solid object at high speed, the contact point loses integrity and crumbles. The faster the speed, the faster and more destructive the result. Even a small bird can inflict serious damage.

However, on 911 “official live” media coverage depicted a large passenger jet entering the WTC South Tower without the slightest damage to the plane. In fact, this SFX film was shown over and again as the plane’s wings (its most vulnerable parts) sliced through steel beams and several floors of concrete as if those wings were made of indestructible, razor-edged titanium. When you slow the film down, the Trade Center even momentarily seals itself around the wound!

In reality, collision with a WTC Tower would result in wings, fuselage and other plane parts adhering to the face, many pieces falling to the ground below and heavier ones such as engines and the landing gears maybe entering the Tower between the steel columns. In a real collision, burning fuel would also stream down the front of the building.

We saw none of this on 911 - in fact, for the first time in aviation history, on Sept 11, 2001 four large Boeing aircraft and their engines, landing gears, seats, luggage, wings, tail sections and all the passengers completely vaporized and disappeared from the face of the earth never to be seen again.

Yeah right, sure they did. Wrong; there were no planes and here’s why.

Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, or not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.

A red flag should pop up whenever you hear “learned scholars” discussing planes and the 911 event.

By broadcasting fake video of planes, the media along with the real perps, is complicit in mass murder and the ongoing cover up of this atrocity.

For further research on the subject of TV fakery, I invite you to watch the ‘September Clues’ video series. Watching (and thinking) may help open your eyes to just how deep the rabbit hole runs.

See it here: http://www.searchronpaul.com/

# # #

Not a Member!

Mitra Guy

Sunday 12th August 2007 | 11:21 AM

I've read some of the opinions of people who saw the film, and I would say that this film is best seen if you already know that what they depict it's true.

I was almost like everybody here, but after reading, watching films, and digging up, I finally think that even history that we know as a fact has been tempered with all the way. I would not trust any history telling text purportedly written more than a couple centuries ago.

Giving up religion is the hardest thing to do. We've been stamped with it since we were kids. It's hard but it's not difficult.

Something else, somebody embedded a pic from the pentagon crash. He ignores this picture does not show debris all over the place, but some scrap that's been analyzed in length by others, and that does not belong to any plane the kind that we were told hit.

Not a Member!


Sunday 12th August 2007 | 12:31 PM

The thing that makes me think, is when they say, "Everyone is going to be blinded by the media, they won't know that we're going to take over them."

...well, isn't Zeitgeist media as well? What's the difference for them giving the idea they are right, or the other people are right? Who do we trust now?

Not a Member!


Sunday 12th August 2007 | 08:47 PM

There is also a large amount of people in the 9/11 truth movement that disagree with the NPT (No Plane Theory). Basically it rests on the interpretation of the visual evidence (photos) and eyewitness' accounts. There are many eyewitnesses who claim they saw a plane with the characteristics of a 757 hit the pentagon. A fewer amount say they saw a smaller plane, perhaps a drone. The visual evidence is not so clear as access to videotape of the event is not made public except for a sequence from 2 pentagon surveilance cameras pointed toward the crash site, and also the government issued photos of the wreckage and bodies from inside the Pentagon.

Previous photographs of plane fires show how fire can be devastating to a plane. From what these pictures show fire from jet fuel can nearly disintegrate plane seats and all. Also there are studies done to show that planes crashing into solid objects like thick walls are often reduced to unrecognizable piles of rubble.

The pictures from the pentagon are vague to say the least. But they do prove that a significant fire was unleashed upon impact and the force of the plane against the reinforced walls of the Pentagon might have reduced the plane to unrecognizable rubble.

The NPT also says nothing credible as to what happened to all the passengers on the 9/11 planes.

More investigation into this topic is desperately needed just as much as raised awareness about the deliberate destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11 is most important. The WTC collapse is the most transparent government lie that if given enough media scrutiny may help bring people out of this fog about the shrouds the truth about the government and the looming global crisis.

Not a Member!


Monday 13th August 2007 | 06:12 AM

"The 9/11 Commission report for instance is "unsubstantiated, non peer-reviewed, non-documented, lies", but that doesn't seem to bother Joe.

Yet he still leaves you with "Yes, unfortunately the current gov't is borderline facist - it will take incredible will of the people to peacefully take back our constitution."

All that insight, but no ability to look deeper. "

All that insight and much more, not to be wasted on ignorant people who label others based on race, creed, or populist feelings.

"I bet Joe didn't even watch the film. "
I bet you're wrong! :)

"To people like Joe, which is a large amount of people mind you, anything that makes Joe feel uncomfortable must be "shit". "

Actually, it is human nature to respond to psychological torture with negative reactions.

"It's similar to the "that guy wears a tourban, he must be a terrorist" - or "the crime rate is clearly due to the black people." Joe hasn't found the ability to look deeper. "

It's individual humans you are dealing with - why are you such a racist Richard?

I'm thrilled to hear that you take each individual as a comparison of my early morning replies to the visual psychodrama of "Zeitgeist" and compare them to how much like me they must be.

Grow up, and don't label people based on their affiliations - evaluate people on merits. This is a movie - it's merits were based on supposition and a primary Acharya S author who just fulfills her existence by claiming she has some knowledge of myths that nobody else does? Oh and she doesn't mind sharing her knowledge, as long as you agree with her completely - sounds like her own little religion to me!

"He, like the Christians and other people who blindly follow faith - blindly aceepts that it's simply "not that bad" - regardless of how much DOCUMENTED historical precedent there is for the information shared in Zeitgeist.

Poor Joe. I urge him to pick up a history book - learn how Hitler came into power... "

Once again you assume that history doesn't repeat itself. And once again, you assume knowledge others may or may not have based on one little film is the be all and end all of determining the future. Lighten up.

"and most importantly watch the entire film."
Most importantly learn physics and scholarly argument. Learn to question everything. Choose your own path instead of being swayed by a funhouse video docudrama. Treat humans with respect, not pity. You're no better than them :) That's for sure!

Not a Member!


Monday 13th August 2007 | 06:13 AM

Thank you for your exquisite logic Hakim!

Not a Member!


Monday 13th August 2007 | 06:57 AM

Questioning 9/11 is very sensible - as is being aware of the losses of freedoms being handed to Americans. However, prefacing this psychodrama with a pagan rant takes a lot of credibility away from it.

Not a Member!

Glen Gunderson

Monday 13th August 2007 | 09:15 AM

How can we know for sure? Seems simple really, think Myth Busters. Recreate the eventas accuratly as possible.

I know that I would donate money towards the rebuilding of the towers in an unpopulated area and craching airplanes into them.

If they fall then the matter it settled. If they stand then the American peolpe need to start throwing people in jail.

Frankly the soon we do this the better.

Not a Member!

Mitra Guy

Monday 13th August 2007 | 11:47 AM

This goes to Joe,

The point the movie is trying to make, and why the religion rants you mention are part of it, is easily seen in the introductory part.

We see the end of evolution giving way to a hand that writes 1+1=2. That means logic. But another hand in black (probably referring to dark powers), changes that for a bible and an American flag.

I think that bible and that flag represent religion and patriotism overtaking logic.

In short, in the name of patriotism and religion, the men in black can have us do whatever they want, for their own interest.

No need to "debunk" this one :)

Not a Member!


Monday 13th August 2007 | 06:35 PM

Wow... I saw the movie a week ago, and went looking for commentary, not finding much. I tried again today and found this page. I've copied all of the posts into a file that I'm thinking could form the basis of an interesting case study for critical thinking skills and belief management.

I enjoyed the movie, although there was nothing particularly new in it -- all of the comparative religion, false-flag and 9/11 stuff is available elsewhere. The quality of the arguments seems frightfully poor -- lot of argument by 'obviousness' (something is obvious, you're just not accepting it or doing the sufficient research) and a ton of name-calling.

I believe that belief is chosen, often for unconscious reasons, and since our brains are amazing meaning-making machines, we tend to find support for what we believe. Someone asked 'what would it take for you to change your mind?' -- excellent question for people to ask themselves.

A truly scientific skepticism and agnosticism is rare, even in scientists. Conspiracies obviously happen; people hide their motivations routinely. There is no line in the sand past which a conspiracy becomes 'too crazy to be true.' Big lies are sold routinely. Power indeed corrupts, in families, businesses and nations.

The only conclusion I drew from the movie -- and from the posts here, aside from the critical thinking case study -- is that anyone who feels strongly ought to either get involved or let it go. I agree with the person who called much of this talk mental masturbation (which can be great fun of course), but there are steps that individuals can take. If you don't like laws, get involved in trying to write and pass better legislation. Someone recently said that the sign of a "conspiracy theory" -- in the derogatory/dismissive sense of the word -- is that there is nothing to be done but talk about it.

Critical thinking skills is a rare subject in our public schools. More often children are told what to think, told what is right and wrong, told what "we" believe, and we don't start thinking critically automatically as we grow older; it's a skill that needs to be honed. Parents and teachers: teach children what it means to think and how to do it. Ask them to question authority, to question belief, to question everything -- in particular, be watchful of people with particularly strong opinions and don't let their passion sway you. It's a messy business, having an open mind, particularly in teenagers : ) but I if we're going to improve our world, I think we need free-thinkers.

Sorry for being a bit off topic... Perhaps the very point of the movie is to comment on people's belief, as if the filmmaker was saying: look how easy it is to manipulate belief...

Not a Member!


Tuesday 14th August 2007 | 04:47 AM

This will be fairly long and off the cuff but bare with it - well worth reading. I hope.
First - arguing over the internet is like running in the special olympics...Even if you win, you're still retarded. So why dont everyone stop bashing each other. You get nowhere.
Admittedly, I am no expert in any particuliar field presented in this movie, but I have been officially IQ'ed at a genius level with stats in favour of critical and abstract thinking and have watched this film and think there are several things to consider after reading many of the posts here and would like to believe there are a few things I could contribute:
First - the video (on the official page) if you took the time to browse the page, has a menu, in which the Author of this movie clearly states - "I do not expect you to accept this movie as truth, but merely as an opening point for you, the viewer, to dig deeper, ask question and make a decision for your self".
In the case of Rodney on here who demands facts. Lets look at several things. First, the making of film and presentation of very deep analytical discussions can be an awefully daunting task. try it sometime. Fitting mounds of information into a short timeframe can result in the loss of key details or even a seemingly loss of direction that looked good on paper. Why do you think Hollywood movies have 100 million dollar budgets to tell even the simplist of stories? It takes many people and many dollars to keep a story straight and on track - and my guess is this documentary didnt have an enormous budget nor a cast of thousands to present it. In addition to that, I think this author wanted to present the material in a way that would be accessible to the masses. Im sorry to say it, but the average person is so dumbed down by media these days that if it exceeds a certain amount of time - people just lose interest. Thats why commercials are 30 secs long. But they feel like 2 mins - dont they? So you also have to present things very quickly in order to get the point across and then let the viewer dig deeper upon their own will. A documentary on religion alone could easily be a 2 month DVD set with Christian Scientists and Religious Zellits all stating their cases. And no piece of art, news or other public offering be infused without some form of personal sentiment or drive. To say you do something without any bias period, is an outright lie and characteristically inhuman. Its a core intinct in humans to bring self emotion and interest into the things we do. But this doesnt automatically make things false or dismissable in my opinion.
But my guess as to the reason why this was included has something to do with the fact, that all throughout 'you know whose campaign' and even through the presidency - his religious beliefs were clearly plastered over the TV screen. and if the longest running fairy tale of religion could be used to separate, enrage and enslave the mass populations - why certainly couldn't it simply be applied to Government? He' s certainly entitled to his own beliefs and religious practice, but, what ever happened in America to "Separation of Church and State"?

I know, for myself, I dont take this video as gospel and the utter truth, but there is some quite compelling points. So lets take a brief look.
A good friend of mine is an architect who specializes in commercial buildings. I asked him some questions about the validity of the collapse of the WTCs. Without careful study of all the facts, he could not make conclusive statements as to the results, but he did agree (not having seen zeitgeist) that the structural collapse in a pancake fashion of a building like that was highly improbable without structural tampering. And he's uses the best in 3D structural CAD design programms all day long. To the gentleman who made claims about the microchip and said that its range was .025 mm of read capability. I believe you are skewing the principle of the word-meaning "track" to one of literal consequence. Its not a Satellite focused on you hiding in a cave somewhere in the Andes mountains, rather, you are processed at every move, whether you pass a border, purchase a candy bar at a Quickmart or visit a hospital. your movements are tracked just as easily as your credit card and cell phone. Look at your statement from each month. It tells you exactly where you shopped, or which number you called, the number of minutes and from where you called from. Anybody that can access that info can easily describe your lifestyle and with who you communicate with already. If you want to find eerie connections, take the current Visa commerical with speed pass. In the commecial they show Happy Happy Americans all in cue making their purchases with credit cards in a zippity zap fashion. But uh oh, here comes the guy with cash- *wah wah*- frowns abound. Ostrisized and frowned upon by others. "Look at this loser still using cash" seems to be the message. Get with the "in crowd". Well, eradicate currency and what do you have? An Illusion of wealth that can be wiped out with a click of a button. All backed by who? The FED and big business banks. Let it sink in for a minute.
The cell phone. hmmm. How many pay phones you ever see anymore? Is this technical progression or gentle manipulation? Is there a reason why they had to remove them? Or could they have just left them anyhow? Phones often run out of batteries, lose signals whatever. Look at your phone statement next time at the "taxes" section. Your Federal government takes a nice little portion each month as well as the phone company along with taxes that have no definition and no explanation. Why? Response when I asked such companies - No reason could be explained as to the tax charges, only simply stated "that just what it is". Which doesnt sound like much of n answer if you ask me - isnt it normal in all other circumstance of business that you purchase something and the proprietor of business pays the government a portion of that as tax as a fee of running a business? Get everyone on cellphones and you have complete control at your disposal - especially with the corrupt Patriot Act that removes your primary constitutional rights in the name of Terror.
If you dont have a degree at a PHD level or higher in any of the presented movie topics, I dont think it prudent for anyone dismissing information based on your "gut feeling". If you have questions about the validity of certain statements presented, turn off your TV and go to a library - and research for yourself instead of stating "I need more facts and proof". Alot of it exist out there for you to discover and certainly wont be handed to you on a silver platter. Those that hold the power will always want to retain it and will do whatever necessary to retain it. Its the major pitfall and saddest characteristic of human beings - Greed and the ego of Power.

Those that planned this, if that happens to be the case, are highly intelligent and very good at covering their tracks. Its a learned behavior and practiced for centuries, and believe me, they will have turned every stone to accomplish that before it ever crosses your mind. They will employ the central technique of all master magicians - the illusion through distraction. Even if you dont believe in the "conspiracy", the GWB administration has so abused its powers while in office - its chilling. And look at the headlines today- 'Rove Quits'. A systematic rank resignation of every close personal friend and advisor, in pancake fashion before the end of his term, which leaves them non-liable and untouchable for any actions while performed in office, plus the back up of presidential pardon as fail safes. Wake up people or be swallowed into a world of dissolution and euphoric-blinded ignorance. Good luck everybody!

Not a Member!

Important News

Tuesday 14th August 2007 | 06:10 AM


Please listen to this Webster Tarpley interview,
where he details what is going on and the severity of the issue.

The article below details the little known truth regarding the The Fascist Nazi interests of George W Bush's Grandfather, Prescott Bush, as he and others attempted to overthrow the US government in the 1930s in order to install a fascist dictatorship. This is important in order to understand the true motivations behind The Bush Family and why they need to be stopped.

Richard Gage presentation: "How the Towers Fell".
This is one of the most well presented, clear cut, honest and compelling presentations regarding evidence as to the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center. Please watch if you have any doubts that the Towers were taken down by explosives.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 14th August 2007 | 11:36 PM

Who cares if this is true or not true?
One simple fact is that power corrupts, so don't belive everything the "power" is trying to sell.
Think for yourself.
Don't go mad and distrust every authority you find, but be skeptic..

You don't have to be a hippie to think for yourself maan..

Peace :P

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 04:07 AM

I just watched this flick for the first time yesterday, and afterwards was amazed. The first thing I wanted to do was find a way to put it on prime time network television. There were a couple of issues I had with their info, but they were very convincing. Then I started doing some more thinking, and finally did some researching.

I know nothing about part 3, I'm already an atheist, so I don't care about part 1, so I focused on part 2.

You really should know that I have been a lifelong Republican, but since 2000, have developed such a hate for Bush and his neo-cons that the majority of my friends call me a liberal. I have said since the beginning that invading Iraq was wrong, and have been actively against all the laws he's been able to get passed that strip away our Constitutional rights. Not to mention he's getting deeper in debt than we've ever been before.

I would be an easy person to convince that Bush and his boys had something to do with 9/11. But even after seeing Zeitgeist, I don't buy it. I know for a fact he took full advantage of the fact it happened, and that he has used it for illegal actions to bankroll the private industry holdings of a select few, and to create a permanent hold for us in the middle east, to ensure we will have oil as long as there is oil to be had. I know that while the people of the U.S. want out of Iraq, we are currently building 14 permanent military bases there for our own purposes. I know that everything that needledick skunkfucker does is underhanded and deceitful, and is buried under several metric tons of Texas bullshit.

But he wasn't behind 9/11.

I haven't read this entire page, so if this is old news to some of you, forgive me, but if it is, your mind is made up and participating repeatedly in this blog is rather pointless.

Anyway, the common theme by Conspiracy Theorists (CTs) says that Bush used 9/11 to give him a reason to invade Iraq, which would ultimately lead to a never ending war thanks to the instability in the region.

First, Bush didn't need anything to invade Iraq. That was one of his campaign promises during the 2000 election. No one seems to remember that after 9/11, but it was one of his selling points to the neo-cons for their votes. He already had everything he needed.

And if he went to the inconceivable lengths he would have had to have gone to to pull off something like 9/11, getting thousands of eyewitnesses to lie, including those that had family and friends killed, why in the world didn't he have the trail point to Iraq, or better yet, Saddam? Bin Laden was probably the worst choice they could have made as far as picking the person to blame for it. In fact, Bin Laden being named as the man behind it all completely screwed up the ability to use 9/11 for a reason to invade Iraq. Many higher ups including the Bush family, had close business ties with others in the Bin Laden family (he wasn't exactly a favorite son), some of which were in this country at the time. Bush had to arrange for them to be flown out of the country AFTER the attacks, and the airspace over the country was frozen. A 10 year old kid would been smart enough to get the family out of here long before the incident if it was their own son they were going to blame.

Besides, Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia, and was based out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, NOT Iraq. Then there was the fact that Bin Laden and Saddam were sworn enemies. They hated each other. How the hell was he going to link them together to justify an invasion. Well, the answer is it wasn't going to be easy.

He tried over and over again to link the two, but no evidence, not even a shred, could be found. So, they fell back on the plan they had before 9/11: WMD's. And it worked. He invaded. And even though it's a well known fact that everything he used to justify the invasion was a flat out lie, we're still there. We always will be.

As far as the guy that swears there were no planes, smoke another joint. You are so far gone, it's not even worth it.

As far as the pentagon goes, here are a few links that sufficiently prove a 757 hit it. Nothing I've seen disproves these:




And if you can't clearly see the impact spot, of the plane and wings, in this picture, give it up because your eyes are sewn shut.


BTW, when they showed them pouring dirt and rocks at the pentagon to "bury the evidence", as they said in Zeitgeist, they failed to mention that it was done to give the hundreds of trucks some type of road for traction to use while hauling out load after load after load of debris.

Just one more example of the movie taking something out of context.

As far as the twin towers collapsing are concerned, Zeitgeist shows a 4 second clip of the guy that designed and built them saying they were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. That clip came from an hour+ show with him interviewed in which he had much more to say. See it for yourself:


That was one of the red flags about the movie; I knew when I saw that clip that they were taking the comment out of context, and if they did it there, how many other times did they do that?

As far as building 7, I don't understand the logic. Have you not seen the extensive damage on the south side? Coupled with the fires, which you can see the smoke from in any number of videos, and it's own weight, and it comes down. Everyone that saw it from the south side knew it was going to fall.

Here are more legitimate sites with info that pertains to the towers coming down:


A steel structure building that collapsed in a fire in 1967:


A report on fire safety by inspectors...


A FEMA report on the collapse of a rigid steel structure theater due to fire:


BTW, Alex Jones has been a crackpot CT as far back as anyone can remember. 9/11 was a gift to him in the same way as it was to Bush; both would use it to death falsely as propaganda to promote their own agendas.

And last but not least, I leave you with this. An Atheist blog that was visited by one of the guys that made Zeitgeist. His entries start about halfway down. He makes it very clear what he's all about.


Folks, I would be fine with blaming Bush and his boys for this, I blame them for just about everything else, but the truth is he didn't do this. He took advantage of it, but he didn't do it. In reality, it screwed up the plans he already had for going in and taking over Iraq, making it that much more work to do. But, if you feel better believing he did it, knock yourself out. But you're mistaken.

Take care,

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 04:11 AM

I misunderstood the code tags allowed. I tried to embed the picture, and instead in italicized everything after. That was an accident, please don't try and read something else into it. :)

Take care,

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 06:07 AM

Well put, Chris! Some great sources in there. The pentagon links have some crazy detail.

Oh and your italics problem seems to have been magically fixed ;)

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 08:29 AM

In response to Chris:

"And last but not least, I leave you with this. An Atheist blog that was visited by one of the guys that made Zeitgeist. His entries start about halfway down. He makes it very clear what he's all about."

Hey Chris, the producer of Zeitgeist is named Peter not Tim, and if you were smart enough you could compare the discussion of the guy behind the narration in the film, the guy who has given several radio interviews, to this lunatic who named himself "Tim from Zeitgeist" and easily see they are not the same person.

I was intrigued by your writing at first but your credibility was blown out the window upon reading this assumption and that you clearly seem to believe TIM is from Zeitgeist without even considering the fact that in a public blog people can claim to be whoever they wish.

You make some good points though.. I wrote earlier that the no plane theory is highly contested within the truth movement itself. You do a good job pointing out the evidence that suggests a real plane did hit the building.

But your rambling on Bush's motivation for war are wholly short-sighted. You need to consider more facts than just what you lay out. The simple fact is that in no way could Bush, without approval from Congress, could begin a war against Iraq or Afganistan without a pre-text--an event to rally the will of the people.

You also gloss over what many experts say about the WTC collapse and the laws of physics that should be paid attention to when attempting to explain this phenomenon. There is an orgy of evidence that gives way to an explanation that goes beyond a fire. Even the 911 Commision Report itself suggests that it was extremely unlikely that a building like this would collapse soley from a fire and suggests further investigation.

The design of the steel framed (warehouse) building you claimed collapsed isn't even comparable to the advanced structural design of the WTC skyscrapers.

You claim you have the truth but your arguement is full of holes just like countless others and therefore easily dismissable. Work on those debating skills buddy and come back and see us.

This Peter dude explicitely says he wishes for people to not take the movie as literal truth. It is a springboard (call is sensationalism or psychodrama) to get people thinking about the events and the world in ways counter to what the media and the government suggest. It's working too...

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 12:37 PM

PKRWUD: your sources are biased and they support the govt official story as they were paid for by the very same govt. Gee wonder why. FEMA, and the like are all govt funded orgs - why on EARTh would they report ANYTHING that went against the people giving them money to survive?

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 12:37 PM

PKRWUD: your sources are biased and they support the govt official story as they were paid for by the very same govt. Gee wonder why. FEMA, and the like are all govt funded orgs - why on EARTh would they report ANYTHING that went against the people giving them money to survive?

Not a Member!

Listen to the man himself

Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 12:39 PM

1). 6/28/07 [Full] Interview with "Zeitgeist The
Movie" creator:

2). 7/13/07: Creator of "ZEITGEIST The Movie"
Interviewed by Jeff Farias

3). 7/22/07 [Full] Interview with ZEITGEIST THE MOVIE

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 01:27 PM

Jeff, I'm playing nice. You don't have to infer that I'm stupid, or completely discredit the evidence I shared because of a blog.

I watched the movie, I checked the sources, etc. I wanted to believe the movie. But I started seeing names in the source credits that are known for their crackpot theories, just like Bush was full of shit with his WMD's in Iraq crap. There are still people today that hang on to that as truth simply because they want it to be true, much like many of the source credits in Zeitgeist.

I read the blog, and there was a tape of the radio show with a man named Tim speaking with a man named Peter J who were both responsible for the movie. No, I do not have irrefutable evidence that this Tim was in fact the one that made the movie, but there wasn't any proof to the contrary, either. So, I gave everyone the address of the entire blog so they could read it for themselves.

Regarding Congress going to war, 9/11 was not the reason given. Like I said, if Bush was behind this, it would have been SO much easier to pin it on Saddam. Then we never would have had to waste time in Afghanistan. 9/11 made invading Iraq more difficult. The reasons given to justify invading Iraq were that Saddam had repeatedly violated orders to allow inspectors in, which, Bush insisted, must mean he was hiding something. He had documentation that proved Saddam was in fact trying to obtain the materials to build WMD's, he had that before he was even elected president in 2000. That was the smoking gun he was going to use to get Congress to permit the invasion. And he thought he had the UN as a back up plan. If, for some unforseeable reason, Congress denied him, he could still invade in the name of the UN. As it turned out, the UN turned him down, so they upped the ante and produced a new claim that British Intelegence discovered Saddam was trying to get materials from Africa. It was at this point that Congress made it's biggest mistake. With Bush insisting this was the proof that Saddam was months, possibly weeks, from having active WMD's, Congress voted in both houses to hand over the power to make the decision to go to war to the president. They did this because they felt threatened by Saddam, not because of Bin Laden in Afghanistan. At the time, we were told Afghanistan was all but finished. We cleaned that mess up.

Congress gave the president the power to go to war without having to get final approval from them, anytime he felt it was necessary. They also gave him permission to use nuclear weapons, but fortunately that hasn't happened yet.

See, he never planned to invade until March, 6 months after Congress gave him the power, but he knew if he didn't get the authority when he did, in October of 2002, then by the time he was ready to invade, Congress may have had a change of heart. He made it sound like we were going get nuked by Saddam any day if we didn't hurry up and get in there, because he was supposedly the threat to us.

It is true that the American public was still swept up in emotion after 9/11, but that was just icing on the cake. The people didn't decide how Congress voted, or even why.

As far as the towers, please go watch the video I linked to. I don't know where you're from, but in the US, one of the only credible media outlets is Public Broadcasting. Neo-cons attack them as bein g too liberal, but they usually present the facts without any opinions, and allow the viewer to decide for themselves. This was a special episode of their science and technology show called Nova, and it addressed why the towers fell. Perhaps the most interesting interview in the whole film is that with the gentleman that designed and built the trade center. I'm not telling you what to think, I'm just offering you an accurate, quality interview with perhaps the man most qualified to discuss how the building should have responded to the events of 9/11. Watch it for yourself. As I recall, the program doesn't decide what ultimately was responsible, but they go over the possibilities. If you want to make your view on this whole subject one based in truth and not in someone elses fiction, don't you owe it to yourself to seek out the credible sources of information?

As far as comparing the fire in Chicago in 1967 to the trade centers, actually, you're right; the towers also suffered the impact of a 757 jet at 500 mph, and they had much, much more collateral weight to support. The similarities between the two are both collapsed when the trusses failed do to the heat from the fire.

I have seen the CT websites, remember, I wanted to believe it was true. Every single one says "this has never happened before." They're right, it hasn't. from either perspective. That can be used as equal evidence on both sides.It hasn't happened before, so we can't show you where it did. But also because it hasn't happened before, you can't show us where it didn't happen, but would have if we are correct.

The CT sites also like to point out things like the melting point of steel, which is twice as high as it would need to be to damage steel. But even then, it was the simple trusses failing that made them go down.

At least, with all the evidence that I've seen, that is the only conclusion I can arrive at.

See, this is what I really didn't want to do. I type one finger at a time, so this takes me a while. I really tried to provide you all the concise evidence you would need, as well as the truth as I know it why it would have been incredibly impractical for Bush to have had anything to do with it. But I need you to review it before you call it into question. I sincerely believe that you will come to the same conclusion as I have after reviewing everything, and taking into consideration it's credibility.

One last thing. I don't know where you're from, but I'm leaning towards someplace outside of the US. The only reason I say that is virtually everyone in this country knows that Bush could never orchestrate something like this. He almost choked to death on a pretzel while watching a football game! His damn dog saved him.

Some of his better quotes...

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

"They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

(video of the last one: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/movies/0805041bush.mov)

"First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the country." -- on the Kyoto accord, April 24, 2001

And of course my favorite...

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say 'this is the way it's gotta be.' I don't think our troops ought to be used for 'nation building'" -- Houston, Texas, 2000

Take care,

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 01:40 PM

To whoever decided to use a reference to me rather than their name, look, if you just want to start shit for no reason, do it with someone else. Don't throw a jacket over everything I've shared simply because one report was written by FEMA. That report was written in 1997. Do you not see how ridiculous this makes you look? You obviously aren't interested in the truth, so why waste these peoples time?

I completely agree that people should seek the answers for themselves, but not if you are going strike down everything, regardless of it's accuracy, simply because it doesn't say what you need for it to.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

The movie does a great job of getting peoples attention, and I feel it should be watched, if for no other reason so that people will; go and find the truth on their own.

What really sucks the most, however, is this is actually providing a nice little distraction for everyone rather than focusing on the real, legitimate crimes that this administration has committed, and should be impeached over.

But you just keep playing your games.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 02:04 PM

Jeff (and anyone else interested),
I owe you an apology. The video link I posted was just a 70 second tease for the show. Oddly enough, it did cover some of the important details, but it wasn't the link I thought it was. They apparently have taken the full show down because of the new show next month, or I just wasn't able to find it. Feel free to look for it.

They do have a new show premiering next month, and they have a clip that specifically answers your very question, and probably more. The interviewer is NOVA producer Larry Klein, and the person he's talking to is civil engineer S. Shyam Sunder.



Not a Member!

Poor Ignorant PKRWUD

Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 02:30 PM

Nova - the same show that showed the buildings "pancaking" in their 3d imagery with the 47 core columns still standing - yeah - nice one.

Richard Gage presentation: "How the Towers Fell".
This is one of the most well presented, clear cut, honest and compelling presentations regarding evidence as to the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center. Please watch if you have any doubts that the Towers were taken down by explosives.

But, all you elitist, arrogant, unwilling to listen to new information jackasses won't watch this one. I was=tched the NOVA one. It's bullshit. They were funded by the same ppl that carried out 9/11 to report that it wasn't an inside job - gee...


how could they have possibly come up with what they did?
I dont know.

Seems like it must be true. Nova is as true as FEMA NIST 911 Commission and the rest of the gov't sponsored orgs to defend the gov theory.

Silly me. Of course Nova and the rest are right!


Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 02:35 PM



Tear it a new one.

If you try to give my one of your Nova/NIST/FEMA/911 Commission reports - I must remind you, I have seen them. They are nonsense. They are ignoring all the relevant evidence. If you find them to be true and you stand by them, you will defned your issue.
The different between Richard Gage's presentation and Nova and the rest is Richard and those in his school of realization of reality, they have looked at all angles.

I am waiting with baited breathe. By the way "PKRWUD". you are teh 5th person to bail out and NOT even respond to this challenge.

~ C

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 02:35 PM

LINK to Richard:



Tear it a new one.

If you try to give my one of your Nova/NIST/FEMA/911 Commission reports - I must remind you, I have seen them. They are nonsense. They are ignoring all the relevant evidence. If you find them to be true and you stand by them, you will defned your issue.
The different between Richard Gage's presentation and Nova and the rest is Richard and those in his school of realization of reality, they have looked at all angles.

I am waiting with baited breathe. By the way "PKRWUD". you are teh 5th person to bail out and NOT even respond to this challenge.

LINK to Richard:

~ C

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 02:54 PM

Hi Chris,

I live smack dab in the middle of the continental U.S. I'm educated and have enough time to research mental masturbation such as this. That's funny you assume I live somewhere else. Behold, an American! A Patriot!

Buddy, I'm sure you mean well, but no one here knows the truth. But what we realize is that there is enough hard evidence to warrant a further investigation into the WTC. IF you can't see that you need to keep looking...

If you're looking for material to counter the 9/11 truth movement, let me help you and take a look at this, this is linked directly from the US State Dept FAQ page on 9/11 conspiracy theories.


I'm sure you'll find all you need here. But wait, talk to someone else who is educated on these matters and I bet he could point to flaws in this particular analysis.


Many people including physicists and architects have commented on the Nova show and this particular article above and give logical enough reasoning to open debate at to the truthfullness of it all.

The 9/11 commission report is a joke.

That's the way it goes man...the idea to get not beat each other up over what we think is the truth, but to show what we know and try to get people to open their eyes to possibility...

Not a Member!


Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 08:28 PM

Wow, this movie really sparked some debate. That's good.

But there's a problem with that and it is as apparent on this forum as every other forum on internet: people are biased.

People have their opinions and their biases and no matter what anyone else ever says, people will stick to them. If someone believes something -anything- enough, then no amount of evidence will ever sway them from that.

For every piece of evidence supporting or contradicting the 9/11 conspiracy (and pretty much all conspiracies), there is another piece doing the opposite. Will Side A ever convince Side B? Probably not. Will Side A or B ever debate with the other side on any topic without resorting to ad hominem arugments? On the internet, never.

The only indisputable fact about all of this is that no one knows the whole story and we likely never will. So, in the mean time, we should each read, research and learn for -ourselves- and, should we choose to share and discusss that with others, leave the name-calling out of it...

Not a Member!

Mitra Guy

Wednesday 15th August 2007 | 08:48 PM

Planes CAN'T enter buildings:

This is not an opinion. This is an experiment that shows it's impossible.

Not a Member!


Thursday 16th August 2007 | 02:51 AM

To TY:

On the contrary Ty, there is enough evidence to reopen this case in court. Sure there are varying opinions and someone has always got evidence to point in a different directions.

We must get this done. An enormous amount of people in this country (according to some polls more than 50%) believe the government is hiding something about 9/11.

It is our duty as citizens to right this wrong, to get people to realize that they may have been lied to by its government. Richard Gage's presentation presents some very clear evidence that toppling the WTC could only be achieved by demolition explosives.

If people want to ignore this or be complacent, that is their choice. But they are contributing nothing to the future.

"There comes a time when silence is treason." - Martin Luther King JR.

Not a Member!


Thursday 16th August 2007 | 05:09 AM

An excellent movie.

If the facts as presented don't stackup to those that the masses have been indoctrinated with for hundreds of years then should this come as any surprise?

If it exposes something so radically different from that broadcast in the media (partiularly in the US your news is so modified you can have no concept of whats really happening - and sadly the rest of the world is now catching you up fast) should we be surprised this expose is causing so much debate.

Take a look at www.brasschecktv.com for more like zeitgeist. Organisations like www.confidentialaccess.com are spinging up all over the net to aid the masses in the fight against the tyranny of the few, thankfully the information is out there but you will have to forget some of the social programming you have already been subjected to.

Not a Member!


Thursday 16th August 2007 | 05:12 AM

To Jeff:

For starters, thanks for not name-calling :)

-"An enormous amount of people...believe the government is hiding something about 9/11."
Although I have no fact to back this up, I strongly suspect this could apply to most of the world, not just the United States.

-"Richard Gage's presentation presents some very clear evidence that toppling the WTC could only be achieved by demolition explosives."
Your statement here sort of proves my point. Dozens (some claims hundreds) of people have claimed the toppling had to be explosives, then dozens of people contradict that. Then dozens more defend it. Dozens more contradict, etc.

Every single argument for the explosion has been -proven- by experts and -disproven- by experts. At this point, people believe what they want to on the subject, regardless of how much "evidence" is shown to the contrary.

-"If people want to ignore this or be complacent, that is their choice. But they are contributing nothing to the future."
Sadly, I think ignorance and complacency has become the status quo.

-"'There comes a time when silence is treason.' - Martin Luther King JR."
That's a beautiful quote.

Not a Member!


Thursday 16th August 2007 | 05:18 AM

Food for thought:

First off, why does everyone assume that one side of the argument is all brain-washed sheep just because they think Gage could have stood to do a little more fact checking? As soon as someone contradicts anything the infallible Gage says, that someone automatically is a propoganda-fed, brain-washed, CNN-watching, church-attending, dance-monkey-dance robot incapable of indepdenant thought...

Secondly, why do so many people assume -their- sources are right and everyone else's sources are wrong. If people can make propoganda for one side of an argument, what makes y0u think they can't make propoganda for another side of the argument?

This whole discussion has become utterly silly because, as I said, everyone has their minds made up and nothing is going to change that...

Not a Member!


Thursday 16th August 2007 | 09:57 AM

Absolutely incredible that people will dismiss NPT out of hand without ever having reviewed the evidence.


Those who refuse to listen and learn here are plagued with double-speak syndrome. They consistently remark how the government is corrupt, yet they refer to government sources to refute the claims of 911 conspiracy theorists.


Yes it's comforting to know that we can all rest easy knowing our government and the media are keeping us safe 24 hours a day. After watching 'September Clues' a part of me thinks that TV fakery explains what really happened on 911, but then I realize, if it were true then I'd have to actually do something to bring the criminals to justice myself.

Fortunately we don't have to think much about anything. Besides, as a dependent society we're used to someone or something outside of ourselves to make us happy, healthy and whole; and our benevolent, loving government is willing to do everything for us. Isn't that wonderful? Yippeeeee, let's go shopping!

...yeah right.

# # #

Not a Member!


Friday 17th August 2007 | 03:29 AM

"Every single argument for the explosion has been -proven- by experts and -disproven- by experts. At this point, people believe what they want to on the subject, regardless of how much "evidence" is shown to the contrary. "

Show me where someone refutes Gage's arguement. That' presentation was done in June of this year and it explores what FEMA, NIST decided to gloss over.

Just curious where all the facts have been proven and disproven? I'd like to see where...

I was starting to think Ron Paul was just a set up...he's almost too good to be true. I will continue to keep an eye on this guy...

Not a Member!


Friday 17th August 2007 | 04:13 AM


What do you say of the thousands of people who were standing watching the WTC when the second plane hit? Thousands of people saw the plane, not on their televisions, but in the sky above their heads. My father was one of them.

It is argued that the info supporting the NPT is actually being fed in an attempt to discredit the truth movement and make it seem much more fallible than it really is. I don't know the truth, but i think there is strong evidence to disprove the NPT. That's just my opinion.

Looking at these videos on the www.searchronpaul.com...they are almost laughable.

I wonder what you're real objectives are? Anything in these videos I have seen so far doesn't constitute clear evidence toward disproving the NPT. If anything some of them seem like they've been deliberately tampered with or completely mislead the viewer.

I found this review of September Clues and I already was thinking the very same thing this review suggests. It's full of gimmicks. I especially love the vantage point segment. It was obvious that that one shot was taken at a vantage point higher than they other...

"The point of this documentary seems to be to support the theory, proposed by one David Shayler, that no planes were involved in the attack on the WTC, but that missiles were. The general impression I get after watching this video is that there’s something fishy here, but the documentary makers never conclusively demonstrate that it was a missile that hit the WTC. It’s as though the documentary attempts to impress the viewer with the first clip, the “fade to black”, “nose in/nose out”, etc. and then ride the rest of the “evidence”, such as different brightness/colors at different angles, on the coattails of that first clip.

Then let’s look at the “missile path” clips, from 20:00, to 23:00, and specifically the side-by-side of the two clips at 21:28. The docu attempts to assert that these clips could not have been taken from different vantage points. However, a simple comparison will show that the clip on the left is taken from a vantage point above and to the left of the clip on the right, which would cause the path of the plane to appear more diagonal across the screen. Even looking at the clip on the right-hand side, you can still see the plane coming in from an angle, not directly from the side. “Is your intelligence insulted yet?” Yes, but insulted by this documentary.

And then useless-yet-interesting information about planted eyewitness accounts and complicity in the coverup at all the news networks as well as details about the Pentagon strike. As if we didn’t already know all of this.

A shoddy piece of journalism at best, that raises some questions, but fails to answer them conclusively

A shoddy piece indeed... It doesn't take a genius to see that these are very manipulative....

Not a Member!


Friday 17th August 2007 | 04:16 AM

I still like Ron Paul...he has a proven track record. So i don't think he is a sellout or a wolf in sheeps clothing. Though I was thinking the other day that he is too good to be true. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I will continue to keep an eye on him...

Not a Member!


Friday 17th August 2007 | 07:01 AM

Quoted by Jeff:
"That's the way it goes man...the idea to get not beat each other up over what we think is the truth, but to show what we know and try to get people to open their eyes to possibility... "

I agree. It's easy to get emotional when debating a topic that one has strong feelings about, and name calling usually ensues, and everyone loses as a result. I am trying very hard to avoid that, and I appreciate your doing the same.

I wasn't implying anything negative when I suggested that I thought perhaps you lived outside of the country. It just seems that the rest of the world is of the opinion that the majority of Americans support Bush in everything he says and does, and doesn't seem to realize what an idiot a great deal of us really do see him as.

Anyway, I'm 30 minutes into Gage's 2 hour video, and am taking a break. I'll watch more of it later. So far the only thing he has convinced me of is that he believes it was an inside job. He has yet to convince me at all, but again, I'm only 1/4 of the way through his presentation.

Zeitgeist encourages everyone to do their own research, and find the truth themselves, yet I have done just that, and have been met largely (here at least) with those telling me I'm wrong. Twice now my evidence has been completely discredited, once because of a blog I left a link to, and once because one was a report by FEMA, even though the blog was not being used as evidence, and the FEMA report was written 4 years before 9/11. It seems to me that the thought here isn't to find the truth, but to find their truth. Everything else, no matter how credible, is simply dismissed.

Speaking of which, there are dozens of websites on both sides of the aisle, but http://www.911myths.com/index.html does a very good job at directly answering many of the questions and arguments that have been made, including the ones I've seen so far in Gage's video. They don't claim to have the answers, either, they just address the claims one at a time.

The main problems I have with the "inside job" theory are motive, ability, and witnesses. Bush already had a plan to invade Iraq, and ultimately used it. If anything, 9/11 made it more difficult to pull off. So why would he do it?

Do you really believe that we have the ability to pull something like this off, and not leave a more obvious trail, especially when we can't seem to do anything else right?

There would have to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who were in on it in order for it to work. There are so many leaks in so many places, how is it that no one has come forward?

BTW, I wanted to correct something I said earlier. When I was talking about the documentaion Bush used as the smoking gun against Saddam, which ultimately got Congress to grant him the power to go to war without their final approval, I meant to add that the evidence he used was technically accurate, but taken out of context. Saddam was trying to build WMD's, and was seeking other materials, but the proof he had said it was back in the 1980's that this was true. Bush implied it was much more recent.

And again, I hate the man. If it wasn't for the fact that Cheney would be the president, I'd have no problem hearing that someone knocked off Bush. I think he's the single worst leader this country has ever had, and by far the most evil. I support him in no way, shape, or form. But the evidence I've seen, and the reasoning I've heard, keep bringing me to the same conclusion: he had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'll watch the rest of Gage's video and see if that changes my mind. :)

Not a Member!


Friday 17th August 2007 | 09:38 AM

A diverse range of opinions, but some of these comments lend themselves to 'Greater Internet Dickwad Theory' ( http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/internetdickwad.jpg )

After seeing the film on the weekend I'm slightly more convinced of a 911 conspiracy but at the same time find it hard to believe the Bush administration is clever enough to pull off something like that.

Wicked site you have here btw.

Not a Member!


Friday 17th August 2007 | 10:52 AM

Reading this blog stream has got me rolling on the floor with laughter and freightened at the same time! If you took anything away from the subtle points in the movie and other links some have posted here - is that those in power retain and use it against its public by divide and conquer and get the mass population to fight amoungst themselves! And many on here are demonstrating how well it works...while you are arguing and insulting each other, nothing is being accomplished, no practicle debate, and those in charge keep on doing their thing unchecked.
Aside from the hard and fast truth that no one on here will ever truly get to the base of it unless you were to reach scholar level on all levels of Religion, Pagantry, Explosives, Demolitions, Bio Chemistry, Physics, Architecture etc etc - it all becomes hearsay and those in the position of 'aparent' authority know this. You will never be able to even have access to do direcct experiments with any of the materials from that day either. BUT. there are some - considered at expertise levels that have. So where does that leave you in the equation? To make a decision about which experts are providing truth and which that are not. How does one do that you may ask? The simple scientific act of pyschology, reason and instinct. I'll try to explain why. Pyschologically any/all humans have a certain number of tell-tale traits that give them away in situations of pressure and questioning. Posturing, facial glitches, eye contact and so on. When a person is lying or not confident in their story, they have a tendency to compensate. Look at Bush anytime he is asked questions politely by the press surrounding 911 if they are not softball questions. He shifts alot, postures at times in an aggressive stance, waves his hands, studders and retorts words of God, religion, terror and extremists. When he is confident in other topics during speeches, his posture is relaxed, he smiles, stands still and looks people in the eye. Look at Cheney, a veteran player and much cooler one at that. more of and architect of things but still has cracks in his poker face. He often glances down when answering a question, talks out the side of his mouth and always appears to be on the verge of a smirck as if to say "if you ever really knew what I know". This architect guy Richard Gage, although obviously not the most eloquent of speakers, speaks with an aire of honesty and comfort in his presentation. But as a trained body language expert, I would not falsify his statements or his presentation. He either strongly believes them and he has been duped by other experts or he simply has the facts.

Another aspect is reason. Motive. Its a core human instinct that is learned and nutured. particulary in the Western world. A system of rewards. As a child and young adult, what did you learn? Your parents may have said "clean your room and Ill give you $5 or 5 euros". or whatever. and you did so because of gain, not because you wanted to clean your room, but because maybe you could get something you wanted with that money from the toy store or so on. This behavior doesnt disappear as one gets older, it only magnifies and increases the more sophisticated we get and the greater our needs seemingly become. So, how does that factor in here. Well, you have one side making a claim or point then you have another side counterpointing or trying to disprove the other side. Which is correct? Well, if you choose to eliminate scientific fact, you have to look at who is presenting the information and what do they have to gain by presenting it? Who do these people associate with and why? How are they funded? Without having done an enormous amount of research on the backgrounds of either party I can say (out of personal opinion) that this Richard Gage guy does not appear to have anything to "gain" by presenting this information to the public. Only something to lose. Possibly his job, potentially his life or even his credibility. The govt, their agencies and federally funded broadcast agents have everything to lose and everything to gain. Halliburton - cheney's former company and stockholder - Iraq profits to date 6 billion. Enron. Worldcom (2 that fell beforehand thanks to a watchful eye). FEMA, NIST and others - all funded through the government and direct budgets set and directed, approved or disapproved by the President and his cabinet. Is Bush a genius and playing dumb like Roger Kint in the 'Usual Suspects'? I doubt it, but its posssible. More likely answer is, he is simply an elite neo-con by blood and a choosen figure head by the party, who is easily manipulated and really has no say in the final direction of any operations. Is the whole gov't a rotten and conspiritous group? Most likely not. there are many caught in the middle of the machine that are either complacent or blinded from the truth and illusions of their own need to attempt positive things. Does anyone realise that Bush has passed through 800 signing statements (if you are not aware of what a signing statement is just google it) since he has been in office, giving him and his cabinet near autonomous control of the gov't, while throughout the entire rest of history of the presidency only 600 were placed and passed.

Finally, we come to instinct. Its a blessed and unexplained mystery of the human being. Everyone as humans are granted an inane ability to perceive danger, lies, imbalances and deceptions. Problem is, technology, tv, movies, society, PCness and all these have polluted most peoples ability to tap into and actually listen and trust that. We are self defeating by all that surrounds us. Its a case of the chaos theory and Achems Razor - "All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct explanation." Dont confuse the matter. If it appears that their is a conspiracy and things wrong - chances are it is what it appears.
Below are just my opinion, so please dont waste your time discrediting it in another blog after, as I will probably never visit this page again.
PKRWUD asks:
Q:"The main problems I have with the "inside job" theory are motive, ability, and witnesses. Bush already had a plan to invade Iraq, and ultimately used it. If anything, 9/11 made it more difficult to pull off. So why would he do it?"

The reason the govt (not just Bush) would use 911 is, an insiders key to the region. First, you invade and establish camp in Afghanistan by gaining support of the general US public and UN after a "supposed" terrorist attack on US soil, and then let the CIA take over poppy seed production. They knew well in advance though that there would never be enough ground troops to cover both situations anyhow, but never intended on holding Afghanistan anyway - then created a falsified link to Iraq, terror cells and financing to get a Global Army "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq, rather than US alone, to take some heat away from the US as sole aggressors. Naturally they couldnt simply march straight in Iraq without provocation. The rest of the world would turn on the US. It had to appear the US was doing the world a favour by removing a dictatorship with WMDs. That was not accomplished in the UN because Europeans are not as narrow sighted as Americans Im sorry to say. So, they ended up going in mostly alone anyway. Motive? What more do you need than the worlds second largest oil reserve in the name of Freedom Fries. War is only profitable as long as it is sustainable. Witnesses are easy. Cia and secret ops agents walk amoungst you everywhere. If you step out of line or your family, you are exposed and discredited. - look at the Scooter Libby case. That low level CIA op Valerie Plame's husband was well outspoken about the Bush admin...and look what happened. Interesting.

Q:"Do you really believe that we have the ability to pull something like this off, and not leave a more obvious trail, especially when we can't seem to do anything else right?

Yes, that says it all. Screw up everything and you will have no apparent credit to the skeptics of your capability to pull something off of that gross nature. Additionally I would guess that that was the least of their worries, all they needed was a healthy dose of misdirection and the majority would not focus on the details. The aftermath was so controlled and cleaned up so quickly and moved to the remote location. "Kill Island" of all names, that no real independent experts were really given an opportunity to investigate. There are additional trails which you can trace for yourself in regards to money laundering and finance that were housed in the Trade Centers making it a prime target for distruction. A catastrophic disaster makes for an easy way to dispense of documents and start fresh, plus numerous other agendas that could easily play into that. Remember. this was probably not planned for weeks, most likely for years, even before Bush's eventual first election.

Q:"There would have to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who were in on it in order for it to work. There are so many leaks in so many places, how is it that no one has come forward?"

It wouldnt take tens of thousands to pull off. If you have control of the general publics mind and opinion, it only takes a few to orchestrate. The rest will do it for you by inertia. I dont think many would disagree the fact there were airplanes, but the average person has very perverse brain reactions in the event of extreme stress and personal fear. And if you ever discussed the events of that day with any 2 people near each other at street level. They might give 2 completely different stories or recounts. A plane moving at 400k overhead out of nowhere would most likely not be observed until it hit the building already. So how did it work out that so many high quality cameras were fixed on those buildings that day? Certainly some might be coincidence, but it raises an interesting question nonetheless. If you want to discuss leaks, they have ways to deal with that. Bush's administration has had more firings and changings and resignations than any other in history. A full supreme court panel erased - without explanation or trial. And opponents in Washington, such as Lawyers and other officials that lived in exclusive neighborhoods that mysteriously and quite randomly met the fate of death by robbery and beating by "young black men" as reported on the news. Very unlikely scenerios in many of the cases.

but what do I know? right? Im just some jerk-off living on the planet with no more private knowledge than anyone else on here except my willingness to leave my instincts open and listen to them. Hope this sparks some thought in some out there in cyberspace.

Not a Member!


Saturday 18th August 2007 | 09:46 AM

You clearly put a lot of thought into your thesis, and I have nothing but respect for your reasoning and your conclusions. I wouldn't even think about debating them with you because one can not debate opinions.

I did want to point out one thing that I believe you may have misunderstood; I certainly see the advantage to having control in the middle east, and I've known for years that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons of control, not to free the Iraqi people, or to protect others from an evil dictator. I've spent years trying to alert people to just how truly evil our current leader and his administration are. I completely agree with you there. The problem comes when people try to connect 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. People who support Bush have tried to link Iraq and 9/11 to justify the invasion ever since it became clear there were no WMD's, but they are wrong; there was no link. The same is true today with people who suggest that Bush needed 9/11 to invade Iraq. Again, there is no link between the two.

Bush, and more specifically, the people that would become his cabinet, had been working on a plan of their own to justify invading Iraq long before 9/11. One of Bush's campaign promises in 2000 was that he was going to take out Saddam. His people had already been gathering evidence that was as many as 12 years old, at the time, to prove that Saddam had WMD's. His plan was to invade with the help of the UN, but should that fail, he had all this doctored evidence that he was ready to present to Congress and the American people to convince them that Saddam was an imminent threat. Ultimately, it was that plan that he used to justify the invasion, not 9/11.

9/11 actually made it more difficult for him because it pointed to the wrong person. Bin Laden and Saddam were bitter enemies that absolutely hated each other. He knew he'd have a very hard time convincing anyone that Iraq was the place to go if everything pointed to Bin Laden in Afghanistan. That's why he went in there as quickly as possible, and did enough damage to convince everyone that the bad guys that attacked us were no longer a threat. Then and only then could he go about implementing his original plan.

If Bush was behind 9/11, I'd like to know what the motive was, because it clearly wasn't so that he could invade Iraq. If that had been the case, the evidence would have pointed directly to Iraq, or better, Saddam.

Anyway, as far as this Gage film, man. I had to turn it off after about 45 minutes. I'll try and watch the rest of it later, but it's just too annoying. It reminds me a lot of why I hate watching Fox News. Both present what they consider to be evidence, and spin it so that it becomes a fact that serves their needs, and then tells the viewer the only possible conclusion they must come to.. I don't work that way. I want to see "evidence", and be allowed to research it myself, and come to my own conclusions.

Less than 40 minutes into this flick, Gage has told everyone that he has already proven that WTC7 was taken down by explosives, but he's done no such thing! For one thing, a big piece of his argument so far revolves around people knowing that the building was going to come down. He's automatically decided that can only mean one thing, but he's wrong. Every report I've seen clearly stated that the damage to WTC7 was so severe at the base that everyone who saw it knew it was going to come down. If it didn't come down on it's own, it would eventually be torn down because the damage was too severe to repair. That's why they pulled all the firefighters out of there, moved the base station, and basically ignored the building, not wasting time on a lost cause. And this is my favorite part; the implication that not only was Bush behind it, but so was the BBC and every other media outlet, and they were given scripts! That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a very long time. He also shows pictures he claims are of molten metal, proof of explosives having been used. But he's wrong there, too. To achieve what he claims would take ridiculous amounts of explosives. The reaction between iron and steam is very exothermic and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 and hydrogen. It is the classic example of a reversible reaction studied in Chemistry labs at high school. This is a much more plausible answer.

There's also a video out there that I've seen that clearly shows smoke escaping from every bit of the south face of the building, not to mention the severe damage that went from the roof all the way to the ground, right in the middle. It's crystal clear to me, from the evidence I've seen, and the lack of credibility, and clear inaccuracies in the evidence I've seen Gage present, so far, that there was nothing abnormal or unusual with WTC7, and the fact it came down. But I will do my best to watch the rest of Gage's film.

It's becoming pretty clear to me that all the people that reference Gage didn't bother to check out his "facts", and just accepted them as being accurate. That's very dangerous.

Now then, let's glance at how large the cover-up would have to be.

All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...

-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history.

-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their life to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the mass murder of over 300 of their brothers.

I have heard a myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this, though. One person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some claim.

I've also heard about an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. The CT sites twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.



Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this, that they are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner.

-The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]

-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation.

-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel.

-All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime.

-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls.

-The media who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera.

-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only supports the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.


-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.


-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.

-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries.

-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history.

-The CIA

-The FBI


-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.


-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.

-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein.

-American Airlines

-United Airlines

-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes

-Remote controllers of the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

-Installers of the demolition devices in the three buildings

-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers

-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones.

-People who detonated the buildings

-Anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long.


Not a Member!


Saturday 18th August 2007 | 12:16 PM


You seem to have an open mind and inquisitive spirit. I read what you wrote and perhaps some of your questions might find an answer here:


Not a Member!


Saturday 18th August 2007 | 04:30 PM

Comment deleted for violating the https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=431">comment policy.

Not a Member!


Sunday 19th August 2007 | 03:16 AM

Thank you for that link. That actually taught me several things I was unaware of, and helped me to understand a few things as well. Actually, without meaning to, you helped me answer another issue completely unrelated to this; I now have a better understanding of why my online Republican buddies seem to have forgotten that I'm a Republican at heart, it's primarily the last two or three Republican administrations we've had that has changed my view on some things. But after watching that video, I can see how my diatribes toward Bush could make me appear to agree with the CT simply because we all pretty much say the exact same thing, right up to the point where some say Bush actually planned the whole thing.

It gave me a much better understanding of why you guys seem to believe the things you do. It gave me a better view of just how these guys manipulate even the tiniest things into blockbuster facts made of granite.

Whoever laid the soundtrack over that film did a good job. :)

WTC7 is not a mystery, and neither is the Pentagon. I'm not going to type it all again, but the evidence is crystal clear, and is referenced in my previous posts. The claim that the news was scripted is either pure ignorance, or an attempt to deceive you into no longer trusting any media source. Everyone knew WTC7 was going to come down. They said on the news last night there would be a Busch race on today, and oh my god! There is! The government must have given them a script that they read too soon. Please. lol.

Both of the films that I've watched that people here said were the best evidence of a CT being true, relied heavily on both of those, and seeing as they were wrong on both counts, it makes it even harder for me to go along with the wild ideas nuts like Alex Jones have been trying to push for decades.

I don't doubt for a minute that there was a "cover-up" by the Bush admin, but not like you're thinking. The only thing they're trying to cover up is their ineptness, as the film pointed out repeatedly. Over and over again the people keep talking about the govt. covering up that they fucked up, and had they not fucked up, the hijackers would have been caught. I'm with you on that. And I have no doubt Bush and his admin did everything they could to try and hide these facts, and keep them from the public. Absolutely!

But that's a far cry from 9/11 being an inside job, or the ludicrous claims made by Alex Jones that the Bush admin. actually blew the towers up.

That video also made it pretty clear that Charlie Sheen was heavily used to drum up support, rather than research.

They also made a big deal about a "Zogby" poll that supposedly was an independent poll that showed a landslide of support for the idea that Bush planted bombs. That is a perfect example of the spin the CT's are putting on all this. The actual question was: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?"

Where does it say the administration blew up the WTC? Where does it say "The administration knew the time, place and date of the attack and did nothing"? Where does it say the administration had a conspiracy to destroy the WTC? It doesn't. And you know the best part? It wasn't an independent poll, either. One of the CT groups designed and funded that poll. They wrote the questions, and told them who to ask.

On top of everything else, they constantly refer to "absolute facts that absolutely prove" one thing or another, when in fact they prove no such thing at all. They keep talking about absolute proof that thermite was used, yet no one can produce a single grain of proof. They say people heard explosions, but thermite doesn't explode. They say they found traces of residue, but all they could prove was they found sulfur residue, which would have been there anyway. The source that Steven Jones, the head CT person claiming it's thermite, uses to support his claim is an edited version of an original which clearly states that his findings were almost certainly "produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers", NOT thermite.

They show pictures of a column they say was cut by thermite, yet there are interviews with the men that made the cuts themselves, after the buildings came down. None of the pictures used by the CT's as evidence were even taken by any of them. They were found online, and had stories made up to go along with them. To create the damage claimed by the CT's, more than 60 tons of thermite would have had to have been used. 60 tons. It also would have taken a professional crew of 12 people more than 72 days, per building, to load the explosives necessary to take them down the way in which people like Alex Jones would have you believe.

Then there's the whole "free-fall" argument, which is clearly disproved in every video there is of the towers collapsing. They all show the columns and the dust and debris falling to the ground faster than the collapsing building.

Everyone is correct that Bush will use the 9/11 to his advantage, he has been since his state of the union address in 2002. But he didn't orchestrate 9/11. If after 9/11, everything pointed to Saddam, that would be one thing. If he made his state of the union address, where he finally had come up with a plan to further his "fascist" goals, on 9/12, rather than at the end of January, that would be something too. But neither of those things happened, and those are major holes in the CT.

What was interesting is that I heard over and over again the exact same words I use when I try and explain to people why Bush is dangerous. The difference is that then several people went and took this accurate line of thinking and blew it way out of proportion, into a realm of fantasy, rather than reality.

"To educate the people" was an often used reason for this "movement." "To brainwash the people" would be more accurate, especially considering the way all their "known facts" are completely false.

BTW, I was able to compile a more accurate list. In order for these conspiracy theories to be true, someone had to fool tens of thousands of people in the following organizations whose observations, investigations, and conclusions explicitly refute those claimed by the CT's:

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the Building and Construction Trades Council,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Pentagon security staff,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
hundreds of steelworkers, some of whom built the WTC,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
United Laboratories,
the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
Controlled Demolitions, Inc.
Bovis, Inc.
Tully Construction
AEMC Construction
Karl Koch Steel Consulting, Inc.
The United Steelworkers of America
the Armed Forces Institute of Technology
the Federal Advisory Committee,
several DNA labs,
Numerous Forensic Pathologists,
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists,
Numerous Forensic Dentists,
Numerous Forensic Radiologists,
the National Medical Response Team,
the International Association of Fire Chiefs
the New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
the Fire Department of New York,
the New York City Office of Emergency Management,
the New York State Emergency Management Office,
the Arlington County Fire Department,
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
the Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington County SWAT Team,
the Arlington, VA Police Department,
the Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams,
the Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
the Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
the District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department,
the Pentagon Fire Unit,
the Pentagon Medical Unit,
the Pentagon 2-person Helicopter Crash Response Team
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
several FBI Hazmat Teams,
several EPA Hazmat Teams,
the Virginia State Police,
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the DOD Honor Guard
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the Washington, D.C. Fire Department,
the California Incident Management Team,
the Shanksville, PA VFD,
the Somerset County Coroner's Office,
the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
the Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
the State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
the Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
the Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services,
the Salvation Army Disaster Services,
the National Emergency Numbering Association
the 911 operators who took the calls from passengers,
the American Red Cross,
the National Guard in D.C., NYC, and PA.,
the Air National Guard,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the United States Secret Service,
the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
the New York Port Authority Police,
the New York Port Authority Construction Board
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
the World Trade Center security staff,
the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York
United Airlines,
American Airlines,
the Office of Emergency Preparedness
Several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams,
Several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team,
the Virginia State Police,
Many other Urban Search and Rescue Teams
the FEMA Incident Support Team,
the FEMA Emergency Response Team,
the FEMA Disaster Field Office.
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
the National Response Center,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the National Disaster Medical System,
the HHS National Medical Response Team,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
the Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the C-130H crew in D.C.
the Falcon 20 crew in PA,
SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams,
SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the National Transportation Safety Board,
the New York Flight Control Center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the Cleveland Airport control tower,
the Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee,
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
etc., etc., etc.


So there's no motive, no method, and no evidence.

BTW, whoever it was that provided the link to the NPT videos, I went ahead and checked out what they had to say, and I really hope you were just being facetious. That was so ridiculous it was actually funny, that is until it occurred to me that some idiot with too much space between his ears was showing the clips of hundreds of people getting killed over, and over, and over, and having the gall to insist it was faked. The only thing that person proved beyond any doubt is that they aren't very bright. He couldn't even quote the CNN anchor correctly, and that part of it had audio as well as video! "Colorful"??? No dipshit, he said "powerful". I detest lowlifes like that.

I've been doing my best to remain civil throughout these posts, which hasn't been difficult since all but one or two have returned the favor. But the kind of scumbag that would try and pull that crap off deserves no civility. I have complete respect for different opinions, but that guy is being a prick.

Not a Member!

Mitra Guy

Sunday 19th August 2007 | 06:25 AM

I am glad that this video brought new light into your thoughts.

I agree 100% that one position or the other can use propaganda to have their audience lean to one side or the other.

My evolving beliefs have followed this path thus far. Firstly, I believed every word of the official story. Like too months later I heard about Silverstein and the "pull it" episode, and I said what? this does not square up. Much more later I began to take interest into the demolition hypothesis, that after seeing the collapse of towers once and again hit me as evident. After that I turned into 93, which was disintegrated in the dust and the pentagon plane which notwithstanding several videos that should been filmed depicting the tragedy were not ever broad casted. That left few doubts for me to think that staging was involved.

As much as these things strike me as obvious I can't have solutions to fill in all the gaps in this hypothesis.

One is that quite a few people should keep their mouth shut, and how this has occurred, I cannot but hypothesize.

The other inside, outside or inside outside job, don't have the slightest idea.

Another one if the planes did not hit were are the passengers? Though I've read stuff about this, sincerely I don't have a clue.

Another thing is The right - left center wing that permeates our minds. I stepped out of that nonsense talk. I have views that could be deemed as left sometimes and right in others depending on the circumstances, so every day I try to be less vulnerable to propaganda and news.

I hardly watch television anymore.

Not a Member!


Sunday 19th August 2007 | 10:29 AM

First, thanks for not making it a personal issue. It only ends up belittling everyone for the sake of ego. Although, I had a gaff when you made reference to my ramblings as a "thesis". I dont think anything should be deemed thesis without years of extensive reasearch, and I have only recently been exposed to this new material - I would have to feel obligated to return all my higher accredidations if I even considered that a thesis! ;)
But the question I came to reading your 2 last very very very extensive didactic logs was this - (and please dont take it personally - its not an attack). The basis of my original post was not that of presenting facts but more of how one could discypher between 2 parties that are presenting "facts". This is a major reason why- although I could have- never posted links to other "factual" webpage references. That simply puts me on polarizing sides of the coin. People of relative intelligence, that want to know more, will do their own research and ultimately make their own choices, no matter what evidence is presented to them. So all I attempted to do was to perhaps give readers an alternative way to make assessments that they might not have considered otherwise.
But it seems that even though you said you would not debate, you went on and on and on and posted links and many additional materials. What Im interested in is several things? What is it that you do that affords you the time to write multiple extensive blogs, time to do the vast research you purport, site websites or create a very extensive list of organizations and make any claims to debunk them as conspirators in one large painted brush stroke? Could you possibly be an internet mole agent sent to cause any kind of probable doubt on "CT" weblogs such as this? And why, if you can site so many references and orgs, would you have any doubts about any of it? Seems you should have all the facts at this point and no questions. Unless you generalised your material and copied and pasted much of it. You seem very intelligent and well spoken - it just doesnt add up to me. that's all.
Also - In reference to TV. Its the biggest farce deliverer on the planet. News anchors get on TV because they love to see their faces on there and collect nice checks. The TV is the Roman Collosium of the 21st century - fully of acting, blood and guts, sex and tragedy (and the occassional softlob heart story of the miracle cat rescue)- people eat it up by the spoonful - thats human nature at work again. And - Ive been in America before and this is a beautiful answer to the question about the news -reporting things ahead of time. I had realised the second time I watched one of your late night talk show like Jay Leno, that they were actually filmed usually in the early afternoons that day. I had assumed in America they were live because they had in several different episodes, made direct news references to things that had not appeared on the regular broadcast news until 6, 7 or 10 oclock at night. yet they filmed at 2pm and aired at 1130pm. They obviously had been privey to information in the news to make their monologue topical after the news presentation. So, it very well could be pre-planned, pre-released information to news agency just as any late night talk programme.
Entitled to your opinions ?- most definately. But I would say be careful of what you regurgitate and repost on sites like this, unless you know 100% the facts or unless its your intention to re-convert readers or simply confuse them. As I stated, you can not simply sum up everything without very broad knowledge on many different topics (not just 911). Read up on some Nietzsche and his theory of the Wall of Shadows. The possibilities and debates are endless. Hopefully one day the real truth will surface in regards to this matter and all these retarded chat rooms will become rusty relics of an age of mislead, uninformed espousing republics. Cheers mate.

Not a Member!


Monday 20th August 2007 | 01:54 AM

My mistake. not Nietzsche. Emmanuel Kant. ;)

Not a Member!


Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 12:09 AM

When you said:


So there's no motive, no method, and no evidence. "

You convinced me! I mean the entire White House staff ALSO doesn't support it - the official story must be true!
Wow. I find it amazing how we live in a time of mere universal deceipt, constant lies from the state, constant manipulation of all levels of government - yet when we have stacks and stacks of proof hat 9/11 was an inside job, you say "oh but not that, that's not true." You know I'msure mist of Nazi Germany's gov't organizations didn't own up to the concentration camps before they were toppled. Your list is flawed. Your list is a leap of faith defense. The truth is - we BOTH know, that if ANYONE in ANY of those organizations came forward to support the truth about 9/11, tey'd be squashed. Nott to mention many ALREADY HAVE. Try googling "Kevin Ryan" of NIST and see how he was fired for calling attention to the blatent lies of NIST re: 9/11. But that doesn't matter to you does it. You'll find some other way to trick yourself into looking the other way.

Enjoy your bliss. I wish I still had it.

Not a Member!

The Mistress Celerian

Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 04:12 AM

I see nothing wrong with this movie... the fact is... it is trying to bring everyone together and make them realize that they have self worth. I find it rediculous that so many ridicule such a momentous movie. It has an impact in more ways than one. Keep saying "well, that is not true," or "this part is false" and all that other foolishness you spout from your useless mouth. Some of the people, like I, have absorbed something from this movie... some more than others. The fact remains, though, society is confused and battling with eachother all the time. If people like the ignorant fools who say "that movie is a big lie" that is what causes problems in society. Who cares if your a Christian, I do not... if it offends you get over it... I know plenty of races who are ridiculed all the time and take it better than you do and other religions who laugh because you think everyone is going to hell because they sin, when everyone "sins" it is human nature and with that knowledge we are born with... we use it and find out other things. To the people who think nothing is wrong with are government... excuse me, but, you must have expelled your brain out your rectal canal if you are that ignorant to the world. We need to worry... your children will grow up in this someday. I refuse to let my children live in a world being fooled by what is drilled into the heads of billions. I knew of the topics on this movie... and I feel putting them together did a lot of good for society. If you do not like the movie or you claim it is a hoax... why waist your breath? Do you not have a 9-5 boring life to get on with? Or maybe you are starting to believe it too, but, you are too scared to go outside of your little confort zone and actually see what is really out there. The youth of America knows far beyond what the adults seem to know these days. What happened to the days of peace and love. I guess you did too many drugs and forgot the reality within our very core of existance. I find you all to be foolish to even argue over it. Get over it and realize you should live for you and what matters most within yourself. Not what you are told, are what you have learned. What does voting achieve... they are all the same guy. It does not even matter anymore... I cannot wait until it all truly surfaces...

Not a Member!

Dear "The Mistress Celerian"

Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 01:17 PM

Thank you for that. People are so incredibly afraid of the turht they will go at whatever lengths to further distract themselves from it.

Attacking this film is just another example of it. It's easier to attack and insult something than it is to confront and reason with it.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 03:03 PM

People were so affraid of everything a few millenia ago, that they created deities that they beleived were responsible for those things that they feared and worshiped them to appease them to be spared of their wrath.

Slowly this evolved into one being (the monotheistic god) who was seemingly responsible for everything... this was over 2 thousand frickin years ago and we [as a race] still feel the need to worship this omnipotent, omniprescent 'being' so that our lives might be free of evil and we might get eternity in the clouds after we pass on from life.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 05:56 PM

To the nameless person that quoted me-

Show me these "stacks and stacks of proof." As far as people being afraid to speak out, that hasn't worked before, why would it work now? People have come forward with evidence that the entire WMD excuse for invading Iraq was knowingly falsified, and they're still around, and the death toll there is higher than 9/11.

What about Kevin Ryan? He sent a letter to NIST about what he felt were discrepancies in what was said versus what was known regarding the melting point of steel. So what? The melting point was never relevant, except to CT's. The point at which it becomes weakened is what mattered, and that temp. was never disputed. Besides, Ryan didn't even work in fire protection, he worked in water testing. The reason he was fired was because he lied in that letter, and implied he was representing UL, when in fact he wasn't.

Where's the mystery here?

Mitra Guy-

I understand where you're coming from. Keep looking and you'll find the answers. :)


My apologies. The first 5 paragraphs of my 8/18/07 9:46am post were responding to your hypothesis (I meant no disrespect referring to it as a thesis), what followed was directed to those that had encouraged me to watch the Gage film. They were the ones I was directing my "debate" towards, although in all fairness, your comments about the number of people that would have to have been involved probably had something to do with my closing comments. :)

And no, I'm not a "mole", although reading that did make me smile. I am retired, but I used to be a mechanic. I operated my own business for several years, and did some side work for two different teams in NASCAR, and spent 7 years crewing for a championship sprint car team. I currently don't do much, which allows me ample time to do other things. I built and maintain a website devoted to automotive enthusiasts (http://www.RiceHatersClub.com), but traffic has been down the past few months.

Regarding debates in general, I love them. About 20 years ago, I was sitting around with friends drinking beers and shooting the shit, when a topic came up that I felt strongly about. I had no actual research done, but was positive I was right. Beer has that affect on me sometimes. Anyway, I shot off my mouth, and was subsequently proven wrong. Ever since then, I do as much research as possible before opening my mouth.

Regarding everything else, I'm writing a summary for my own records that I'll post here when finished. Should be tonight or tomorrow.

Take care,

Not a Member!


Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 06:00 PM

Has somebody heard Coast to Coast AM? With the spiritual skills that guests declare they have, they would be a little less than super humans. People who sees visions of the future, phantoms, ghosts people who sees the aura of other people and can read into their minds and intents, people that do remote viewing, people that with their minds make things happen, people that are sure that this is hell, according to mythical history by the Celts and Greeks, not to mention Egyptians.

What I believe is that after all this time nobody has a clue of what is going on, regarding where we come from or where we are going to.

One can only behave as righteously as one can, give love as much as circumstances permit, and try to not get embittered by mishaps or misdeeds by our human fellows.

When we die, we'll deal with the after life, it there is one. Is not for the living to worry about dead or make others believe if they behave in the way they see fit they are gonna earn a treasure in heaven.

Let's get real and do things in the real world while we are really alive.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 06:38 PM

So Reality, one could make the argument that one should not waste this 'precious' time worshiping made up deities and focus on advancing ourselves, treating ourselves like gods.

People seem to be so focused on finding external validation that they loose their ability to validate themselves and loose most self worth. This cycle just repeats again, and again and again etc.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 07:24 PM

So true, Jake :)

Not a Member!


Tuesday 21st August 2007 | 11:08 PM

So- Part 3 discussed alliances of the "Illuminati" so-to-speak with central powers and bankers merging until one dominated gov't was formed. The link wont stay relative for long as its only a topical headline and not a website, so I copy and pasted this...it's brand new news. Holy Shiites people. still need proof this Zeitgeist guy is not a complete crackpot? Read between the lines.

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

MONTEBELLO, Quebec - President Bush's summit with the leaders of Canada and Mexico is likely to produce additional assurances of what unites them — and clear signs of what doesn't.

Bush came to this resort town on the Ottawa River to strengthen his ties with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. They were poised to announce at least one wrinkle, an effort to clarify border security plans in emergencies.

Yet for all the gestures of unity, there were differences that were handled much more gingerly, spanning from Arctic waterways to passport policies to the war in Afghanistan.

Overshadowing the two-day event was the menacing Hurricane Dean — to the point that the schedule was rearranged to accommodate Calderon. He will attend every event Tuesday but will leave Canada earlier than planned to head home, where Mexico is bracing for the storm.

Security and trade issues dominated talks among the North American leaders. Their goal is to make their borders safer without impeding their trade-and-tourism relationship.

Yet even their security partnership has stirred fears in Canada and the U.S. that more North American integration will derail national sovereignty. About 2,000 demonstrators descended on the Montebello in protest; police used tear gas to push back several dozen.

Overall, the leaders stressed their common missions. The three men enjoy good relations. There was much talk of listening, understanding, and disagreeing politely.

A Canadian official said Harper plainly told Bush what he's said publicly — that Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not be extended beyond 2009 without a consensus in Parliament. Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, a commitment important to Bush.

Dan Fisk, a White House National Security Council official who briefed reporters, said Bush now has "a better understanding" of the dynamics Harper faces in Canada.

Harper also used the meeting to assert his nation's claim to the Northwest Passage through the Arctic. The United States says the passage is part of international waters.

"I think it's fair to say the president came away with a far better understanding of Canada's position," Fisk said. However, he added, the U.S. position did not change at all.

With Mexico, the United States is working on an aid package for its neighbor to help stem its drug trade and associated violence. No final deal is ready to be announced.

Still, Fisk said, in private talks the U.S. and Mexican presidents "clearly reaffirmed their commitment that we do have a shared responsibility."

Calderon has repeatedly pushed the U.S. to take more responsibility in fighting the two countries' common drug problem, including doing more to stop the flow of illegal U.S. arms into Mexico and trying to combat the demand for drugs north of the border.

On security, Bush, Harper and Calderon want to find a way to protect citizens in an emergency without the tie-ups that slowed commerce after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The three leaders are also seeking middle ground on issues ranging from energy to trade, food safety to immigration. Few, if any, formal announcements are expected at the meeting at a highly secured red cedar chateau along the banks of the Ottawa River.

Several hundred demonstrators protested on issues such as the war in Iraq, human rights and integration of North America. One carried a banner that said, "Say No To Americanada."

Calderon and Harper both want tight relations with Bush, yet don't want to be seen as proteges of the unpopular president. The three exchanged friendly handshakes before their meetings, posed for photos and ended the day with a dinner inside a historic manor.

When Bush arrived Monday in Ottawa, he was greeted by a bagpiper and a ceremonial honor guard dressed in red jackets and tall, black fur hats. Bush flew to the resort on the Marine One presidential helicopter.

Late in the day, he even found time for one of his passions — a mountain bike ride. He went with Stockwell Day, the Canadian public safety minister.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police confirmed that tear gas was used against several dozen protesters who threw rocks, branches and plastic bottles.

"I've heard it's nothing," Harper said, dismissing the protests as Bush arrived at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello. "A couple hundred? It's sad."


Associated Press writers Rob Gillies and Sean Farrell in Montebello, Quebec, contributed to this report.

Not a Member!


Thursday 23rd August 2007 | 05:45 AM

Are you referring to the North American Union? That's fairly old news to anyone that lives here. That's been the major reason why Bush hasn't seriously addressed illegal immigration. In a few years, it won't matter anyway.

Like I said at the beginning of my first post here; I'm an atheist, so part one of Zeitgeist was meaningless to me. I don't know much about banking, so part three was a mystery to me, although I do know that plans have been in the works for at least 7 years to create a North American Union.

Ron Paul wrote a column about it close to a year ago. I'll dig up the link and post it for you.

Since wayching Zeitgeist, the only research I've done on part three was to ask a good friend of mine about it. He's a CPA, and knows stuff about how money works in around here. He laughed at the conspiracy part of it, and said that most of the "facts" from the movie were false. He pointed me to a site online that addresses each of them, but I haven't spent any time there yet. If you're interested, here's the address...


I suspect that part three was much like part two; they took some concerns about an issue, and fed them into a conspiracy monster machine.

Again, I know for a fact that a North American Union is in the works, and has been. Go to Google and type in 'Nasco Corridor', or 'NAFTA Super Highway', and see for yourself.

Just because some bits of part three were based on real events doesn't mean it was all true. :)

Exact same thing regarding part two.

Here's the link to Ron Paul's column...


I've pretty much finished my summary on the whole 9/11 conspiracy issue. It should explain whatever I left out last time...

I first want to add a disclaimer, letting everyone know that what follows is simply the conclusions I have come to after some rather extensive research on 9/11 conspiracies. My conclusions were all based on real evidence, but the opinions I share are just mine. Don't take anything personally.

I had no idea that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on this country were being used to such a large degree by so many people as fuel for so many conspiracy theories. My first clue was when I received an email from a close and trusted friend that surprised me. I won't mention his name, but he is an older gentleman who has always been very patriotic, and has a strong belief in God and Christianity. He said he had been to dinner with an old friend that brought up the subject of 9/11 having been an inside job. He dismissed the concept immediately, but the friend persisted. By the time he wrote to me, he had already purchased a 9/11 conspiracy theory DVD, and was hooked.

Not long after that, I was directed by a good friend to a website hosting the movie Zeitgeist. After watching it, I also felt the sudden rush of feelings and emotions that accompany the realization you're a victim of fraud, and I wanted the world to know. Fortunately for me, there were a few parts of Zeitgeist that I knew were deceiving, which by the following morning were enough for me to want to do further research and come to my own conclusions. That was when my journey down the conspiracy theory highway began.

I was simply amazed at the amount of people and websites that support one 9/11 conspiracy theory or another (there are several). I sincerely doubt that French author Thierry Meyssan, the guy who started it all when he wrote a book about 9/11 being an inside job, had any idea that he would score such a direct hit with the throngs of Americans who feel disenfranchised under the Bush administration. His book was a collection of his own theories of what he believes happened on 9/11, and even though he has no proof at all that any of them are true, an entire movement has resulted.

A handful of traditional conspiracy theorists like Stephen Jones and Alex Jones (unrelated) saw an opportunity in this, and grabbed it. Stephen Jones, who is on paid leave from BYU because they basically question his sanity, wrote a paper about 9/11 being an inside job (his only other published paper contends that Jesus Christ used to live in Central America). When everyone from his colleagues at BYU to distinguished peers in the engineering community dismissed his paper as laughable, he created his own group of experts, called the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", and used them to accredit his work. Among the 76 original "scholars" there were only two that were actual engineers; Jean-Pierre Petit, a French scientist and comic book author, who also claims that space aliens from the planet Ummo have sent letters to him, and that the US Air Force has detonated a powerful antimatter bomb on the planet Jupiter. The other engineer was Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer from Clemson who's career studies have been on the "stresses of dentistry." She has since left the organization because of Jones' lying and deception.

Alex Jones is a character all by himself. He has publicly insisted that every soldier who died in any war since the Civil War was a chump, that the UN has sold thousands of children into slavery in exchange for child porno films, that Lyndon Johnson killed JFK, the Quakers are really secret Communists, children's cartoons are part of a government plot to brainwash us, Arnold Schwarzenegger is part of an Austrian plot to take over America, 91% of Americans are Nazis, Wal-Mart is actually a Defense Department front, Israel microwaved a hundred thousand of its own children, there are little wires in dollar bills that keep track of what you buy, and that power outages, illegal immigration, vaccines, thumbscanners, environmentalism, feminism, toll roads, cell phones, sports, anti-depressants, and ALL domestic terror attacks are ALL actually secret government plots.

Thanks in large part to these two demagogues, an entire network of varying conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks has emerged, each led by a new wave of supposed experts. They range from the belief that the Bush administration knew about the planned attack in advance and intentionally allowed it to happen, all the way to the belief that in fact there weren't any planes at all, that they were nothing more that computer generated graphics, and that the damage was all done by government planted explosives and missiles.

The single common denominator among all of these conspiracy theories is a lack of actual evidence. The evidence they do provide is speculative at best, and outright lies at worst. They take existing facts and statements and edit them, take them out of context, and/or manipulate them in such a way that they sound believable, or even convincing, until you actually do a little research at which point they clearly become inaccurate conjectures. Some of their efforts appear to be honest mistakes, but the vast majority are flat out lies, created with the sole intention of deceiving the uniformed and paranoid. I'm not aware of a single claim made by any of them that can't be logically and accurately explained or disproved. In fact, Stephen Jones often disproves his own "facts" with new ones he comes up with later.

What disturbs me the most about the things I discovered when researching these groups is that the majority of them have as members many genuine, good people, with honest, good intentions. They also share many of the exact same opinions and beliefs about our government, and more specifically the Bush administration, that I have. They know about the military industrial complex, how the war in Iraq was unfounded and based on lies, and have what I feel are mostly accurate suspicions about the real reasons our leaders do many of the things they do. They recognize that Bush has taken full advantage of the 9/11 attacks to promote what appear to be fascist intentions, and that he and his administration have been systematically lying to the people while taking their rights away, piece by piece. But then they go one step further and insist that Bush & Co. actually plotted the 9/11 attacks themselves.

The problem is that it isn't just a step, it's a monumental leap, of colossal proportions. The sheer number of people that would have had to be in on this scam is almost unimaginable. We're talking tens of thousands of people, at least half of which don't like the president, either. And not a single one of them said anything. To this day, not one person that would have been involved has come forward and told of this enormous cover-up. The police, firefighters, airline personnel, and families who all lost someone that day, have all kept their mouth shut, to protect Bush.

So what's the real story, and how is it some people don't get it?

First, there were several mistakes made on 9/11, and Bush & Co. did want them covered up. The mistakes showed the world, and the American people, just how vulnerable we really were, largely in part to government ineptness. Bush didn't have a problem with us looking vulnerable, he could use that for his own plans later, and shift the blame to the previous Clinton administration. But he certainly didn't want to look inept, which he already did in large part due to his lack of speaking skills, not to mention his nationally televised 7 minutes of just sitting there after he was informed that "America was under attack." Thanks to many action/adventure movies and books, the American people have seen themselves as indestructible for years, so anything that showed we weren't on top of things would make him look bad. Errors in communication between the various agencies, from the FAA to NORAD, and the FBI to the NYPD, were quickly discovered, and attempts were made to cover them up. But like every government cover-up, the truth was soon discovered. That by itself got the ball rolling for many conspiracy theorists.

Second, our president is a major fuck-up. He does seem to promote a fascist agenda, and has been taking away our rights. He has also been working very hard at trying to leave no trail, and cover up any mistakes or errors. But he hasn't been very good at it. Better than most, only because he hasn't been impeached yet, but still pretty sloppy. Enough people see that, and are better ready to accept the conspiracy theories started by the first bunch.

Third, in this day and age, too many people aren't willing to do any real research themselves. They see or hear something, and if the guy was wearing a tie, or said something that made them feel like they knew something that made them better than everyone else, they gain instant credibility.

It seems painfully obvious that a conspiracy theory with such absurd claims, and no evidence to support it, could not possibly be true, yet I too was caught up in it for a moment. Had it not been for a few points in Zeitgeist that I knew for a fact were being misrepresented, I might have continued to go along with all the others. I hate to think that is true, but I was there, it was me, and it did almost happen.

The bottom line is that most of the conspiracy theorists simply want to believe that their theory is true. They brush off evidence to the contrary by insisting everything that proves them wrong has been filtered through government channels. It's a remarkably easy and common defense, and they use it every day for the simple reason that for them, it works. How can anyone convince them otherwise if they refuse to believe anything else could be legitimate?

The sad part is that these conspiracy theories take the focus away from more serious issues that should be addressed regarding the Bush administration, and the shit they're getting away with. They also make it difficult on those that have lost family and friends on 9/11. Hopefully people will just do more research.

Best wishes,

Not a Member!

Mitra Guy

Thursday 23rd August 2007 | 09:50 AM


I sometimes feel disenchanted when people take for granted that others do not do any research at all, and that they are easy scammed.

One thing I thank modern days is the internet. If some news comes up on the newspaper and you smell something fishy, you got thousands of other viewpoints and after doing your homework you decide what the news closer to the truth were (The truth is always incomprehensible, as you might know by now).

I agree that some theorists of the conspiracies are not very credible because of their past history of paranoia against the establishment.

But can't you see the stories we've been told don't add up?

Can't you see that the plane 93 passengers and the let's rock and roll is nothing but a sad picture of would be heroes.

Can't you see that at the impact site of flight 93 there was a not even a bolt from the supposed plane? nor blood, nor anything resembling debris of a plane?

Cant's you see that what hit the pentagon was everything but a plane?

Can't you see that building 7 collapsed spontaneously? and that its owner told firemen to pull it?

Have you heard about people who saw the planes hit the towers saying they had a blue logo and was definitely not an AA plane?

As I told you before I still don't have answers probably because the plot is too complicated. 40 odd years have gone by and still nobody knows for sure who had Kennedy killed.

Conspiracies don't occur only in 007 films. They've occurred always ever since the hegemony of power dominate the masses.

So after reading your note, I still have the same doubts.

Not a Member!


Friday 24th August 2007 | 12:25 AM

Thank the heavens! The redneck nascar mechanic has saved us all from conspiracy theorists with his insurmountable evidence! Hallelujah! Im glad a guy in middle America with a dial up modem figured out what everyone else couldn't, I just wish he could have been on the 911 commission and cleared everything up so we all could get back to our lives consuming stuff! PRKWUD(chris) - you've written on this blog more than anyone else and long ones at that, and never proved a single thing or disproven it either. I read all your input a looked at all your links too. All you can say is, "I know the truth". Posting links is not evidence. all your links lead to others opinions and they are non-conclusive at best either. You asked a CPA friend for the truth on the monetary system? HA! what a joke. Some buddy with a mullet too? I have a friend who is a CPA also. so what? they have their heads so far up the system's ass, so mired in legal code, they couldn't see their way out of a paper bag when comes to the larger picture. I love my cpa friend to death, but it doesnt make them an expert on the fundemental constructs of the Fed Reserve. You said in one blog "you lost a debate with a friend and that made you never want to lose again, so you started doing research". Admirable. But my guess it was in front of a girl. probably one that works at Hooters and it so embarassed and deflated your ego. Thats why you keep coming on here. You are ego driven and love to hear yourself talk. If you dont believe anything and you have dissected everything down to the pure, tyrannical truth, why dont you leave it at that and simply say. "I don't believe it" - Chris. Stop ranting on here. you have NO proof, nor presented any. Open your own website and conclusively present all the facts to a point without a shadow of a doubt and don't put a single piece of opinion in it and only link pure scientifical fact pages of extensive researched material on every level of the movie if necessary. then maybe you will have some credibility. Stop soap-boxing your bulls**t like you say all CTs do!

Not a Member!


Friday 24th August 2007 | 05:47 AM

Mitra Guy,

I tried to be clear in saying these were MY findings after doing MY research, and specifically said "the opinions I share are just mine. Don't take anything personally."

I'm sorry you that it seems as though you did.

"Can't you see that the plane 93 passengers and the let's rock and roll is nothing but a sad picture of would be heroes. "

Yes, I can. In fact, I think that's highly likely. When tradgedy stikes, people often try and find something to hold on to as a shining moment. It makes perfect sense.

"Can't you see that at the impact site of flight 93 there was a not even a bolt from the supposed plane? nor blood, nor anything resembling debris of a plane? "

"Cant's you see that what hit the pentagon was everything but a plane? "

No. I saw undeniable proof that in fact a 757 crashed at both sites. I even shared links for some of them, but if you don't want to see them, there's not much I can do.

One link that I hadn't shared, which literally has tons of proof was the one that shows the photos and documents used at the Moussaoui trial...


"Can't you see that building 7 collapsed spontaneously? and that its owner told firemen to pull it? "

Well, I did see an edited video that conveniently stopped after the building owner said he didn't care if they pulled the firefighters from the building, but I also saw the full length unedited version, where it's much clearer. I also saw the 18 story tall hole in one of the south face corners, and the huge gash that ran the entire length from the roof to the ground on the south side. Did you?

"Have you heard about people who saw the planes hit the towers saying they had a blue logo and was definitely not an AA plane? "

No. I did see a video where someone was convinced that the United Airlines jet that hit was a fake computer generated graphic, because he chose to only view low resolution clips. No, what I saw was clearly a United jet hitting the tower. I know you've done extensive research as well, but if you somehow missed this too, here it is. I'll even host it for you...


Good luck with whatever you do, man. Seriously. I know that you mean well, and I do respect your opinions. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wasted the time sharing the evidence I've found.

And to the big douche-

You are a classic. I'm really glad you posted before I finished here, I got a real big kick reading your post. Whether or not you intended to be so funny, one can only guess, but you got me laughing pretty hard.

On the off chance you were even remotely serious, do yourself a favor and learn how to read, rather than making shit up. Your guesses would have a much better chance of being right if you did. You can't even quote me correctly, and I gave you ample opportunity!

When school starts again for you next month, ask the teacher if you can take a class about math, and maybe even science! Those might help you with your learning disability regarding facts, fiction, and your favorite; fantasy.

If you're a good boy, and do all your homework, I will gladly stand up to any challenge you make on any of the facts I've presented. Even though in the adult world, it really would be your job to present the evidence, but since we both already know that you haven't any, I look forward to your feeble attempts to discredit a single one of mine.

Good luck with that. You'll need it.


Not a Member!

Tony C.

Friday 24th August 2007 | 08:27 AM

How many of you debunkers are Christians?

Not a Member!

Tony C.

Friday 24th August 2007 | 08:34 AM

I ask because all of the classes I took in college about religion corroborate what was said in the film, and the world bank stuff makes complete sense.

Any of you actually look into the North American Union after watching the film?

I find some of the comments in here to be reaching. For example: Rodney discusses concrete making the dust, not thermite. Alright, cool. But what about the traces of thermite that were found on the site?

What about the support beams being cut at an angle?

What about the people in the basement who felt explosions FROM BELOW?

What about W.'s speech being word for word what Hitler said when introducing the Guistapo?

I find it funny that people try to discredit something via reaching, in some attempt to rationalize things for themselves, so they can stop feeling fear.

I for one cannot wait for 1.20.09

Not a Member!

Tony C.

Friday 24th August 2007 | 08:38 AM

Also, they PROVIDE SOURCES on their web site!

Not a Member!


Friday 24th August 2007 | 01:42 PM

Will do Chris, my friend! Thanks. gotta remember math and science, math and science. got it! Also when I get back I'll have to ask my Professor who is the head of the debate club, whats the proper etiquette when attending redneck debates - do I bring Bud or Natural Light as a token peace offering? I really wish you were able to post a pic on here of yourself so we could have a more intimate friendship and everybody could see our wizard of oz - sitting on the hood of his trans-am with feathered bangs, Winger t-shirt and/or turtleneck with dress shirt and gold chain and pencil mustache. Awesome! What I think we all may be waiting for on baited breath though, is your next blog where you conclusively let us know that the illegal wire tapping is a complete fraud and consiracy theory too because you walked out of your trailer home and ask the phone guy up on the pole and he said "no way, thats crap!" One thing I wonder though is if all the while you were typing your monologues on here you sometimes heard the faint anthem of Queens hit "We will rock" cheering you on in the back of your mind or possibly Billy Joels "We didnt start the fire". Sounds magical, wish i could have been there.
My friend. I never claimed to have the answers. Iam not arrogant or stupid enough to claim that, first off and its not my duty "in the adult world" to disprove Joe Trailorparks theories. If you choose to plagerize all your material from the "web" and fill it with 98% conjectured opinion, just open a webpage of your own and be the Jesus of 911. Im sure God loves dual overhead cams. That way you can sit around all day and pull that string on your back- "tickle me Chris loves a good tickle - tee hee hee". I have no desire to debate with you, not because I have no information, but because Ive sized you up by your writings and know you are not a worthy advisary. funny, but unworthy. Hell, you posted link to a pic of an airplane as your evidence and say 'I saw it'. I could flawlessly manipulate a photograph and put GBush right on the Pentagon front lawn giving a speech while the plane is hitting it. doesnt make it true. technology has superceded truth in the 21st century media age - i know this for a fact because I work for the government media relations organization my friend. oh, snap!

git r done
peace out. no hard feelings.

Not a Member!


Friday 24th August 2007 | 11:19 PM

Greetings people. I am from India, and just saw the movie. Apart from the factual part of it all, I thought that it dealt with very important issues such as liberty, freedom and democracy.
I know I probably not even qualified to ask, but if it was indeed, a conspiracy by the government, why would they demolish WTC 7? Did they claim that a plane hit it, which would justify their fight with terrorism? If not, then why would they break it? Of what use would it be to them?

Again, I am sorry if I am inadequately informed about these things.

Not a Member!


Saturday 25th August 2007 | 12:44 AM

From WTC7 wiki (yeah, i know) page...

Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²), and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[18] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[18] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.

You can be sure that a lot of pertinent evidence would have been lost in that building.

And don't forget John O Neil. (google vids: who killed john o neil)

Not a Member!


Saturday 25th August 2007 | 02:23 PM

"For more then a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it"
-David Rockefeller in his own book, Memoirs (2002)

Not a Member!


Saturday 25th August 2007 | 02:29 PM

"We cannot leap into world government in one quick step... The precondition for eventual globalization - genuine globalization - is progressive regionalization."

-Former national Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed his view of regionalism at Mikhail Gorbachev's October 1995 State of the World Forum.

Not a Member!


Saturday 25th August 2007 | 02:32 PM

"After consultation with our Canadian Partners, we will strive to consolidate a North American economic comunity whose benefits reach the lesser-develped ares of the region and extend to the most vulnerable social groups in our contries."

- Meeting at Rancho San Cristobal in Guanajuato, Mexico, President George W. Bush and President Vicente Fox jointly announced their intent for a "North American Economic Community" on February 16, 2001.

Not a Member!


Saturday 25th August 2007 | 06:35 PM

To: PKRWUD (Chris), Mitra Guy and Fulcrum,

It's nice to see three people in an internet forum having a civil, grammatically-sound, eloquent debate on a subject they all feel strongly about. The rest of the internet could learn from you.

Not a Member!


Sunday 26th August 2007 | 01:16 AM

i just wished there were some more experts being interviewed "on camera". And what about the audio clip at the end about that guy who listen to that rockerfeller family member talk about "9/11" before it happened. We need someone to check all the facts on this movie then we need someone the check all HIS facts on his facts of this movie and so on.

Not a Member!


Sunday 26th August 2007 | 02:34 AM

Bill: 'that guy who listen to that rockerfeller (sic) family member' was Aaron Russo, director of America: Freedom to fascism (check it on google vids), producer of Trading Places and manager of Bette Midler.

Aaron Russo lost his battle with cancer yesterday, 24/08/07, shortly after finishining his latest documentary.


Not a Member!


Sunday 26th August 2007 | 02:43 AM

From the National Weather Service: There is a High Wind Advisory issued for this page. Massive amounts of Hot Air are reported to be moving through the area, with gusts up to 120 MPH. Ladies should secure their sun bonnets and make sure they are wearing undergarments. Men should refrain from lighting cigars and smoking pipes until further notice. Thankyou for your cooperation.

Not a Member!


Sunday 26th August 2007 | 11:31 PM

I really feel for open minded and hearted Americans who realise that the USA is not the "Greatest Country" yet the protype of a new and inslaved world. I really am pissed and at the same time saddend by the repulsive bigots your country produces...

How stupid are you to think that your government isn't fucking you? The rest of the world can see it! why can`t you? I am not anti-american I am anti slavery.

Its painfully obvious that 911 was a setup to get the ball rolling... as where many previous and prior 'terriost attacks'.

And yes belive it or not we are heading for a New World Order, its an unfortunate (d)evolution... I don`t want it but we are going there and ignorant, uniformed, unbalanced, christian (or other 'faiths')patriots are the perfect model citizens for this New World.

One good thing a New World Order could bring is a one world outlook and then human spirtual evolution, I am sure that this will be the outcome....eventually.

Untill then

Not a Member!


Monday 27th August 2007 | 02:39 AM

This is all very interesting reading.

Does anyone throwing the word "newcon" around actually know what it means? Can anyone define it?

Not a Member!


Monday 27th August 2007 | 02:52 AM

(obviously meant "neOcon"... typo.)

Not a Member!


Monday 27th August 2007 | 01:52 PM

For more info in the neo con, look up LEO STRAUSS & CARL SCHMITT. I also highly recommend you watch the 3 part, 3 hour series THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES - it can bee seen for free online. Just do a google video search for it.

The neo con philosophy in a nutshell: freedom is bad and is the enemy of the stae. Lies are necessary to sway the public. "Noble Lies" such as religion, and as Zeitgeist has so elegantly put it, Terrorism as well. Neo cons believe there must be an "ENEMY IMAGE" in order to hold teh society together. It's essentially a continuation of what Hitler tried to do. The 3rd Reich was never defeated, it just changed venues.

Not a Member!


Monday 27th August 2007 | 06:10 PM

Who gives a shit really. The world is full of currupt niggers and assholes. and by niggers i mean ignorant people, like the word is meant to be.

Not a Member!


Monday 27th August 2007 | 09:07 PM

To clarify: I wasn't looking for a definition. I was curious as to whether anyone throwing that word around actually understood what it meant. It's obvious from the replies so far that the answer is no.

For those interested: what is referred to as "neocon" political philosophy, particularly in foreign affairs, is very far from traditional American "rightist", Republican policy.

The "neocons" were Democrats who, disillusioned with the Democratic party, migrated to the Republican party and brought their idealistic, activist foreign policy ideals with them.

More for anyone who is interested....

Not a Member!


Monday 27th August 2007 | 09:31 PM

Therefore... those who associate the term "neocon" (literally: 'new conservative') with the ideas of the American Republican party are simply wrong.

Traditional Republican foreign policy ideals have revolved around the concept of 'Realpolitik'- a very pragmatic view of foreign policy. One may argue with this concept, and criticize its manifestations- specifically in terms of the amoral policies of supporting less-than-savory regimes when it was in the United States' perceived best interest to do so. Examples of this would include support of the Hussein regime during the Iran-Iraq war, support of Afghan rebels during the Soviet occupation, etc.

However, to associate current neocon ideals with the Republican party would simply be an error in understanding. These are very new concepts that many Republicans struggle with. President Bush brought these ideals to the forefront by putting so many neocons in positions of power. Again: this is commonly misunderstood outside of the United States, where so many continue to associate neo-conservatism with the Republican party and traditional American conservatism.

Neoconservative foreign policy, on the contrary, injects idealism (the bane of true conservatives everywhere): idealism vs. realism. This idealism manifests in the belief of "spreading democracy" as a primary tenent of foreign policy (with the results we have seen so far...). This idealism justifies (to its supporters) preemptive action, "regime change", and other tangible foreign policy actions in, among other things, the accepted political science doctrine that "Democracies do not fight other democracies". Spreading democracy therefore becomes one of the fundamental positions of this worldview.

The question, of course, is can democracy be "spread"? Can it be "given" (or "inflicted") upon a state or culture that has yet to organically develop the institutions upon which such a political system rests? The answer would seem to be "no", thus discrediting much of neocon political philosophy. This is the issue the Republican party is currently struggling with in its attempt to regain control of itself after 8 years of neoconservatism.

Again,,, more for those interested in this topic. Just ask.

I don't mean to completely derail the rest of the conversation, but if we're going to intelligently discuss this movie, it helps to understand the terms we banter around. When we terms incorrectly, it discredits much of our argument.

Thank you.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 03:09 AM

Tony C.-

"Any of you actually look into the North American Union after watching the film?"

Yes, it's been discussed publicly for more than a year.

"But what about the traces of thermite that were found on the site?"

I haven't seen any proof that traces of thermite were found. I have seen where traces of sulphur were found, but not thermite. Please share this proof.

"What about the support beams being cut at an angle?"

You mean the ones cut to make it easier to haul away the debris? The only evidence I've seen was a picture that was later confirmed by the crew that was helping to clean up the area as one of many cuts they made. If you have other proof, please share!

"What about the people in the basement who felt explosions FROM BELOW?"

The only story like that that I heard was from William Rodriguez, and it was only after he became famous and decided to sue the government that he said that. His original story was completely different. If you are referring to other people, please show me where I can see their stories.

"What about W.'s speech being word for word what Hitler said when introducing the Guistapo?"

I must have missed that. I saw where they read a speech made by Hitler, and asked if you thought it was Bush that said it, but then revealed it was actually Hitler. Please show me where Bush made the same speech, I can't believe I missed that. I must not have been paying attention.

Big Douche-

Why would I say "illegal wire tapping is a fraud and conspiracy theory?" Don't be ridiculous. As far as "sizing" me up, I find that very amusing. So far you haven't gotten a single thing about me right, so you might want to have your astuteness radar looked at. Sounds like it needs a tune-up. And thanks for the warning that any evidence you provide has been manipulated. That's good to know.


The common conspiracy theory is that WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition because there was evidence there that could reveal their "truth" about 9/11. I guess they think that destroying a couple computers and maybe a cabinet full of files was too much work to do, even though they were capable of pulling off 9/11.


I completely agree with you that our government is fucking us. I detest Bush and everything he stands for. But to suggest that he was behind 9/11 to "get the ball rolling" is simply a flawed assessment. He got the ball rolling before 9/11, and was unable to use 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq. You are only connecting the dots that you choose to see, rather than all of them.


That was well put. Many people don't understand how I could have been a lifelong Republican, yet hate Bush with a passion. The Republican party today is very different than the Republican party I always knew. They started changing before W. was in office, but it was then that it became clear to me. I consider myself more of a Goldwater Republican than anything else.

Also, if you haven't seen it, the aforementioned "The Power Of Nightmares" is an excellent series! It was a BBC project, but it really helps to explain the entire neo-con persona.

Not a Member!


Saturday 1st September 2007 | 06:51 PM

bullshit bullshit bullshit..

don't buy all this plane site/loose change/zeitgeist misinformation..

do some googling instead..

how about:

and yes, go download some BBC documentaries instead
"the power of nightmares" and "why we fight" are excelent documentaries that actually have done some research..

do you guys kow how many cameras there are at the pentagon btw? if you all fall for crap like no-plane-at-pentagon and other bullshit, what do you think will happen when they decide to release the videos of the plane smashing into the building yust to fuck with the 911 truth movement?

Not a Member!

ellen calder

Sunday 2nd September 2007 | 02:20 PM

why feel the need to ivade iraq regarding saddam's regime? why not put the millions of pounds into the starving and aid ridden people of africa? the answers are in zeitgeist

Not a Member!

ellen calder

Sunday 2nd September 2007 | 02:34 PM

also if you people are so insistent on defending christianity, religion its all the same thing to me then the war is clearly morally wrong anyway. no matter what bush has been the death sentence for many people iraq, (including the hundreds on death row that he could have pardoned in his country) and it will be iran next! the man is not capable of understanding the value of human life and that should be the main agenda of all politics. by the end of his term he will not be far off the mortality rate hitler was responsible for. he is waiting on 'the great leap forward' he will never have because hopefully someone will asassinate him soon!

Not a Member!

ellen calder

Sunday 2nd September 2007 | 02:34 PM

also if you people are so insistent on defending christianity, religion its all the same thing to me then the war is clearly morally wrong anyway. no matter what bush has been the death sentence for many people iraq, (including the hundreds on death row that he could have pardoned in his country) and it will be iran next! the man is not capable of understanding the value of human life and that should be the main agenda of all politics. by the end of his term he will not be far off the mortality rate hitler was responsible for. he is waiting on 'the great leap forward' he will never have because hopefully someone will asassinate him soon!

Not a Member!

ellen calder

Sunday 2nd September 2007 | 02:34 PM

also if you people are so insistent on defending christianity, religion its all the same thing to me then the war is clearly morally wrong anyway. no matter what bush has been the death sentence for many people iraq, (including the hundreds on death row that he could have pardoned in his country) and it will be iran next! the man is not capable of understanding the value of human life and that should be the main agenda of all politics. by the end of his term he will not be far off the mortality rate hitler was responsible for. he is waiting on 'the great leap forward' he will never have because hopefully someone will asassinate him soon!

Not a Member!


Tuesday 4th September 2007 | 01:54 AM

After watching the movie and several links provided in the above comments my conclusion is as follows. More people have been killed in the name of God (religious beliefs) then for any other reason. Are we then not better off without religion?

Conspiracy theories aside does anyone really believe that private interests are not at work wielding their power behind the scenes to shape and form our lives.

Here is an example, of the latest hoax. Ethanol the answer to our energy problems? If you said yes, you make take out a crayon and color yourself duped again. Just another example of the powers in force. against us. Here is another example, why are illegal aliens receiving better care then our wounded soldier returning from combat duty? I am sure everyone has read about the Walter Reed scandal.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 4th September 2007 | 11:02 AM

you will ALL take the RFID chip or you will starve the coming economic downfall.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 4th September 2007 | 11:51 AM

"More people have been killed in the name of God (religious beliefs) then for any other reason. Are we then not better off without religion? "
I have heard this statement many times before. However, in order for that theory to hold up we would have to prove that the wars would not have happened if they were atheists. Just my opinion, but I would think the wars would still have happened either way due to greed for resources/land/culture whatever. So the idea that we would end war by banning religion doesn’t really hold up.

Excellent posts! I really appreciate the work you put in to them. I have been researching this topic for years and I still can't come to a certain answer. I’m starting to think there is a bit of truth to both sides of the argument. I have not had the chance to view all of your links and resources but I do appreciate them and I will view everything you submitted. Here are a couple things I was hoping you could check out and comment on. Now, I am really sorry I don't have all the links ready. These are just things I remember over the years. I Just really don’t have the time to watch all the documentaries and lectures again to tell you which one states what. However, this is one that touches on some good questions.
“Painful deceptions”

Here is what still confuses me. In one of the documentaries I saw, it points out something very strange about the way WTC7 fell. On top of the building there is kind of another little building? Well, not another building, but another structure you commonly see on top of buildings. I dunno maybe they are storage sheds or water houses or whatever. Anyhow, if you look closely when the building collapses, the storage shed on top goes down about 1/4 of a second before the rest of the building. It made me very curious.
Another thing. 1 year after the accident pieces of bodies were found on the roof of one of the buildings in the area. (When I say the area, I do not mean beside the center where parts would fall downward onto it. Also, why pieces of bodies? I don’t know, I mean maybe the force of a building collapsing could bust bodies into pieces and given the wind and the height of the building it could be possible?
On one of the buildings across the street, there is a huge piece of a supports beam embedded into the side. The support beam was shot straight directly into the side. Again, maybe the force of the collapse could fling a piece out at 90 degrees. It does seem rather strange though at least.
The “Fire”.I just happen to be a redneck myself. Well, a Canadian redneck. So I’m pretty familiar with blowing shit up and lighting stuff on fire. The FEMA report went on about the intense heat from the burning jet fuel. Now, I haven’t been so fortunate as to ever get to play with Jet fuel but, I have with gasoline. That initial fireball that exploded when the plane first hits the center. That’s the Jet fuel going “bye bye” in a matter of seconds. I don't think the fuel would just linger around and start leaking around the entire building. It would all go up in an instant and look exactly how we saw it on the news. So, if it wasn’t the gas then we have to believe that the heat was hot enough just from burning regular office hydrocarbons? But even if the gas didn’t all burn up would it burn hot enough to weaken steal? When I used to use the torch on my blades, It did’nt seem to weaken the steel? Also that blue flame is extremely hot due to the perfect air combination. But I suppose I never conducted and experiment to test how many pounds of pressure it took to bend the knife cold and how much when heated by the torch. Think about this though. If the intense heat was hot enough to affect the steal, then why are there a few people standing all around where the plane impacted. I also remember one of the documentaries contained some calls from the firefighters to the chief saying they had the fire under control and in a short time it would be out.

How did the planes go off Radar? This was another thing I can remember thinking was strange. Planes are not equipped with radar cloaking devices.
The cell phone calls from the flight 77? I have to travel all the time with my work and just for the fun of it I try every single time I fly to make a call from my cell when in the air and guess what! It doesn’t work!!! Hell we get shitty enough reception territory with our cells on the ground sitting under the dam tower. But no I haven’t researched the capability of it being possible so who knows, maybe 20 or so people got really special phones.

I wanted to mention also that there are more witnesses claiming they witnessed the bomb in the basement in the documentaries I’ve seen. Again, sorry I can’t remember which one. But heck, they could be actors getting paid to claim it by the filmmakers so it’s not very conclusive.
Those questions are the most of what makes me question the entire thing. And, I agree with you there would be so many people that would have to be in on it that it would ridicules to think that many people know and would be willing to go through with it. Im really interested in a reply from you or anyone else who wants to think about those questions. Its been about 2 years since I did my research so I truly apologize that I don’t have the links to prove these question I’m asking. You can’t base a case of these questions but you have to admit, if these are in fact true then it does seem really fishy. But im a musician in a fishing town on the east coast so what doesn’t sound fishy..

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 07:25 AM


"Here is what still confuses me. In one of the documentaries I saw, it points out something very strange about the way WTC7 fell. On top of the building there is kind of another little building? Well, not another building, but another structure you commonly see on top of buildings. I dunno maybe they are storage sheds or water houses or whatever. Anyhow, if you look closely when the building collapses, the storage shed on top goes down about 1/4 of a second before the rest of the building. It made me very curious."

Check out this page: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm. It does an excellent job of explaining WTC7. It collapsed the way it did mostly because of it's design, but also because of factors like the fires burning untouched for 7+ hours. Check out that page, and if you still have questions, go ahead and ask them. :)

"1 year after the accident pieces of bodies were found on the roof of one of the buildings in the area. (When I say the area, I do not mean beside the center where parts would fall downward onto it. Also, why pieces of bodies? I don’t know, I mean maybe the force of a building collapsing could bust bodies into pieces and given the wind and the height of the building it could be possible?
On one of the buildings across the street, there is a huge piece of a supports beam embedded into the side. The support beam was shot straight directly into the side. Again, maybe the force of the collapse could fling a piece out at 90 degrees. It does seem rather strange though at least."

All I can say, Doug, is watch any of the videos of the towers coming down. The debris was sent forcefully in all directions. I'm surprised there wasn't more damage, body parts, and beams found over a larger area, but maybe that's just me.

"The 'Fire.'"

Steel loses half of it's strength at 600 degrees Celsius, and the tests that have been done since 9/11 have shown that the ceiling temperatures in a controlled burn of office combustibles reached as much as 1100 degrees Celsius. That's more than hot enough, even without the jet fuel. It's actually rather remarkable that the towers remained standing for as long as they did.

"Think about this though. If the intense heat was hot enough to affect the steal, then why are there a few people standing all around where the plane impacted."

You lost me there, Drew. Where were there people standing around where the plane impacted?

"I also remember one of the documentaries contained some calls from the firefighters to the chief saying they had the fire under control and in a short time it would be out."

I hadn't heard that, so I did a little digging, and found this info: http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm. Check and see if that is what you're talking about. If it is, they explain it in great detail.

"How did the planes go off Radar?"

The hijackers turned the transponders off, which took the planes off of primary radar contact. Here, check this out. This will show you the air traffic around JFK airport in real time. Click on the link, and then select "80 Miles", and see how easy it could be to lose a plane. http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html

"The cell phone calls from the flight 77?"

The majority of the calls were made using the phones built into the seats on the plane, which have no problem working. The cell phones would have worked as well because the planes were flying below their normal altitude because the hijackers were more concerned with their targets.

"I wanted to mention also that there are more witnesses claiming they witnessed the bomb in the basement in the documentaries I’ve seen."

I need more specific info in order to research it. I can't find anything about a bomb in the basement other than the claims Rodriguez made after he changed his story.

Drew, I have nothing to gain by "convincing" someone that the CT's are wrong, I just think it's a hell of a waste of effort that could be applied to seriously getting rid of Bush for actual crimes he did commit. I am happy to try and answer your questions for you.

Take care,

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 09:28 AM

Xthantos wrote:

"More people have been killed in the name of God (religious beliefs) then for any other reason. Are we then not better off without religion? "
I have heard this statement many times before. However, in order for that theory to hold up we would have to prove that the wars would not have happened if they were atheists. Just my opinion, but I would think the wars would still have happened either way due to greed for resources/land/culture whatever. So the idea that we would end war by banning religion doesn’t really hold up."

Ummm excuse me...but this is the kind of short sighted conjecture that really needs to be challenged on every level...
Example #1

6 Million Jews murdered by the Nazi's in the 1930's and 1940's.

Murdered not because of land or resources, but more because of culture or more specifically their Religion, all in less than a decade....

6 Million people folks... think about it...

In addition:
The Spanish Inquisition
The Crusades (from WIKIPEDIA -- The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians during 1095–1291, most of which were sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom)

Look at what is going on within Iraq itself. You have muslims blowing up other muslims. Though one might argue that is happening for political and economic or just plain retalitory reasons.

Tis true that there are other reasons why wars are waged of course. But religion is indisputably one of the primary motivations for bloodshed throughout history. It is imperative that the validity of religion be questioned in public arenas all over the world. Undoing centuries of religion being beaten into people's heads certainly won't happen overnight. I am thankful for people like Sam Harris who research and attempt to bring rational thought regarding the fallicy of religion into the mainstream. Fundamentalists are extremely dangerous people. I can't say we should ban religion, but it must become accepted mainstream thought that religions are MYTH not TRUTH before someone pushes the button in name of GOD.

One of the reasons why I love this film so much is the overall message is that all humans are part of a same brotherhood. It is that "arbitrary separatist identification" that divides people on the basis of religion, race, creed, class, sexual orientation that pits people against each other. People are taught to look at each other and see differences and not similarities. Author and producer of the film Peter J. hit the nail right on the head there. Instead we should be looking at each as brothers, as family. Yeah I know that is a completely idealistic statement but there is alot of truth to it.

PKRWUD my friend you are trying so hard to convince us Bush had nothing to do with 9/11. The more and more I read from truth sites as well as debunking sites the more and more I do believe that the government is hiding something.

You say Bush was going to go to war even without 9/11. How in the world do you make that assumption? The president cannot unilaterally make that decision. Congress voted on the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) on Oct 22, 2002 with an overwhelming number of members in favor of war in Iraq.

If it wasn't for 9/11 and the lies being spun by the media that Saddam was in bed with bin laden, supporting terrorism, and was stockpiling WMD's for use against America and Israel that resolution would have never been passed and the Iraq war would have never been started.


You claim that it would take an immeasurable amount of covert cooperation by numerous government agencies to pull off 9/11. I completely disagree. I'm sure the vast majority of government and the agencies were in the dark. It could easily have been pulled off with a limited number of parties involved most of which were probably outside the government. I don't think Bush could have possibly masterminded this plan himself. He's a fucking idiot like you say. He can barely speak his native language properly. But consider companies part of the military industrial complex that have the technology for pulling off something like this. Plus they have motivations for keeping the country in war. It is a multi billion if not trillion dollar industry. And when that much money is involved anyone can be bought. Anyone involved in such a plan obviously has a tremendous amount of interest in keeping quiet. To argue that there would always be someone leaking the truth is legitimate but not infallible.

But Bush is certainly a TOOL; Bush's family history and their financial dealings with the Nazi party is documented. It appears they are a very corrupt family, but who knows for sure. But it should raise eyebrows as to why are they also in bed with the Bin Ladens? The Bush family is one of enourmous wealth and power with very dubious ties to the banking, oil and defense industry. The family obviously has loads of personal motivations for the actions they take even if they do it under the guise of "spreading freedom." Remember one scene in Michael Moore's film where Bush is about to give a speech from the Oval office, the camera's are running and he flips off the camera? To me that only shows what lack of integrity this guy has...he would sell out his country in a heartbeat if he had something to gain from it.

The argument that it would take an army to wire the building for controlled demolition is completely flawed. Frankly, since we dont' know exactly how they achieved this we can't make any assumptions.

In addition to the False Flag theory to rally support for war there are other motivations for the destruction of the WTC.

--They needed millions if not billions of dollars in rehabbing. The land on which they stand however is worth millions if not billions. We already see that the more modern and grander FREEDOM Tower is going up in their place. The port authority rejected proposals of controlled demolition of the towers to previous owners on more than one occasion ( though i'm still looking for documented evidence of this claim made by Richard Gage)

There is plenty of evidence that certain groups did have foreknowledge of 9/11.

--Warnings from domestic and foreign intelligence.
--Put options on Stocks related to the incident (http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html)
--Larry Silverstein's insurance policy taken out shortly before 9/11 that covered in FULL total destruction of the towers caused by terrorist acts. That is highly unusual to say the least. He made a bundle on the deal.

And I still Find Aaron Russo's interview with Alex Jones where he says that he heard all about the intentions of the investment elite and the foreshadowing of 911 and the subsequent wars coming straight from Nicolas Rockefeller mouth himself. That in itself is strong evidence of a conspiracy. No one here has connections like Russo did and to discredit him just on the assumption that he is another conspiracy theorist is ludicrous.

PKRWUD I wish you would cite your sources more. You say you found where the clean up companies acknowledge cutting the core colums at an angle. I don't doubt that at all. The first thing I thought when I saw that picture of the cut column is that they cut it at an angle to get the remaining column to fall in a certain direction, much like you would when felling a tree. But would you please list your sources when you say something like that so the rest of us can also see where you get your information?

If the WTC was brought down in a controlled demolition most of the evidence is gone and that's going to make it very hard for anyone to prove anything on either side of the debate. 200,000 tons of steel were used constructing the WTC and only some 200 pieces were saved for examination.

What is completely obvious is that there is motivation for staging this event. The 'why' isn't that hard to see, it's the "how" that still needs to be discovered. It doesn't help that a good part of the truth movement engages in some ridiculous arguments such as the No Plane Theory or space weaponry as being valid. It makes the whole truth movement look ridiculous.

The "who" part also still needs to be revealed but like Zeitgeist suggests all this events are being manipulated by strings controlled by the investment elite.

Switching topics a bit I want to discuss the rest of Zeitgeist. The 9/11 part of Zeitgeist is merely a montage of different documentaries put together in such a way that is does form a message. The first and the third part I find the most interesting. I've been doing alot of reading into the sources cited by the film and many of them are very compelling and scholarly works.

It is the third part of the film that PKRWUD says his friend the CPA finds the information about the Federal Reserve laughable. I disagree and so does Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Why would this man jeopardize his election campaign on conspiracy theory? He has written legislation and is pushing hard to abolish the Federal Reserve. This is a man who has spent years in congress and government and seems to be one of the few members of high government with any sense of integrity and understanding of what the true nature of government should be. God love a libertarian (i've been a registered libertarian since I was 18) He wouldn't press for such a radical movement if he didn't understand the dynamics of the system.

One thing you can look up on the web and see for yourself is that the 16th amendment which supposedly established the individual income tax was not ratified by enough states to make it an official part of the constitution. Obviously there is some conspiracy there. How else did it make it into the constitution?

You say Flaherty effectively debunks the information relayed in G. Edward Griffin's acclaimed book "The Creature from Jekyll Island". Here is Griffin's own response to Flaherty's "debunk"


Before you start taking the advice of one voice on the internet or a CPA "expert" keep digging. Maybe you should even read the book before you let someone else make up your mind.

I still stand to say that Zeitgeist is one of the most awesome movies ever made. I cannot say whether all the information the film is accurate or not, but it is well researched and the sources cited are not written by Hack writers. I'm having a great time reading both sides of the issues at a hand. And as the film suggests, the more I look into it, the more I see bullshit everywhere. I had no idea what a box of worms I opened when I watched this movie a little over a month ago, I really didn't even know about the truth movement (I am so disconnected from mainsream media because I don't even watch TV)

That Snaff guy who posted in here used that Jay Finney review as part of his reasoning why Zeitgeist is nothing but propaganda....tis very sad as Jay Finney is a fucking brainless tool who uses nothing resembling credible writing to back up his opinions, they are nothing but inflammatory remarks.

I can't say that the towers were brought down in controlled demolition but I do believe it's obvious that certain people did know it was going to happen. There is an orgy of evidence that sheds light on the motivations behind this event. You have the truthers and the debunkers, somewhere in between lies the real truth. Part of the problem is that truthers want to throw the cart before the horse when coming up with their arguments. You can't do this without coming up with some pretty absurd conclusions. The problem with the debunkers is that they want to just discredit the truthers as much as the truthers want to discredit the official story and it therefore results in alot of Bullshit rhetoric. But i do believe that in time it will be revealed that certain elements of this administration were privy to if not accomplices in the attacks...


Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 10:48 AM


"All I can say, Doug, is watch any of the videos of the towers coming down. The debris was sent forcefully in all directions. I'm surprised there wasn't more damage, body parts, and beams found over a larger area, but maybe that's just me."

It is just you. This is definitely a mystery of incalculable proportions. People were blown to bits, tiny tiny tiny bits. In comparison, how come many of the bodies of people on the plane that crashed into the pentagon remained intact even though the plane virtually disintigrated around them? I can't explain it, but that plane was traveling more than 400 MPH when it crashed and bodies still remained intact. Was the destructive force of a building collapse just by gravity enough to shred people to tiny pieces and hurtle them through the air to land on rooftops of adjacent buildings??? Think about it.

PRKWUD Also wrote :

"The 'Fire.'"

"Steel loses half of it's strength at 600 degrees Celsius, and the tests that have been done since 9/11 have shown that the ceiling temperatures in a controlled burn of office combustibles reached as much as 1100 degrees Celsius. That's more than hot enough, even without the jet fuel. It's actually rather remarkable that the towers remained standing for as long as they did."

That is nothing but BS speculation. There is not one shred of proof that suggests those fires reached temps hot enough to weaken 5 inch think core columns. There are too many variable which cannot be accounted for. One is the amount of fuel remaining, two is the locations and durations of the fires, and three is design aspects of the building which didn't allow too much room for air to travel freely from floor to floor. It doesn't take into account that the core columns would act as a massive heat sink dispersing that heat throught the structure very quickly. The writer you're responding to also brought up a very good point in that:

"Think about this though. If the intense heat was hot enough to affect the steal, then why are there a few people standing all around where the plane impacted."

You lost me there, Drew. Where were there people standing around where the plane impacted?"

Yes PKRWUD There is video and photographs out there that show people standing in the opening where the planes impacted the building. I'm not sure where the video is or which tower it is of, but I have seen it and it proves that the fires were not sustained very long and probably didn't have enough fuel or oxygen to burn at the temps the debunkers claim. All that smoke coming rom the towers most likely indicates that the fires were burning at a low temps in an oxygen constricted environment. Only under the most prime conditions does kerosene jet fuel burn at temps hot enough to even weaken contruction grade iron.

There was probably enough heat in certain parts of the impact areas to weaken the floor trusses, but to comprimise the core columns which resulted in complete and total collapse of both towers in exactly the same manner?? VERY UNLIKELY

If the steel was weakened slowly why the sudden explosive onset of collapse and not a slower more deforming demise of the buildings? These are very important questions and no debunking sites, NIST or the History Channel has effectively explained it.

As for WTC 7 there is no proof demonstrating the extent of the damage to the building was severe enough to achieve a complete collapse into the direction of greatest resistence (ie straight downward).

I can only find a few pictures of the side of the buildings southern facade which was damaged by falling debris from the North Twin Tower


I would love to actually hear some convincing evidence opinions for once. Out of the 1.5 hours of the History Channel thing they said two things I thought were interesting. One was about Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission about Cheney's stand down order, and also the notion that failure of major trusses in WTC7 caused its collapse. I would love to hear more...

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 03:57 PM

I have not been here for a while, but I thought I could contribute with Jeff, Santosh and PKRWUD with this photo of a poor doomed woman standing at the north tower impact hole (notice the floors look almost free of fire) :


Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 06:18 PM

Thanks Mitra Guy, now I understand what they were referring to. I would only add that there doesn't appear to be much of a fire there, so I'm not sure why it's hard to understand why she could be there. The fires were on the other side of the building. Besides, that part of the building was clearly weakened by the impact, not by fire. You can see where the plane severed several columns!


Jeff wrote :

"You say Bush was going to go to war even without 9/11. How in the world do you make that assumption?"

Easily. During the 2000 presidential campaign, one of Bush's promises was that he was going to get rid of Saddam. He told the world this more than a year before 9/11.

You're tying together two different situations, and calling them one in the same, but they aren't. The "WMD scenario" that he ultimately had to use to justify invading Iraq was in the works before Bush was even president. People that would later become part of his cabinet were digging up anything that could be manipulated into passable evidence that Saddam was in possession of WMD's, and was a threat to the region, and ultimately to us. All of this was in the works before 9/11, and 9/11 didn't help them when it came to invading Iraq. In fact, if he was going to use 9/11 as the reason, he wouldn't have had to even mention WMD's, but 9/11 pointed to Bin Laden, a Saudi who resided in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not to Saddam or Iraq. If 9/11 had been the reason we invaded Iraq, there wouldn't be so many people against the war now. 9/11 really happened, people aren't going to give up wanting justice for it. WMD's are the reason we invaded Iraq, and there were none, so now everyone is pissed about it, and wants the war to end. 9/11 was of no use to Bush as far as invading Iraq. If anyone had planned 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, they would have had the common sense to have the finger point that way when it came to the blame. Saddam and Bin Laden were sworn enemies that absolutely hated each other. There is just no logic at all in the idea that 9/11 was intended to justify invading Iraq.

"But Bush is certainly a TOOL; Bush's family history and their financial dealings with the Nazi party is documented."

I completely agree that Bush is a tool, and his family is as corrupt as they come, but don't base that on what his relatives might have done. I don't. I base it on what he and his father have done. I'm a direct descendent of Edward Rutledge, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but don't blame me because they decided to make references to "God" in it. Just because my relative might have believed in God doesn't mean I'm not an atheist.

"The argument that it would take an army to wire the building for controlled demolition is completely flawed. Frankly, since we dont' know exactly how they achieved this we can't make any assumptions. "

I contend it wasn't "taken" down. The CT's are the ones saying explosives were used, and if that were true, it would take a full time crew of 12 experts a total of 72 days, per building, to set the explosives in place. I have seen more than one demolition company state that as absolute truth. If you don't agree with it, find me a demolition company that says different.

"In addition to the False Flag theory to rally support for war there are other motivations for the destruction of the WTC. "

I hate to do this, but it's just easier for me, and you seem to want links...

"--They needed millions if not billions of dollars in rehabbing. The land on which they stand however is worth millions if not billions. We already see that the more modern and grander FREEDOM Tower is going up in their place. The port authority rejected proposals of controlled demolition of the towers to previous owners on more than one occasion ( though i'm still looking for documented evidence of this claim made by Richard Gage) "


"--Larry Silverstein's insurance policy taken out shortly before 9/11 that covered in FULL total destruction of the towers caused by terrorist acts. That is highly unusual to say the least. He made a bundle on the deal. "

That's not really true... http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

And he certainly didn't "make a bundle on the deal"... http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

"You claim that it would take an immeasurable amount of covert cooperation by numerous government agencies to pull off 9/11. I completely disagree. I'm sure the vast majority of government and the agencies were in the dark. It could easily have been pulled off with a limited number of parties involved most of which were probably outside the government."


"PKRWUD I wish you would cite your sources more. You say you found where the clean up companies acknowledge cutting the core colums at an angle. I don't doubt that at all. The first thing I thought when I saw that picture of the cut column is that they cut it at an angle to get the remaining column to fall in a certain direction, much like you would when felling a tree. But would you please list your sources when you say something like that so the rest of us can also see where you get your information? "

I actually saw it in an interview on TV, but I was able to find this page with similar info to what i remember hearing, and it's even got a video at the bottom. Actually, this whole page is a good one for you to check out... http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

"It is the third part of the film that PKRWUD says his friend the CPA finds the information about the Federal Reserve laughable."

I just wanted to point out that I have said all along that I haven't done any research into part 3 myself, and I am not professing to know the "truth" regarding it. I did ask a friend about it, and posted what he said, I never claimed those words to be mine. He may or may not be right, I don't know. There isn't enough interest on my part to want to spend the time necessary to properly research it.

"I still stand to say that Zeitgeist is one of the most awesome movies ever made. I cannot say whether all the information the film is accurate or not, but it is well researched and the sources cited are not written by Hack writers."

I can't speak for parts 1 or 2, but I did look into the source credits for part 2, and they were all hacks. I started taking notes on them, but got tired of writing halfway through. Being kind:

David Ray Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He has absolutely zero engineering credentials.

Michael Ruppert, a former L.A. cop with a history of paranoid delusions, committed himself to psychiatric care which culminated in his dismissal from the department. For over 30 years, he's been coming up with dozens of conspiracy theories involving the CIA, drug dealers, and organized crime, none of which ever panned out. He also doesn't believe that bombs were secretly planted inside WTC.

Michael Berger made a popular CT film, although it has since been proven that he altered the sound and video tracks to enhance the final product creating inaccurate results.

Anthony J Hilder is lifelong conspiracy theorist who believes the UN is about to take over the United States. He also believes in Satanic ceremonial sacrifices, and that Area 51 is a US/Nazi coalition where they implant radio chips into the brains of innocent people.

Dustin Mugford, unlike Michael Ruppert, firmly believes that explosives were used inside WTC. He gives D.R. Griffin a stage to tell people what he sees as fact.

Dave VonKleist is yet another CT that has his own theories, but his film is considered a bad joke by main stream CT's, with blatant film enhancements that take any credibility away from it.

Eric Hufschmid hates Jews, and denies the Holocaust ever took place. He also insists that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, even though he has absolutely no proof to back him up.

William Rodriguez went from being a hero that stood by the "official" reports on 9/11, to a disgruntled money-seeker who wanted a bigger piece of the pie. He has since filed a lawsuit against the government, and has completely changed his story.

Barrie Zwicker is a Canadian who has been critical of the United States for years, and has written several very critical pieces. He was one of the first to criticize the US after 9/11, but he only asks questions; he offers no real answers.

Zeitgeist was a very convincing movie, but there was one moment that caught my attention, and put doubt in my mind. I saw them take an important comment out of context, and completely misrepresent what the person was actually saying, and that made me start to wonder how legit the rest of what they were saying was. If they would do that to a very important part of it, why wouldn't they distort everything else? That's what got me started on my own investigation.

"Was the destructive force of a building collapse just by gravity enough to shred people to tiny pieces and hurtle them through the air to land on rooftops of adjacent buildings??? Think about it."

Again, to me the answer is obviously yes. I'm having trouble understanding what it is you don't agree with. A five story building can pulverize human bodies in a collapse, why not a pair of 110 story buildings? I've seen pictures of a piece of debris that only stood a few feet tall, but was actually parts of a dozen or more floors that had compressed together upon the collapse. When you watch the buildings collapse, you see tons of debris being forced out by the tower coming down. Do you think that only the walls, furniture, and concrete floors were what was pulverized? Any bodies still stuck in the building would be pulverized as well.

"There was probably enough heat in certain parts of the impact areas to weaken the floor trusses, but to comprimise the core columns which resulted in complete and total collapse of both towers in exactly the same manner?? VERY UNLIKELY
If the steel was weakened slowly why the sudden explosive onset of collapse and not a slower more deforming demise of the buildings? These are very important questions and no debunking sites, NIST or the History Channel has effectively explained it. "

Here are 5 pages from the same site that goes into extensive detail. These should answer all your questions...






"As for WTC 7 there is no proof demonstrating the extent of the damage to the building was severe enough to achieve a complete collapse into the direction of greatest resistence (ie straight downward). I can only find a few pictures of the side of the buildings southern facade which was damaged by falling debris from the North Twin Tower: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7.html#analysis"

In all fairness, I haven't seen a CT website yet that shows the pictures that make it obvious that WTC7 was going to come down. The link you provided was no different; they omit the pictures that prove them wrong. This page has great info, and pictures of the extensive damage on the south side of WTC7...


That's enough for me tonight. I've given you many links to sites with answers, rather than questions. I hope you'll spend enough time at them to answer your questions, the answers are there.

Until next time...

Take care,

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 06:30 PM


Where I wrote:

"I can't speak for parts 1 or 2, but I did look into the source credits for part 2, and they were all hacks. I started taking notes on them, but got tired of writing halfway through."

It should read:

"I can't speak for parts 1 or 3, but I did look into the source credits for part 2, and they were all hacks. I started taking notes on them, but got tired of writing halfway through."

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 09:26 PM

God help us. I cant believe what a ignoramous this PRKWUD gentleman is. I dont want to tell anyone what to believe on here - but for the love of God (im atheist btw) do not believe a single word out of this mans mouth. He lives in a complete world of dillusion and its so obvious reading his posts! He uses the same techniques of all Machevelians. He attempts to draw you in by aligning with you in his "hate of Bush"one moment, but acts so in the dark about the possibilities of crimes and conspiracies Bush and team may have commited the next. Out of all the visitors look how many times this guy posts and how long they are. Is it ego? or does he have other agendas? Why would someone go to such an extent to defend their point and more importantly - try to sway opinions? I can tell you without saying too much that the facts are %100 true and they are out there. I was a former secret agency employee (not at liberty to say) and have since retired and reconverted to humanitarian living and know many a people first hand whose job it is to solely do what Prkwud is doing on here. Thats correct - you heard right - they are paid to do what Prkwud is doing on here. I was not on a level of exclusive knowledge to highest orders of secret planning and directives, but did come in contact with indirect directives that lead up to the events in question. Simply put - society is in serious danger. As much as you may dislike Bush's administration, the forces at work in these agencies extend way beyond the President and his cabinet; they are a final resting place for all the directives behind it, so Democrat or Republican leadership - it makes no difference.
This blog is a perfect example of why it is possible to pull off such an event. The level of injected doubt can keep this going for ages without resolution -and that is all that is needed. All that is necessary is enough truthful bits mixed with enough lies and deceit and the majority will cast the opinion and perpetuate a story, based on "what they have seen". Because afterall, we recognize that people are learned to believe what the eyes are shown.
It has been asked several times about the cutting of the beams. Demolitions teams do not cut beams at an angle when removing debris, especially in chaotic messes such as ground zero. They cut from point A to point B. the shortest distance. Additionally, the clean up crew at ground zero was comprised of a rag-tag team of workers, most of which had little construction knowledge. Also, the beams had melted large clumps of steel around the "cut" edge. Cutting steel in such a manner does not produce that result either. I can not direct you to any "website" for this but I do have extensive first hand experience with welding and the like. The pictures of those beams presents an impossibility by blade or acetylene torch, TIG or MIG torch. Furthermore, the length of time to cut that beam by hand would not produce such a straight line - it is too perfect, even at the hands of an expert. Heating and cooling points on tempured steel would also not yield the type of dripping that appears around the cut. Only an extreme intense heat coupled by explosive could melt and resolidify around the wound such as was shown. Do not read some website for the facts on this, try it for yourself if you can get access to the tools. You will have a complete understanding after that.
All I can advise to you readers though, is not to follow or believe one word of a Charlatan like prkwud. He has "slides" that prevent him from ever achieving the truth, regardless of how much information he claims to research or how hard he looks. He says he has done extensive reasearch and talks such a big, knowledgable game, but some of the simplest questions posed by others about very common, over used images have him completely perplexed and responding very often with
"I haven't seen evidence of this, please show me where". That should be your first indicator this guy is a fake, or at best so stuck on believing it is so impossible, that someone in front of him could directly claim responsibility but yet he would still not hear it. The only thing the web is potentially useful for for evidence, is possibly stock footage from news photographers that are unaffiliated or not funded by large cooporations in conjunction with your own library reasearch. 95% is fabricated , conjectured opinionated and likely tampered with, by either debunkers or these so called conspiracy theorists alike. And Chris, please get your facts straight. the WTC7 did not burn for 7 hrs.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th September 2007 | 11:13 PM


WTC7 was damaged when WTC1 came down at 10:29 in the morning. That was when the fires started. They continued until WTC7 collapsed at around 5:00 in the afternoon. Please forgive my ignorance! You're correct! It wasn't on fire for 7 hours, it was a mere 6.5 hours. How could I have been such a fool?

Dude, you seriously need help. I don't even want to imagine what a paranoid world you must live in. I'm sorry if the world you live in is full of charlatans, where everything you don't make up yourself must be a lie, but mine is not. I have not lied once in any of the posts I've made here, and in fact have gone to great lengths to be as civil as possible. There is not a single "fake" thing about me here, and there is no one paying me for my time. My posts here have been replies to other people, also known as "having a conversation." I am not trying to sell anything, and have no ulterior motives. I don't have any ego problems, I am simply having an intelligent conversation with a handful of people about a subject I have recently done quite a bit of research on.

There have been several things mentioned that I wasn't familiar with, but you must remember, I don't rely on paranoid CT websites to gather my information. I have listed sources when I can, and have replied to questions as honestly as I can. If I don't know anything about a specific question, I say so. I have been completely upfront about everything, which is obviously a foreign concept to you. I have agreed with everything said about Bush except that he had anything to do with 9/11. I have not seen a single piece of evidence to even suggest that that is true, but am open to any new evidence that proves otherwise. These are all the things that civilized people do when discussing a debatable topic. You should give it a try sometime.

Your knowledge regarding welding and cutting metals is amateur at best. Everything you said is completely false, and there is complete proof for anyone that wants to laugh in your face.


What I'd like to know is why are you so scared of me? Does the idea of applying common sense to a subject in a civil manner really threaten your fragile little world that much?

I post links to sources to back up what I say, whereas you caution that everyone should stay away from any possible sources for knowledge because "95% is fabricated , conjectured opinionated and likely tampered with." And you think I'm the delusional one?!?

You seriously need help. I'm not saying that facetiously, I'm dead serious. You have serious problems.

Not a Member!


Thursday 6th September 2007 | 01:02 AM

I am not a defender of religion,,, far from it. But the "more people have died in the name of religion than any other cause" line is getting tired.

More people have died in the name of Communism than in any other cause, period. Puts Nazism or religion to shame.

Count the bodies: Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pot, etc etc

Count them.

Not a Member!


Thursday 6th September 2007 | 02:20 AM

I have not one paranoid dillusion. I sleep very well at night. But as I stated, I had first hand experience working for agencies that plan these things. How can you argue with that? I do not see in most of your blogging, how you call it "having a conversation". It appears as grand-standing to me by someone that wants to know, but doesn't really. You continually show up on here and cut and paste peoples rhetoric questions and then claim to disprove them. no one asked you to and not everyone was even talking to you. Thats why I asked if it was something to do with you ego. Do I know every bit and detail - no. But I for sure know more than you will ever know because I was there - not from some websites. thank you. I am not afraid of you. You are the last person I would be afraid of, but I am afraid for other readers on here because as I could see from some replies to your posts that some are easily manipulated into buying your explanations because you talk at great length and post links that make things look official or scholarly. But they are fallible sources and laughable. Its Good cop Bad cop evidence 2 sides are trying to present. Your welding website was hilarious. I actually laugh in your face. You did exactly what I said you should not do. I said try it for yourself for true evidence. I never claimed to be Zeus the welding God, so I can accept the "amatuer at best.." comment, but since you posted it, let us have a overview. Pics 9-11 (thats ironic) you see the front end seam of the cut. Clean, very minimal outer scarification, pics 12-14 show the rear seam or "molt out" point. Now look at the classic picture of the standing support beam at ground zero (first pic on the page) - ALL THE MOLT OUT is dripping on the front or face side of the beam. I am sorry did they weld cut it from the inside. I would be really amazed to see that done. Additionally that metal is completly different. thickness, type of steel, what was used to "cut it" if that was even the case in the matter. Its like comparing apples and oranges. The more and more you try to hyperlink as evidence the more I worry about the publics ability to get at the truth reading anything you put up as evidence. Most importantly my point was that you claim you do not believe anything because you have looked everything up extensively. I love a good, civil debate as much as the next guy, but, to miss some of the most common evident points such as the person standing in the building's gaping holes with fire, is beyond me with somone of such exstensive reasearch. To me, it screams charlatan. You also site that the "terrorist" turned off the transponder. How do you know? and I mean really know. Most of these gumbas could not even get their Cesna license or land the planes. What makes you think they could even begin to comprehend the mother board on an airplane such as a 757, 747, 707 or whichever? Have you ever been in a cockpit? Its mindboggling to an untrained eye. These guys were not trained in Jumbojets, they could barely handle minimal planes. Go ask a real pilot that spent 10+ years trying to get to the commercial pilot level. Ask them if they could fly those jets or regulate the motherboard when they first started out. I guarantee they would tell you no. I am smart enough to know, though, I will never convince you one way or the other as you already have your mind set and I am smart enough to know not to waste my time. But I wish you well in your world of illusion. Best of luck to you comrad.
BarbedWireSmile. - yes, very unfortunate deaths at the hands of many governments, not solely religion. The battle of Nanking. one of the most brutal battles and death tolls at the hands of the Japanese. Never siginificantly noted as the Communist or Nazi movement, but quite siginificantly worse and a larger death toll than all the nazis did during the whole of WWII. But the Chinese are a reserved and quite people and would not constantly cry and whine like some cultures.

Charlie D

Not a Member!


Saturday 8th September 2007 | 01:33 PM


Debating with you is not possible. You would argue that we don't know for certain that the surface of the sun is hot because no one has tried to touch it.

The metal cutting pictures in my last link show exactly what you say they don't. I can't make you see something if you won't open your eyes. I also fail to see the significance of a woman standing by a gaping hole in the side of a building. What is this suppose to prove? I am perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong as soon as someone shows me proof. Thus far I haven't seen it, and in fact have been able to disprove the claims trying to do so. If you've got proof, lets see it.

Not a Member!


Sunday 9th September 2007 | 02:55 AM

I think the movie was great, first of all. And I think people are forgetting that this movie was not made to be the perfect movie, but to get a point across, to be passed around, and open peoples mind to look further into these situations.

"...find it ironic the theme of 'Zeitgeist' is of the people taking everything they see in the media as truth, but they want us to take their documentary as truth anyway :-)..."

I dont think so, because notice how throughout the movie they use multiple news bits, interviews, and other items from the media to prove their point. They aren't saying EVERYTHING in the media is a lie, but that as humans we are letting it get to the point where the media has the ability to do that to us.

Well, thats all. I also loved the Jimi Hendrix quote at the end. ;)


Not a Member!


Sunday 9th September 2007 | 04:41 AM

this movie was everything i already thought and more. loved it, it opened alot of peoples eyes that hadnt seen this movie or thought any different then what there told

Not a Member!


Wednesday 12th September 2007 | 02:11 AM

Happy Birthday America!!

Wheter you claim open eyes, doubt the truth or belong to the ones making history (for the good of the people), you all did the hell of a job. Happy Anniversary! Don't get upset about the discussion here, since no-one of you will put a statement of this on a card-board and hold it up in the streets. How many brave Navy veterans got upset when they found out their dead comrades at Pearl Harbour were just a sacrifice to enter war? Don't worry, it's all done for your good, for your protection. Just have a look at your birthday present: a stable democratic Iraq (too bad they had nothing to do with it - while you know it by now but does this change a thing) and all the jobs that come with it, respectively economy running. Hey and it was just 450 billion bucks of your taxes. How does that make you responsible (I leave this little investigation for your elite)??
Finally, since I am no terrorist (except to W's definition), nor sadist, nor anti-american and since I also lost a friend 6 years ago, I want you to know that I wrote this cynical thread, because I did not give up on you yet - unlike the rest of the world. There is hope, but it's under your ass and you have to figure it out yourself how to hold on to!

Not a Member!

Zeitgeist Movie creator ?

Monday 17th September 2007 | 01:29 PM

I had heard that a guy named Norman Peter James - was the creator and producer of Zeitgeist the movie ... which might be in part the source for the initials for "Peter J" as the creator was the person invloved with producing the film. Does anyone know anything about this?

Is Norman Peter James the creator of Zeitgeist? If so, his name doesn't bring up anything but high educated people related to that name: Mds, PHD, etc...

Not a Member!


Monday 17th September 2007 | 01:50 PM

I keep hearing it is Peter James Thorpe... who cares really... the whole thing is a compilation anyway

Not a Member!


Wednesday 19th September 2007 | 10:58 PM

Yes we must be wary of the film-maker's own agenda. We should not believe this film as much as the government explanation, people in this forum have said this enough. The film does spawn a relevant point, however. Americans tend to see everything in absolutes. This film and everything in it can be completely refuted or taken for the absolute truth itself. The film-maker's own bias is again evidence for the polarised character of American society.

The film is overblown and drastic probably to address the mindset of the more ignorant masses who are easily persuaded to support invasions and wars. The more intellectual folks can take an overall theme of the film with them, which is power. That was the point about the Christianity part, the 9/11 part, the banker part. So what if Christianity wasn't original? Who are the repulsive investment bankers? Who cares. We must all keep in mind, however, that everything that has ever been played in politics has hidden motives and forces colliding with each other. So be critical of everything, it's healthy. But watch out for these conspiracy films, because they tend to tell you exactly what you want to believe, anyway. You can see things more conservatively. The 9/11 attacks, in my eyes, might indeed have been actual terrorist attacks. The way the government played its policies afterwards, I think we can all agree, was exploitative and made America's position in the world less favourable. Good hunting. Cheers

Not a Member!


Friday 21st September 2007 | 12:11 PM

Yea as soon as I was seeing them call our sun "God's sun" I was hoping they didnt use that phonetically trying to relate it to Jesus being God's SON... as idk if the hebrew's word for sun and son sound exactly the same!!!?? but then there it was a pic og Jesus with the words "'Gods son'" in the pic....omg....With my eyes closed i cant tell the difference!! Good thing I understand English wasn't around back then... Kinda makes me lose any attention to a movie after that....

Not a Member!


Saturday 22nd September 2007 | 10:48 AM

I think the best way to proceed, with all information considered, regardless of corroborated evidence from a reputable source which in itself is an ambiguous classification of truth subject to opinion, is with a healthy sense of pessimistic realism laid over a solid base of optimistic idealism. I pray that people receive this film’s message that change must occur. All conspiracy aside change must occur. And if even a few of the lines drawn in this film are real, it is wholly irresponsible for any of us to sit and argue the trivialities of the film. Its message needs to be shared lest we succumb to willingly premising our rights to be further relinquished.
It is easy to see the reality and urgency of our current situation, though it also is easy to be pessimistic against such seemingly insurmountable odds. Taking on a conspiracy of global proportions that thinks nothing of human sanctity is daunting.
The hard part is remaining optimistic. I am an idealist. I do believe in the inherent good of all people. I even feel that those responsible for perpetrating this atrocious scenario are not evil people, just misguided. And it is some consolation to know wealth is not the sole determinant of happiness. I find it hard to believe these people sleep as soundly as myself. The fact is: ignorance is the only modus operandi that allows for such social, economic, political, and philosophical dominance. I say again, this message needs to be shared. And in order to avoid "shell shocking" those to cozy in their glass-house shell of comfort, please be patient. Most are not ready for such a foundation shaking experience. Though I refuse to believe most are too stupid to comprehend it once their minds have been subtly stretched.
I am optimistic. I think the internet is an amazing resource, one that evolved far too fast and unpredictably to be efficiently censored. Another thing to be optimistic about is modern physics, it's dualism with eastern mysticism and it's portrait of reality that depicts awareness as being an integral and dynamic part the universe itself, is immensely empowering. A breath of fresh air from the isolated mechanical perception brought about by Newton's theory; the theory which dictated all extensions of higher thought including, but not limited to, psychology, medicine, philosophy, and government. Hopefully we develop the means to utilize this new field of knowledge before they turn it into a weapon...
But regardless I think the greatest weapon we have against all of this is ourselves. We still have freedom of speech. Use it. Get the word out there that we know what is going on and that at the very least they need to get better at hiding what they're doing because it's insulting… No, but seriously spread the word.

Not a Member!


Saturday 22nd September 2007 | 12:30 PM

The point of the movie "Zeitgeist" is to get us to see past the lies that our governments, religions, and media tell us. It is to get us to realize the TRUTH of who we really are. Arguing about the factuality of this or that will not solve anything. The truth is that we are all powerful, spiritual beings who have the ability to c0-create the world that we would like to live in, and that our children will live in. I am grateful to the makers of this movie and especially to George Carlin.


Not a Member!


Saturday 22nd September 2007 | 05:21 PM

The Fundamentalist BushWacker Offers had me runnin back to my local Catholic Church Where The Pastor has The cajones to speak out against the War and to have a Sermon about how Robert Kennedy And JFK were both whacked by the cia sociopolitical money war machine, Fundamentalists are clearly PHONEYS and PHARISEES

Not a Member!


Saturday 22nd September 2007 | 11:35 PM

HOW IT IS - (excuse any mispelling)

Propaganda, conspirasies, theories, facts or fiction. It really doesnt matter... The people (us) will never have the power to find out the truth no matter how many books we read and try to logicise & accumulate to what we think to be "knowledge",which we think =TRUTH. The people with the power are intelligent manipulative beings with opinions that distract us into (chasing) alot of gossip, blogs, television,radio etc my point being using this blog as an example - everybody will always have different opinions and will fight to be heard, these comments could go on for a large number of months because debating/fighting/discussing view points are interesting... So you can see how they have us in the palm of there hands.

Im sure everybody has heard the term "power to the people" or "of" the people im not sure. Now... Im no hippie, but if the people shifted there conciousness to the "NOW" being the exact point/time you are reading this, and ask yourself, are the people in power really bettering our country, or even our world?
Our world has enough money to wipe out poverty... Why dont they?

Life is not about an old text, or even about man who died and if we dont follow his ways we go to HELL (ooooh)
I believe its about what we do in our short life span for the future of others.

Yes, I believe in the GOD, the light, the divine energy, love, the universe whatever you want to call it. That is the only thing that will remain a mystery in my lifetime.
There is something out there higher than us... The Earth and universe didnt just show up out of knowwhere.
People will never be able to comprehend God with knowledge. The concsiousness is the awarenes that god is in all that breathes life and its about KNOWING (truth).

If people think Im whacked out thats okay... jst remember to focus in the now and remember the word - conciousness. Peace and much love to you all P.S I promise Im no Hippie, oh and Im on here coz Zietgiest was interesting.

Not a Member!


Saturday 22nd September 2007 | 11:46 PM

Oh and power to the people -

We need to get off our bottoms instead of writing our opinions on everything controversial and do something about whats happening NOW! We are taught to do this from an early age and thats why our generation is the way it is. (OPINIONATED)
Yes the people with power has brought order... WAIT!... they havent... Homelessness? Gangs? Drugs? Alchohol?
Maybe sytem is the right word but there are too many loop holes.

Peace my people.

Not a Member!


Saturday 22nd September 2007 | 11:58 PM

I totally agree with what "The Mistress Celerian". She is real!

Not a Member!


Sunday 23rd September 2007 | 12:40 PM

Man this is a long chain. I feel like I could comment on 10000 items.

NIST debunks the buildings pancaked. (to the architect of the group) They say the building came down in a manner not in line with a planned demolition, which would have been a pancake affect.

Molten steal is attributed to molten aluminum.

i won't try to explain the 'official' position, but here it is

All in all this was a good movie. It is definitely here to make you think. Which is good. We as a species could all use a little more of that. I think the creator of this movie does do a good job of correcting some flaws in this movie. eg. the trillions to billions mistake that Rothchild made. That to me is a good sign of good intentions.

When it comes down to it, just about anything that is controversial, a new idea on science, or just human behavior can be debated either way. I like to imagine that most of the time the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I think bush and his administration did a poor job and are very shady administration. They are not the shining example of what America was meant to be. However, most administrations have not been.

I think if this movie is even 5% true, and that is just 5%, then we as a people have some very very major issues that we need to deal with. And yes it is up to us to change these for us. Nobody, not god, not jesus, not ala (or however you spell that), not 1 religion on this planet is going to do it for us.

This comment may not be tied together well, but there is just so much to comment on or refute, that it is near impossible to do in a short comment.

As for a paradigm shift for the human race in how we think and how we treat each other and the planet; we need one. We need it bad.

I think most people, the middle class/poor are generally good people. We love our families, we treat people with respect, we give to charity (even tipping well at a restaurant/or your pizza delivery guy in my opinion is a gift of charity) It is you trying to make things better for someone else. I think the rich and the very very powerful people of the world are mostly diluted, and separated from reality. To me 90% of people with tons of money have serious problems. Just look at what is on the news etc. Anna Nicole, Paris, Lindsey, O.J., Michael Jackson, etc the list goes on and on and on. These are just people with lots of money and no 'real' power.

Its like the old saying, if you want to find out who 'did it', if you will, follow the money. Well, that leads right to the world banks, federal reserve etc.

There are two top level ways for us to change and really start to evolve as a species. That is, we do it ourselves, or some sort of outside influence forces us to make the change for the better.

We could hold elections, vote in the right people, corporate lobbyists could have a change of heart, the population could be controlled, of course that could happen and that would be the best way for everyone to have a change for the better.

However, the human race has always made its greatest advances, changes in the face of adversity. I think that is just in our nature. Which then kind of makes you think that the only way that we as a people will 'wake up', as this video wants us to, is by some sort of collapse in the system.

The world is trying to head toward a one world government. That is not necessarily a bad thing as it could bring us together, but not likely. To few with too much power is a recipe for disaster. Maybe in a millennium that could work, be we as a race are not near as advanced as we should be to pull that off.

War has always equaled money. Rich people know that. In a capitalist society, money is the driving force. Capitalism has brought great things, but I feel with every 1 good thing, 2 evil things accompany it. Eisenhower even warned the U.S. about the industrial military complex. and that is about as fact as you can get. And look at us now! WE ARE THE EXACT THING THAT HE WARNED AGAINST. A society that is willing to destroy humanity on the basis of Profit.

We have many problems as a species, and this movie says a lot about those problems. No facts are needed to prove one point about this movie, and it is as true today as it has been since we started fighting (which has been our entire existence mind you)

Once the power of love overcomes the love of power, then we will know peace.

power and money go hand and hand.

btw, I would vote more, but what is up with our chimp candidate selection? no matter what anymore, it seems like an exercise in futility to vote for the 'right candidate'

Not a Member!

hell yeah....

Sunday 23rd September 2007 | 01:52 PM

Do we really not have to pay federal income taxes????
Aren't people imprisoned for tax evasion? Did they just not have a good lawyer?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 25th September 2007 | 02:54 AM

"Do we really not have to pay federal income taxes????
Aren't people imprisoned for tax evasion? Did they just not have a good lawyer?"

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration."

Not a Member!

16th amendment not ratified

Wednesday 26th September 2007 | 04:23 AM

The 16th amendment is there, yes. But it was never ever ever ratified. The amount of states needed to ratify the amendment was never met. Any dork can point to the 16th amendment. It's like saying "the bible says so, so it must be true!"

Not a Member!


Thursday 27th September 2007 | 02:25 PM

Well folks, it seems that there are two distinct opinions on this film. Either it is well researched and truthful or it is an attempt to confuse us further. My personal opinion is that most of the film is true. The state of the world and the political machines that run it are truly self serving and really don't care about us. The current American government is headed by the Illuminati (as it has been since its inception) Just look at the layout of the buildings in Washington, D.C. If that doesn't tell you something, then wake up...One world order, 666, pole shift, 2012, Planet X, Aliens, Nephilim, etc.. Too many people have been duped and lied to... and "they" don't want you to "know". Why doesn't mainstream media report on these topics? Easy, they are told what to report and how to say it. I live below the 49th parallel in Canada and it scares me at times to think how I as a Canadian am influenced by the American media and government. It is a thought provoking film and a person should view it.

Not a Member!


Thursday 27th September 2007 | 05:31 PM

Hi people. I don't post much but this is what I think is going on. I think it’s becoming more and more apparent that the world cannot continue to exist the way it does and has all throughout history as we know it. Communication, information, and culture has never existed on the global scale it does today and change is inevitable. Humanitarian atrocities cannot exist without retaliation when the whole world is there to watch them. Iraq was an opportunity to remove a hostile from power. Whether or not Sadam was hostile to the US I don't know but he was certainly hostile to humanity and the world is a better place without him. I'm not mad at my government or my president for the war because we did a good thing, legal or not.

People laugh at the idea of world peace but if our global powers got together and enforced freedom and human rights it would be entirely possible. I think the world is globalizing as shown through the European and North American unions. I think people are afraid of change, especially when what's changing, how it’s changing, and who's changing it remain unclear. As long as our governments are elected by us, we have nothing to fear. I'm not stupid, look into things and do not allow any systems that control our governments to exist (like corporate funding and the Federal Reserve). I'm just saying that a more globalized government doesn't necessarily have to have some dark emperor and might be a good thing. We do not owe the world anything but one would think good people should want to liberate the other good people of the world.

It would not be easy but we, the people, certainly could save the world by changing our level of awareness and voting for politicians who seek only truth and progress (Ron Paul/Barack Obama?). We as Americans should not fear involvement in foreign affairs because Bush did not knock down his towers, some terrorist ass holes did and until we remove dangerous men from power and allow people to be free, things like this will continue throughout the world.

Why do wars exist? Land, money, recourses, and oppression. If the world government people seem to be so afraid of existed, war would not and progress would be unimaginable. Just don't let a bank or corporation control it.

Not a Member!


Sunday 30th September 2007 | 08:32 PM

The problem is that the debate is focused on to narrow an issue. zietgiest means spirit of the age, and the over all message is that we are manipulated by powerful leaders into serving their agendas instead of benefiting mankind as a whole. the devil is in the detail. we are at war, people are being killed at this very moment, the precursor was events that had tenuous links, our genuine emotions of grief and anger were skillfuly manipulated and used against us. if the American goverment knew nothing of these attacks, then they are guilty of gross neglegence and even more guilty of hijaking our grief and using it to go to war on more flimsy evedence than any conspiracy theory, the worst weapon of mass distruction is propoganda. peace and love people.

Not a Member!


Monday 1st October 2007 | 12:41 PM

To quote Rodney's comments :

"Don't worry, though. He's got proof. Did you know thermite, when used an explosive, gives off dust? Turns out there was dust thrown off when several thousand tonnes of concrete fell down. To most people, that's a no brainer. To this guy, it's proof the towers were blown up with thermite. "

Watch that part again, you obviously missed the point. That goes for the rest of these "points" you make.

"It just gets better and better. Did you know they use RFID to "track your every move on the planet". See this is what I'm talking about?! The RFID chip he sites has an active range of 2.5cm. I work with them. That's 0.025m. Track your moves? It's a replacement barcode technology! You still need to swipe it, you frikkin clown! It's no more invasive than carrying a drivers license. They don't even have their own power source, you complete and utter Gumby."

I think what he's trying to get across is that all actions in future will REQUIRE this to use it, therefore tracking all of your actions. (Well, actions that will involve the chip, not walking your dog - I hope). Think credit cards.

Also, if you're going to comment on someones credibility, you should try and tell us exactly what, and your evidence to back it up, or your argument will be just as weak.
Dispute don't dismiss.

Not a Member!


Monday 1st October 2007 | 12:43 PM

This movie is incredible and life changing, I feel like I have some sort of direction in my life now that I know some of the horrible things that really go on at top levels.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do to raise awareness, or what I could do in my career to try and stop or prevent this though.

Not a Member!


Monday 1st October 2007 | 04:24 PM

Wow. This is one of the most intense (and long-running) bunch of comments, criticisms, and arguments I've ever seen based on one documentary (looks to be almost three months now). I've just seen the movie for the first time, and to say that it wasn't eye-opening (purely my opinion) would be an insult to the filmmaker and to those who would like to see the alternative to government-paid networks spewing what the general public should accept as "truth"...here in the states, we call it the news. I tend to call it "the bad news" as even the local networks save the stories that may give people a glint of hope or inspiration until the last twenty or thirty seconds of the newscast. I will not say I was not moved and unnerved by this film at the same time, but I can also not say that parts of it (however many depends upon the viewer, I suppose, as I've read above) could not be debunked. Basically, I am saying that I know nothing of Thermite, but based on the information given (the chemical properties, the result of using it, and so forth), I can say that someone sounds like they've done their homework, whether at ground zero or in a library, and that was intriguing. I see that some people are as interested in debunking this film as those who accepted and believed it and believed in it. I can also not say that I am an expert on Chrisianity or any other religion, but I can say that, if true, could shake the very core belief system of many individuals and religions, and that, to me, is intriguing. I like how those who don't seem to believe much of it also respect it as a film. I was very partial to the footage of Peter Finch (as "lunatic" anchorman Howard Beale) in Network. Perhaps it was a subliminal message to not take too much action o raise too much fuss over this film, as Howard Beale was shot to death on national television at the end of that movie (sorry to spoil it, but in all fairness, the movie is about thirty-one years old). Also, some of the most influential faces shown or voices heard were of the unfortuantely deceased (Ghandi, assassinated, Kennedy, King, and the fictional Howard Beale, likewise, Bill Hicks, cancer I believe). Was this a deliberate or unintentional way to show us that idealists who challenge the general consensus will meet their doom before they see much change in the very ideas they challenged? Sure, they saw a bit, but they were visionaries. They probably had an endless plethora of ideas that would lead to some sort of eutopian society. I will bring up this rather disturbing question: what would the world be without chaos? Without doubt, suspicion, turmoil, and anger, sometimes leading to violence on a small or massive scale? Would the world be content to waking up with a smile to get the newspaper, happily greeting the neighbor whose wife and possessions are not being coveted? Would we be satisfied if the worst news of the day was someone choking to death on a chicken bone because we all get along so well that there is no need for violence or racism or conspiracy or adultery, the very things that trigger events that we are able to debate. Murders, wars, arson, lunacy, serial killings, are these not the fuel for great and haunting stories, films, and or debates? We can limit a eutopia to the things that need constant work, whether we choose to aknowledge it or not: our homes and our families. If we keep watching the six o'clock news and CNN and live in a constant state of panic followed by the consumptive need to rid ourselves of that panic, we may forget that our son has been calling our name to read a book together. We may forget our daughter's birthday is coming up or what she wanted...thus breeding that paranoid behavior into those who need our comfort, our assurance that everything will be okay: our kids. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who will shelter his child, but the opposite of intense sheltering is intense exposure. We've got to start living in between. Teach our kids about sickness, death, war, poverty, child molesters, etc., but we wouldn't dream of exposing them to it. Well, what becomes of the child who hears these things because his mother and or father are constantly commenting on, watching, and worrying about everything but the fact that the kid has been crying out for attention or worse yet, succumbing to this paranoid lifestyle. This is coming from a guy whose father has been an ambulance chasing, CB and police radio-listening, conspiracy theorist, natural and unnatural disaster, CNN, Foxnews, etc. nut for as long as I remember, but after their divorce, my mother was on a different side of the spectrum...not all the way, however, but enough to make me relaize that my father didn't seem happy unless he was unhappy with the world. My mother taught me to embrace my imagination, turn off the TV for a while, and read or write some fiction. But my father taught me that sometimes, your imagination needs a spark for the fuel that is chaos, which comes from keeping up with current events or history. I taught myself to write screen plays (as suggested by mother who nurtured my love of film and writing) about just how odd the world can be (as suggested by my dad). So how would I react to this film? It was a little from Mom and a bit from Dad. I embraced the imagination and effort put into it yet I was not so much appalled as simply in wonder as to why this type of film-making creativity and energy would be used for such a crappy subject. I say crappy because, true or not, it presented a pretty bleak view of the world, especially of the United States government, which stands by its religion and policies as much as it exploits them as a means of distraction from films like these (once again assuming it is true). I thought this was rather fascinating: when it was over, I wanted to believe it as equally as I wanted to disbelieve it. I've read some posts that suggest doing more in-depth and/or accurate research, others that say it would make for a much longer documentary if done that way. Either way, accepting this film's views at face value is something we do on faith. the faith that the filmmaker did his homework enough to satisfy the viewers while entertaining those who weren't in the mood for a dry documentary with a monotonous narrator and no interesting imagery. It's amazing the things we crave, and I've got to admit, I am in full agreement with both sides. If the facts are skewed, they should have been looked over more carefully so that any skeptic would have trouble arguing its points. If it is all true, hey, I'm impressed that he was able to make such grim truths interesting enough to sit through for two hours. I am not an expert or an authority on much, but I can say that, in my opinion, this was a well-done film with great visuals, haunting use of existing footage, even humor in some parts. Keep these postings going, man, I love it. I forgot who posted it, but someone said that ignorance is definitely bliss. In some ways it is. If that stuff is true, I could've done without knowing it. For instance, how do I not HAVE to pay taxes, but could go to jail for NOT doing so...technically, does someone owe me a couple thousand dollars for paying something that doesn't need to be paid...can paying Federal Income Tax be a tax write-off, kinda like donating money to a charity? After all, we don't have to donate money to charity, but because we do it by choice, we get a cut of it back...should be the same with Federal Income Taxes? We should get it all back! If they need to borrow some money, I'll help out, but I should get all of it back, and because I've done so over the past ten years, shouldn't I get it all back with interest? I hate to sound like one of those lazy bastards who just wants a handout, but I have to ask, if there is NO LAW stating that I have to pay the feds this money, I should be able to get it all back. What do we need to do? Rise up? How without the walthy elite controlling every facet of law and order? I've been robbed! Many of you have been robbed (assuming you're a U.S. citizen and are a taxpayer)! Screw no longer paying them because it's unwritten. I'll play ball if I can get my money back, the same thing anyone who lends out money or gets robbed wants to do. Well, now it's just turning into a rant, so I'll call it quits. I appreciate all of the posts, and I must say, the insults are usually very light. Not something I'm used to.

Not a Member!

latvian stalion

Monday 8th October 2007 | 08:21 AM

sorry i havn't read all the posts, just too many, but wanted to point out about WTC, so it is said that jetfuel melted the steel core, well jet fuel burns at 980.c and steel melts at aprox. 1400.c, so how did it melt?


Not a Member!


Tuesday 9th October 2007 | 03:29 AM

Aaron Russo claims he was told about 9/11 11 months before it happened.

What would you think if you were told about 9/11 before it happened?

Well, I was told about 9/11, in so many words, about 6 or 7 months before it happened at a function at my University. It went something like this:

"We are about to witness a huge event. It will be the biggest single event in human history since the birth of Jesus Christ, and it will without a doubt happen before the end of this year. It will completely change everything, but you need to question it.."

I know who was behind 9/11.

Not a Member!


Friday 12th October 2007 | 09:04 PM

Something fishy is going on...

Not a Member!


Saturday 13th October 2007 | 03:45 PM

Anon, who was behind it...

Not a Member!

Interactive Transcript

Sunday 14th October 2007 | 10:47 AM

There is an interactive transcript to part 1 of the Zeitgeist film here:

Also, FYI, the film is about to break into the mainstream. Keep your eyes and ears open.

It will be the first film that exposes 9/11 as an inside job to be accepted into the mainstream. Faux News will have a feild day.

Not a Member!

Corrie Elieff

Sunday 14th October 2007 | 04:04 PM

Okay, I have done alot of research, reading, and viewing of "documentaries/conspiracies/etc." on this topic.

One thing is for sure. There are always mistakes in these types of films. However, this does not give anyone, including half of the gentlemen on this page believing they can debunk an entire movie based on trash they've been fed by the media.

I've seen Loose Change, I've read Lee Iocca's "where have all the leaders gone", I've read popular mechanics response to loose change, and had many physics professors overview the WTC explosions. So please don't think that I'm just some dork who was brainwashed by an internet video.

I am just curious however, how every American/Canadian/North American/Person can be so niave to believe that a government would sacrifice its own people. This attack placed all of the pieces together for the government to revoke many rights/freedoms, go to war in Iraq/Afgan,

One thing is for sure. Those buildings COULD NOT HAVE FALLEN from just an airplane. Kersone/jet fuel, and an airplane that is as strong as a tin can compared to a building cannot completely level a 110 story concrete/steel building. Popular mechanics could not provide any serious proof that it could. These towers were brought down by planed explosives.

I cannot type anything further at this moment. I have a million things I want to say, and cannot fit them into a paragraph that someone will just pick apart anyway.

Corrie Elieff.

Btw, I'm giving this URL for this movie to all of my professors/teachers at school, and posting the url around my facilitys at school.

Not a Member!

Kevin Ryan | NIST report

Wednesday 17th October 2007 | 02:21 PM

Kevin Ryan was a NIST employee who was fired for showing the fallacies in NIST's report on the steel they personally certified that were used in the towers.

Kevin Ryan | NIST report

In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.

But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon.

Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took place.

After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."

It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 17th October 2007 | 02:22 PM

i guess it's getting realer. :-)

Not a Member!


Tuesday 23rd October 2007 | 11:14 PM

Posted by "Kevin Ryan | NIST report":

"Kevin Ryan was a NIST employee who was fired for showing the fallacies in NIST's report on the steel they personally certified that were used in the towers."


Kevin Ryan sent a letter to NIST about what he felt were discrepancies in what was said versus what was known regarding the melting point of steel. So what? The melting point was never relevant, except to CT's. The point at which it becomes weakened is what mattered, and that temp. was never disputed. Besides, Ryan didn't even work in fire protection, he worked in water testing. The reason he was fired was because he lied in that letter, and implied he was representing UL, when in fact he wasn't.

Posted by "Kevin Ryan | NIST report":

"In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."


That's like saying that if you admit that you've never actually touched the sun with your own hand, you will have implicitly admitted that any claims by you that the sun is a gaseous star are fraud, and that it's really nothing more than a really bright light bulb.

Actually, I'm sure I'm wasting my time speaking to you about it since you clearly didn't write that post yourself. But you should know that where ever you copied and pasted it from filled it with complete lies and conjecture. The WTC towers didn't collapse in free-fall, so why even mention it? Could you not clearly see that the falling pieces of the towers all went down faster than the towers themselves? It was close to free-fall, but you know what they say about 'close' only counting in horseshoes and hand grenades. Come on, you can do better than that.

Posted by "Corrie Elieff":

"One thing is for sure. Those buildings COULD NOT HAVE FALLEN from just an airplane. Kersone/jet fuel, and an airplane that is as strong as a tin can compared to a building cannot completely level a 110 story concrete/steel building. Popular mechanics could not provide any serious proof that it could."


See below...

Posted by "Kevin Ryan | NIST report":

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."


You obviously have no grasp of physics whatsoever.

Once more than about a half of the columns (core, exterior, or any combination of the two), in the impact floor(s) suffer, the weight of the upper part of the structure above these floor(s) can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the damaged floor(s), gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated. This causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower. The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass, and, having acquired a much higher kinetic energy and falling with a greater velocity, the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the way down. The collapse of the tower must be an almost free fall, which it was, as mentioned above.

What your boys referred to as an "almost impossible event" was not only possible, it was virtually the only real possibility at all.

Posted by "Corrie Elieff":

"These towers were brought down by planed explosives."


An explosive has not yet been made that works 100% of the time, leaves absolutely no trace, and which causes a building to buckle inward and then as the towers did just before collapsing. Have your instructors go over the videos with you. Maybe they can help you understand why the videos themselves are the best evidence that explosives not only were not used, they couldn't have been. They might be able to show you why your suggestion wasn't possible in this case, and how much different a controlled demolition would have been. They could also probably point out to you that there would have been traces, literally tons, left over from the huge amount of explosives that would have been necessary.

Good luck.

To you both; a recent study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition", but this new study clearly shows that is not the way the towers fell. Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations conclude the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. He added that his calculations showed this was very much an expected result for the actions that transpired, and that it was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was involved.

Here is a copy of the study, complete with real world formulas and elementary calculations for you to try yourself: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Posted by "16th amendment not ratified"

The 16th amendment is there, yes. But it was never ever ever ratified. The amount of states needed to ratify the amendment was never met. Any dork can point to the 16th amendment. It's like saying "the bible says so, so it must be true!"


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but "GottaPayTaxes" was correct when they quoted the 16th Amendment. You're right in that the "16th amendment is there", but you are wrong when you suggest that it was never ratified. It was ratified on February 25, 1913. It required 36 states to ratify it in order for it to become law, and in total there were 42 that did.

Many income tax conspiracy theorists point out that Massachusetts and New Hampshire didn't ratify it until a week later in March, which they suggest invalidates their ratification because it was done before the announcement date, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Other income tax conspiracy theorists like to point out that the state of Ohio wasn't technically a state on that date, so therefore their ratification shouldn't count, either, but that theory is also flawed. It was discovered in 1953 that when Ohio's boundaries and constitution were approved by Congress in 1803, they had overlooked passing an actual resolution that formally admitted Ohio as a state, so therefore it wasn't in 1913, so their ratification of the 16th Amendment shouldn't count. However, as it turns out, in 1803, there was no written law requiring a formal resolution for admission as a state, so the whole argument was a moot point anyway.

But, just for shits and giggles, lets go ahead and dismiss those three states ratifications anyway. That still leaves 39 states whos choice to ratify the 16th Amendment did count, and they only needed 36 states. There were more than enough states to ratify the 16th Amendment.

A more interesting argument against the 16th by the income tax conspiracy theorists said that since Ohio wasn't officially a state in 1913 (even though it turns out it was), and since the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft, and Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857, and the Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States, that Taft was then not a natural-born citizen (since Ohio would not have been a state in 1857), and could not legally be president, and therefore could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment in the first place, invalidating the whole thing.

Someone was doing some serious thinking with that one!

But, it wasn't correct, either, even if Ohio had not been a state, because in that case, Ohio would have been a U.S. territory instead, and the laws regarding the presidents ethnicity actually says that persons born in U.S. territories--not just in states--are U.S. citizens. (For example, Puerto Rico) So Taft was a natural-born citizen and could legally serve as president.
Further more, it turns out that presidents don't introduce constitutional amendments; members of Congress do.

Posted by "Dan-O":

"I hate to sound like one of those lazy bastards who just wants a handout, but I have to ask, if there is NO LAW stating that I have to pay the feds this money, I should be able to get it all back."

See my reply above yours. :)

Wow. I gotta say, I really am surprised to see so many people still swearing by the 9/11 CT. There isn't a single piece of evidence proving any of the CT's correct, and in this blog alone, I've debunked every claim presented. But that doesn't matter because most of the folks replying to this blog aren't interested in the truth, they're only interested in THEIR truth, which is actually a handful of crackpots best crock of shit yet. Kinda sad when your personal truth is someone elses made up crock of shit.

But I do understand because I fell for it too, at least until I spent a few weeks doing serious research.

All you have to do is exactly what the movie asks you to at the very end; Don't believe them. Find out for yourself.

I'm yet to see a single post in here by anyone that has done that without copying and pasting lies from CT websites, usually verbatim.

So, I'm done wasting my time. I had actually believed that the folks here were like me; concerned after seeing Zeitgeist, and looking for the truth. But the vast majority wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass.

The answers, with real and documented proof, exist right here in this blog, so if you're still searching for the truth after reading this blog, you will never find it for the simple reason that you refuse to accept it.

I can no longer stomach some of the ridiculous statements made in here, and feel I should probably leave before people start trying to convince me that UFO's and aliens have visited this planet, or that the Bermuda Triangle has some mystic power.

I sincerely wish you all the best, but I truly hope your children grow up to be more intelligent and less paranoid.

Take care.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 24th October 2007 | 08:28 AM

I didn't have the time to read this whole list of comments but I do not believe anybody ever mentioned the exact words of the 16th amendment. Which are

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

It is worth noting that there is no specific language in this amendment that REQUIRES you to pay. Congress can decide the rate of your income tax and it can attempt to collect it. Congresses responsibility not yours. Now I do not know by fact if there is statute that required persons to pay or not but this is all very interesting.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 24th October 2007 | 05:56 PM

Hi Rodney,

I totally LOVED your review. The only thing that I disagree with is about your statements about the chip. Whether or not it has a tiny range, it's still violating freedoms. It still does not mean that people can tamper with it and it does not necessarily mean that they can't track you. Keeping one main chip inside of you, revealing all your info can leave one individual very vulnerable.

Becareful, Rodney. You don't want a foreign object to be placed inside your body that is not for health related reasons. False accusations can easily be made about people, already. Why make it easier with a chip?

Not a Member!


Saturday 27th October 2007 | 02:49 AM

Why do you stand on your own virtual mountain talking down to people on here that pose questions or comments as if you hold the book of answers like Moses and everyone is a peasant begging at your feet for knowledge? You are the biggest, pompous, arrogant self-serving a**hole I ever read on the internet. A regurgitator and a fraud, I hope the NWO you're abedding and essentially defending puts their first bullet in your head if they achieve the police state they desire, you friggin lapdog...and if you believe you have actually 'proven' anything in your blogs, you better ask your doctor to up the dosage on your medication. I think I speak for all readers in saying ~ GO AWAY you mosquito.

Not a Member!


Sunday 28th October 2007 | 09:19 AM

I find it difficult to take seriously people who cannot even be bothered to spell words properly for a solitary short paragraph, and who consider Wikipedia and YouTube to be bedrocks of research! Yeeesh.

Not a Member!

Not Impressed

Sunday 28th October 2007 | 09:52 AM

I think "Zeitgeist" is German for "let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks". The first 40 minutes is interesting, the rest is almost pure fantasy. A nice production - shows how the Mac enables stoners. Also note that the horrific images are there only to get the viewer thinking emotionally - which is not really thinking at all. Note also that most recent Democrat to be directly criticized is FDR - a very interesting point considering that the Clintons WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ON IT - they are not even mentioned. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Not a Member!


Monday 29th October 2007 | 03:03 PM

I just can't stop thinking about the steel beam they showed. They showed how in demolitions, they cut the beams at a specific angle.

And then show the WTC beam - cut at the same angle.

What's the dealio?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 30th October 2007 | 11:09 AM

Okay let me just say that Rodneys finds very good flaws in the movie and his points are right.Thank you rodney for sharing your views with us.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 30th October 2007 | 12:14 PM

I wached the movie twice. I had an emotional reaction first followed by a strong desire to research farther. What, if anything, is being looked into as far as 9/11?

Not a Member!


Friday 2nd November 2007 | 12:07 PM

On the zeitgeistmovie.com official website it even states "It is my hope that people will not take what is said
in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized". The creator knows that not every single bit is exactly in the context in which it's given.. the point of the movie is to have you actually THINK FOR YOURSELF! This movie is just suppose to open your eyes to the very strong possibilities that eveything is not what it seems. Ask questions, do your own research in what is being done about 9/11. I personally beleive that 9/11 was staged; this conclusion is not drawn directly from Zeitgeist but from other sources as well. If you really don't beleive the 9/11 conspiracy, check out this video which is presented by an Architect and the University of Manitoba; http://911blogger.com/node/10025

Not a Member!

Not Convinced

Saturday 3rd November 2007 | 12:59 AM


I'm not going to write much so here goes.

Religion - I don't believe in any religion as i think it divides people and causes more harm than good. Being a logical person I would find more truth in the zodiac relationship with current religions as I do believe that the Ancient civilizations knew more about life than we know today and the origins of man. It's sad to think that most religious people have been brainwashed down the generations and made to fear god if they don't believe. I for one have not seen jesus, heard from god or seen miraculous feats performed by any religious figure except for preists molesting young children.

I think religion once had a pure purpose but as time went on everyone got fanatical and started taking the words in the texts literally making it purposeless and meaningless.

I respect those who are religious but i will not have any religious person try to preech to me about god etc.. If i want to say "Christ" in public it should not offend anyone who hears me say it, nor does it give them the right to tell me not to use the lord's name in vain. I, like anybody can use any word they see fit. I may find the words God Bless offensive, which is silly i know.. only because its just a few words to most people but, do the ones that take offense to people saying "christ" watch what they say? No, because what they believe is right, and anyone who thinks or says different are wrong! That is the ignorance of religion.

Abortions may not be natural but I approve of them. It is a personal choice by the two people to keep or terminate the foetus. It is not up to the govt or religious institutions to overstep the line between making a free choice and not having a choice at all. It's nice to have the Option, But taking away options is just plain wrong!!

9/11 - I am not convinced that 9/11 was the work of terrorists. The WTCs were in my mind a controlled demolition and that if the architects and engineers who built them say it was impossible for them to fall like that i tend to take their word for it not the explanation from the so called experts in the "Bebunking 9/11 Myths" book which is so full of shit.

WTC 7 - they say it was "pulled" using a few large cables attached to the support columns. I think it would take longer than an afternoon to plan a demolition of a building of that size by using cables pulled by a few tractors and in doing so have the building collpase perfectly in its own footprint.. 3RD time in one day!! It's beyond amazing, It's a Miracal!

Sorry, that i have been quick in writing this but i have done my own research and come to my own conclusions, I have read all sides and explanations on this topic and I am convinced 9/11 was an inside job. This Movie had great points and was made to entertain and educate. It did not change my opinion it only added to my already solidified hunch that there is more to the world and order at which the world is run than what we are told in the media and by the people who we call our leaders.

This movie is great! a few flaws but all in all just straight up facts, no techno-babble and easy to understand. People with narrow minds should not watch this as they will dimiss this as guerilla media and try to discredit it, most likely because it sounds negative.. Like they say sometimes the truth hurts.

Watch this movie with an open & logical mind and make up your own mind and if still you are interested look up all the points which interest you and solidify your hunches from multiple sources not just one.

Have fun :D

Not a Member!


Wednesday 7th November 2007 | 08:59 AM


Not a Member!


Wednesday 14th November 2007 | 03:44 PM

my comment is is regaurds to the second comment made by "Rodney"

I read about half your rant regaurding religion... umm I've done alot of reseach on it and have been suspisous of the christian faith, along with Judism... I've done reseach before the video came out, about the issue with Jesus, and egyptian myth... They did, I rmember watching on TV, discovery about finding some story that was before the torah was writen... and if you're looking for sources for their claims... it's posted on the website where the video is...

Anyways... useless rant, and is a waste to read because the person ranting doesn't know what he's ranting about

Not a Member!


Wednesday 14th November 2007 | 03:47 PM

BBC news reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it collapsed and you see it standing in the background and about 5 min before the demo... they lose conection with the reporter in NYC... funny isn't it? someone pressed release too early

Not a Member!


Wednesday 14th November 2007 | 03:54 PM

this is to "Robert"... none of those organisations support CT, what about the individuals? some wont say anything others will say no, and maybe you'll find yes... who gained from the war? who benifits? the old roman saying... but anyways... there's people out there being paid to bash CTs... so w/e

Not a Member!

Dirty Cell

Friday 16th November 2007 | 02:32 PM

I feel that the film is biased, some of the information distorted, but that its primary intention is executed successfully. These kinds of films fill a hole left open by the mainstream media. We want someone to make sense of all the murder and destruction around us, and this film tries to do just that. An impossible task, I would assert, but one worth undertaking anyway.

The underlying concept exemplified by the film is "Divide and Conquer." Despite its flaws, the film has provoked a great number of people into exercising this concept against each other (especially on this blog!), which is precisely what The Man wants us to do. Squabbling over inaccuracies, making rude accusations, exploiting ignorance and naiveté, all serve to divide us into opposing camps, or worse, into isolated individuals struggling to "make a point," a phenomenon that discredits everyone involved. Ours is a competitive culture. We are, by nature, in it to win, or at least most us of have been trained to think this way. One could summarize the globalization movement as an attempt to force this "winner takes all" approach to life onto the entire world.

The first part, dealing with the patchwork nature of the Bible, seems mostly correct, yet it does not discredit the Bible as a holy text. Similarities between religions is a widely regarded fact. If anything, the recurring themes of the sun, of a messiah, of a divine creator etc, all fortify the Bible as an amalgam of human wisdom. Myths, symbols, and stories tend to outlive facts not because they are more appealing, but because they contain cultural wisdom, call it “perspectives”, that remain vital throughout the ages.

The film’s blatant attack on Christianity is thus ill-advised, but interesting in a distinctly American context. No other post-industrial society obsesses over religion the way we do. This part of the film would be a mere diversion for a European or Asian audience. It is significant here because Christianity, as a political movement, has managed to divide and conquer the world’s most powerful nation by deflecting public attention from more pressing issues, by conflating faith with dogma, and by generating ridiculous taboos that are routinely exploited by the press.

The 911 CT business is simply over my head. Because the guilty party remains unknown, CT people can think up whatever they want and still be just as clueless as the rest of us. One thing is certain: the topic still nags us because none of the explanations are satisfying. 911 woke up a lot of Americans to the fact that the American government, and its paralegal constituents, are actively involved in some very dangerous and dirty business. It is unfortunate that the film dwells on CT for so long instead of making (even hypothetical) connections to the first part of the film. Instead, ZEITGEIST tries to pull off an associational connection to 911 and the oppressive aspects of Christianity, and this doesn’t really fly.

The last part of the film can be easily backed up by historical fact. There are no ancient Chinese secrets here. If this is your first encounter with the shady history of the Federal Reserve, Pearl Harbor, the world’s cabal of banking institutions, it may seem ridiculous. Just as the intellectuals and the political elite of the day dismissed Hitler as a born loser, apathetic Americans are likely to dismiss this part of the film as theory. It is however factual, well-documented, and far more important than the other parts of the film. I think that a lengthier examination of the relationship between money institutions and political power, in place of 911 conjecture and a cursory glimpse of “astrotheology”, would have made for a better film.

Still, ZEITGEIST does push some big buttons; many people are ready to believe that the US government could casually commit such an atrocity (911) on its own people for political gain. This may be because we Americans don’t have any influence on our government any more. It is out of control, and the first step to taking it back is to get mad. Let’s not divide and conquer ourselves! Get mad, and get even. Get informed and organized (with your fellow human beings, the future chipped cattle of the New World Order) and shut the system down! It’s just plain nerdy to assault ZEITGEIST for its flaws or to praise it as a source of definitive fact. The film only serves one purpose: to get you motivated. Don’t let “them” intimidate you! The government is a bunch of punks, the cops are pussies, your history teacher was a liar! The ruling elite are parasites, and we can take them down! And: Love conquers all! All in all general statements I think a lot of people can agree on. So, stop bickering and start changing the world.

Not a Member!


Friday 16th November 2007 | 06:57 PM

Barney is the devil. There is no god in outer space or anywhere else.

One thing is for sure.....

if we humans don't get our shit together,

we're doomed.

Not a Member!


Saturday 17th November 2007 | 01:04 PM

anyone watched "Loose Change"? u can watch it in youtube......its a documentary similar to micheal moores but a little more technical....

btw i thot it was good and some points really hit home! hmmmm...makes u wonder!

Not a Member!

Thermite Dave

Tuesday 20th November 2007 | 03:06 PM

Did anyone catch wind of the fact that Zeitgeist won Best Feature at this Festival in Hollywood on Nov 11, 2007?


Not a Member!


Wednesday 21st November 2007 | 11:48 AM

With all this commentary, the one "truth" is;

Something is clearly wrong in the world today.

Something has always been clearly wrong in the world since the beginning of time.

If you do what is in your heart....you carry in yourself.....a revolution.
clifford Odets (Awake and Sing)

Not a Member!


Wednesday 21st November 2007 | 12:51 PM

what a moronic film

Not a Member!


Thursday 22nd November 2007 | 11:50 AM

Imagine you had enough money to do ANYTHING. Bush is a puppet so the whole "Bush isnt smart enough to do it" is a really bad argument. So if you had enough money or power to do anything (and there are these people in the world) do you really think its that hard to do something that would help your interests. I listened to Bush talk about "getting American banks into China" and "how the Chineese people would like the way American banks do things". Also the way he said it was very chilling because it felt like a last ditch effort on a thought he was told to say. I dunno but Freedom americans speak of is in the form of control. my rant.

Not a Member!

Horsus Ash

Thursday 22nd November 2007 | 12:36 PM

to Billy:
We all appreciate your informed, rhetorically brilliant commentary. Thank you for inspiring a lively, intelligent discussion on the topics posted here. Considering your generosity in dropping knowledge, you must be a virtual one-man think tank.

to U-Sheep

You do not have to speculate on this. The history of corporatization is very well-documented. Starting as early as 1400, you can research the origins of wealth and power up to this day. Just drop by the library. I agree with you: Bush, or his handlers, is/are smart enough to do it. Some would even say his dumbass honky act is a ploy.

As far as China goes: they don't need "our banks," whatever that's supposed to be. Big banks have no allegiance to America, even if they happen to have an office in DC or NYC or wherever. China can meet us militarily, its economy already squashes ours, and they generally consider the US to be a ridiculous, young, white barbarian culture with no future. This is from official Chinese foreign policy statements from the 1980's, and they're attitude will probably not have changed. The Chinese think in terms of centuries (a century is one hundred years, Billy.) The US gov't can't even plan the next six months. China is 3000 years old and counting. They can afford to wait a couple of years for the US to turn into another third world police state and become irrelevant - they don't care! That goes for Europe, too.

To Ed,
Consider this: to Bush and Co. your heart is worth .04 cents (as a piece of meat that may be used as food.) Wake up!

Not a Member!


Thursday 22nd November 2007 | 09:37 PM

Although I myself do enjoy reading about plausible theories surrounding most of today's headlines, you still have to remind yourself that they are just theories.

I apologize for the long rant, but some points are so blant and annoyingly false that they have to be pointed out.

In some cases the proof is indeed undeniable, such as the fact that ever since its erection the CIA has indeed manipulated the people around it and used the Goverment to back up its never ending regime of illegal acts. You can see this in post WWII and the Cold War experiments (Horrid, I suggest you read about that!!), and the fact that during the Vietnam War they actually bargained with Herione dealers to import heroine into the USA and its armies, in exchange for their Guerilla soldiers to aid the vietnamese into prolonging the war(Just one of the miriad of things that happened during the war). So would you be so surprised that people in power would resort to massacaring human life in exchange for more power?! If history has thought us anything, people will do anything for power.

If you really want to learn about the evil in the human mind I suggest you research about European histroy which dates back to the birth of human life!! Thats where the proof lies not in the century of American brutality. These stories have been going on for ages in Europe, dating from the Greeks, as in the war against Troy (a single woman was the excuse for decades of men dying just to conquer a rumour of Troy's walls), up to the Burning of London.

And don't mention democracy!! That was a one time scenario upheld by the Greeks and it also failed because the world around it did everything in its power to destroy the system. Democracy actually works, and the fear of that lies in the fact that if it thrived, then the people would have the power, and if that happened there would be no control by the people IN power, which is ultimately the scope of the film, to remind us that WE have the power. Its what important figures such as Ghandi, JFK even John Lennon wanted to point out to us.

Is it that hard to believe that in the future we WILL be under one government. It may be a couple of Centuries to early to talk about, but it will happen eventually, its happened with Greece, China, Rome, Europe!! It will always happen that people will want to unite under one roof, and then when things get out of hand the same thing occurs as with all empires, a civil war. Thats why then certain freedoms are restricted, as stated in the film and when that happens, that when the civil wars starts, because you get some nutter who actually has a couple between his legs who stands up for people, and then he's assasinated and the people revolt. Its happened so many time's before in the past why is it so implausible by your standards?

However do not take this film literally to the extent that everything that we believe in is all a conspiracy or false. As a Christian I found some of the points mentioned ludacris, but it still doesn't matter if Jesus is a myth or was married and had children and all that bollocks, because the most important thing is that what he preached is important, and if you say that Jesus has done anything wrong by making people believe that there is life after death, that we should love each other and that there will always be someone who loves you, than you really have given up in life!! What would you rather hear, that we are all alone and that we are composed of nothing more than a grid of atoms. Personally I prefer thinking that we will one day find true happiness.

But thats just personal opinion, like all these posts. Believe what you want, because after all you're only trying to convince yourself.

Not a Member!

Marko Loojenga

Sunday 25th November 2007 | 07:29 PM

To all of you...

I am a Dutch guy just interested like all of you...in what is really happening. I have just seen the movie and starting my journey on the internet to find some truth....

One thing what struck me also all these years ago, was the pentagon attack. I can remember that very well. I have witnessed the disaster on the 4th of october 1992 in Holland Amsterdam on a housing block in the Bijlmer with a Boeing 747 from El AL. Look it up! I have seen the Jumbo Jet going in to the building when I was walking my dog with a friend of mine. trust me this you will never forget.
I have seen this crash site for days and followed the whole thing very closely. It took them days to kill the fire the plane was still 1/2 full with fuel has it has just taken of 15 minutes before and could only dump a part of its fuel during this short flight. The plane dived in to an apartment block in an 180 degree angle from above. The impact took down the complete corner of a building block 12 story's high. everything looks quite similar to that of the 911 pentagon crass.... except...
and that is what stikes me the most, you could still see the engines at least parts of it. There where two left on the crash site the other two where fallen of 5 and 8 minutes before. Also there where a LOT eye witnesses who have seen the Boeing coming down. It makes an incredible noise when this thing comes down. This is also one thing that lacks in the Pentagon crash!! Food for thought???

Good luck guys in believing what is and is not.

Marko Loojenga

Not a Member!


Monday 3rd December 2007 | 12:57 PM

That movie scared the shit out of me.

Not a Member!


Monday 3rd December 2007 | 04:47 PM

Well the republicans have to put up with the Christian rednecks. I guess we have to put up with you conspiracy nut jobs.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 4th December 2007 | 12:03 AM

Isn’t the premise of the film to invoke a questioning mind? This is exactly what I have taken from it. Some of it is probably wrong but if only a small portion is correct then we really need to start thinking and questioning more.

Not a Member!

Someone, somewhere

Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 07:15 AM


as in your first post, you mention Jewish does not have christmas, has I already know what you could say and will probably never come to this website, please for me, take the tame to explain what the Jewish Hanukkah is...

Wikipedia an help you if you got no clue.

Considering the fact that you say a mistake will destroy the credibility of this movie, then reflec on your own credibility.

For those who belive in higher power, This movie doest not discredit it, It mostly implies that most religions are based on a same model, however you connect the rest of the dots is yours to do...

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 08:22 AM

One example of the absurdity of putting any stock in this movie. The narrator makes the claim that George Bush signed a treaty with Canada and Mexico that eliminated the soveriegnty of the United States. That is a shocking claim. Yet the movie makes no attempt to provide evidence or even say how the filmmakers know this. You don't see a copy of the treaty. You don't hear from anyone who claims to have been there or seen the treaty. The narrator just states it as fact and expects us to beleive it.

Even when the movie attempts to provide "evidence", the evidence is ridiculous. Unsourced quotes. Claims by some random guy that once had his picture taken with a Rockerfeller. The filmmakers expect us to take what they say at face value, which ironically is the very thing the movie criticizes.

When I watched this, I fully expected someone at the end to say "April fool". Especially when they started talking about the "Amero."

Not a Member!


Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 11:26 AM

Someone, somewhere - hello and I hope you are well. Firstly, I always come to this site, but not because of this article, which is just one of hundreds here. I come here because I contribute to the other articles on this site as an author, regularly.

Now, with respect to Chanukkah, which in fact begins today, I don't see your point. What has Chanukkah to do with Christmas? Just because the two fall vaguely at the same time of year doesn't make them in any way related - but these seems to be what you are implying?

Chanukkah is the remembrance of two things:
1) The military defeat of the Greek (Hellenistic) Empire's oppression of Jerusalem, by Jewish forces.
2) A small cruse of oil lasting 8 days, when by rights it should have only lasted 1.

Now, Someone Somewhere, please enlighten us all as to how this relates to Christmas?

Not a Member!


Thursday 6th December 2007 | 02:32 AM

If you strip away the fact, and whether or not they are as intertwined as the author would have you believe, you are left with a movie that proposes whether or not we can trust the people who have the power. The question you should be asking yourself at the end of this movie isn't whether everything you just absorbed is true rather just how informed are you. I feel some days, and yesterday is a prime example, that I spend far to much time on the internet, what the hell am I doing, certainly not learning that much. We need to be masters of our destiny, we need to read more, think more and question fishy reports from the government. I'm not from the United States, but I know enough about the world that if 9/11 happened anywhere else, and the public was feed such a fishy story, there would be protests and consequences and the governing body wouldn't be re-elected.
The point is to stop being sedentary, sloth like and stupid and to take events like this like a man, don't take bullshit. People have the power, not the government. Money isn't real, it's a concept, its paper for crying out loud, Credit is even less real. If people want change they have to take the initiative, grow a pair, organize themselves and march into the FBI building, the white house and get the real story.
This may seem radical but sometimes this is what is needed for change.

Not a Member!


Thursday 6th December 2007 | 10:34 AM

I hope zeitgeist is true and that there will be 1 world order so that when the aliens attack we will be able to respond as one unified race :)

In my opinion it is all scientific and one day science will meet god and answer all the questions.

Not a Member!


Saturday 8th December 2007 | 07:21 AM

It doesn' take a rocket sciencist to know that the bible is based on mythology.

The Industrial War Complex is something everyone can agree with.

The gold standard ended and we do simply print up more money and China is now doing the same thing.

I don't need Zeitgeist's inacuracies to dispell what I comprehend.

Lastly, just as I don't have to respect scriptures, I don't have to respect this movie. Its not about respect. Its about "critical thinking" skills.

Don't rely on one person's research if you want to sound intelligent. If you have the patience to watch it for two bloody hours, then you "have to" have the patience to research conflicting information to draw educated theories rather than spouting off emotional out bursts because the sleeper has awakened.

I've thought this way my entire life and this movie didn't alter anything inside me. This movie regurgitates what has been discussed in the early and mid part of the 20th century and then adds with our most recent 21st century events some food for thought with added shock value.

I'm glad it woke new generations up to what he counter culture was not sophisticated enough to express during the Nam war.

Now, thanks to the Internet, this has become interesting.... Have at it!

Not a Member!


Friday 14th December 2007 | 04:55 AM

Just wandering if Rodney's last name is Rotschild or Rockefeller?

Not a Member!


Friday 14th December 2007 | 10:56 PM

My 2 cents. What has Christmas got to do with Christianity anyway.
Oh thats right the Catholics slutted out there beliefs to the Pagans.
The Bible (NT) does not record Christs birth date.
Rod unlike you, I try to stay away. Yous all seem to ignorant for me.
Never mind the Ego thing.(LOL) does that stand for Lots of Love

Not a Member!


Sunday 16th December 2007 | 12:43 PM

It's beautiful to see the world waking up, specially you US people... About time!

Here you go, bros and sisters, another piece of the puzzle:


Take care out there

Not a Member!


Wednesday 19th December 2007 | 09:41 AM

Peter,....I was wondering the same thing. I think he may be some low-end back bencher for the Illuminati; stuck trying to manipulate ideas on fringe discussion boards.

Not a Member!


Friday 28th December 2007 | 12:39 PM

I think the movie did what it was supposed to do for believers & non-believers, it made you all think & research if indeed there was something to have doubt about.

Not a Member!


Sunday 30th December 2007 | 11:30 AM

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

take that as you will

Not a Member!


Sunday 6th January 2008 | 02:18 AM

Can anyone give me proof, as this movie claims, that Christ was born on December 25th. As a young child I always knew that this was not his real birth date and that people were just guessing or using this date as a fill-in since no one knows exactly when he was born. This is another example of how many people rely on false info to create a false foundation to inform the public of so called truth.

It reminds me of when people say that there are so many different bibles that contradict each other. When you ask them how many have they read... they have no answer. I think people will believe whatever they want to and are drawn to whatever so-called evidence that will support whatever they want to believe.

Sorry, but believing the stuff in this movie requires a lot of faith, although I do agree with one major theme. All is not as it appears.

Not a Member!


Sunday 6th January 2008 | 02:30 AM

By the way. Maybe his name was not really Jesus. Dig deeper. Hint: Was He Greek or a Jew? Maybe that's why the name "Jesus" as the movie claims was not spoken of in other historical records. When did the name "Jesus" come on the scene? Dig deeper.

Not a Member!


Sunday 6th January 2008 | 02:49 AM

One more thing...

Most traditions of the Catholic church go against the Bible as I know it: Idol worship, worship of saints, worship of men, men forgiving sins, etc. So it seems to me that this movie is really anti-catholic and not anti-bible. It is wrong to put all Christians (did you forget about protestants) into the same boat.

So in conclusion, because His real name, history and ministry has been smeared and used and abused by some (this movie included), does that mean He did not exist? Oh and I love the parts where you use bits from stand up comedians to mock the bible and mock beliefs. (Ex: the 12,ooo year old reference, the invisible man). It's kind of like scientists trying to tel l me that it's my grand parents (apes) living in the San Diego Zoo. Or that exactly 500 million years ago... yada... yada (as if they were there). Or my favorite need and adaptation ideas that are taught in schools. Ex: Giraffes needed to reach the top of trees so they grew long necks. You know what... I need to get to work on time, so I am going to grow wings.


Not a Member!


Sunday 6th January 2008 | 05:07 AM

had to throw in one more final thought :-)... To be fair there are many Catholics (and protestants) out there who practice what the Bible teaches and they show the true spirit of what Christ represents. They love God and they keep his commandments, not as a form of slavery, but as a way to keep peace and to walk in peace. They are not mindless automatons as sometimes portrayed in movies and TV (always singing "He's got the whole world in his hands" or "Amazing Grace," two great but often misused songs) as they stare glazed eyed, while preaching hate at the cameras. Christians do a lot of good in this work and are brave enough to go where many others fear to walk in order to help others. They don't try to brainwash as many people portray them to do. No, they instead share what they believe and then leave it to those who hear to decide.

You would be happy to see one show up if you were in a desolate and violent place with no food to eat. Sure many others perform charitable acts, but that's all part of what God wants anyway. So praises to them for their good works.

So enough Christian bashing, enough mocking the Bible and what it says. it tells me to love my neighbor and tells me to keep God and truth in front of everything else. It doesn't tell me to hate and to destroy, it tells me to stand up for the weak and to defend the widow and orphan. I might not like what someone else does, how they live, the lifestyle they choose or what they believe, but it teaches me to love them anyway. So, Gay or Straight, black or white, Jew or Gentile, He loves them all and therefore I do to. He will lead them to truth if that's what they seek. So it's not my problem to convert the masses, it's His. He only tells me to share the Gospel, to tell people that He loves them and to try as best as possible to live in peace... What a terrible thing...

As for what I said above (in an earlier post) about the birth date of Christ. Just because someone decides to move my true date of birth to a day associated with something Pagan (for whatever reason), does not mean that I did not exist or that my life should be associated with astrological events and mythology. If my birth date was moved to coincide with Halloween, does that mean that I am a part of it? No it means that someone did it for some reason that only they might know, sometimes sinister and sometimes with good meaning.

As for the thoughts on world events in this film. No doubt, there is much corruption out there. Still, don't be afraid and don't just stand there and fall for everything that you are told on TV, in newspapers, the Internet and in books, truth will come out and despite what man tries to confuse, twist and distort, the Lord will reign.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 8th January 2008 | 05:13 AM

No where in the bible are 3 kings mentioned. The "3" kings comes from a Christmas Carol: "We 3 kings of orient are...", and is reinforced with lots of impressionistic images. So frankly, that is what really did it for me. I agree with the writer above, Bread, Bulls, and Kings are pretty common words that can easily be associated just because they are uttered. It actually reinforces the point made by the filmaker that north americans are terribly terribly illiterate critical thinkers, easily influenced by the "boob tube" as my father used to call it. The breast milk of the media upon which we are all weaned. That point is well taken. LOL

I only have opinions about the religion part of the movie. I know nothing about the rest except the impressions I've witnessed on the net or tube, and inclination to believe certain things. What does that tell you! One thing is for sure though, I must agree that we do need to "Hold our horses", wake up, train ourselves to think more critically, turn off the tube, start educating ourselves with credible material so are able to can take responsibility to protect rights our founding fathers fought and died for, this also includes those that fought and supported human rights (ie all those Michigan safe houses in our history - do you know what those are?), connect with others, stop indulging ourselves with entertainment, food and excitement, and change the way we approach things in a disciplined manner. But given that we are "surrounded", that might be quite the challenge. We need to circle the wagons Cowboys! Take a little study time out, strong medicine and reconnect with the earth of our ancestors. Digressing.. Anway,

If you are at all interested in an wild opinion developed after decades, but still just my miniscule opinion, on the old testament, or new testament, or Jesus then scroll down to the bottom of this url below. It's is the culmination of another interesting article on this site with more than one topic. Just withhold violent slaughter, okay? I nice gentle tap will do.

Article entitled "Must we conform in Islamic.."


Not a Member!


Friday 11th January 2008 | 09:09 AM

I saw the movie and thought it was amazing. I won't add anything to the discussion, as much has been already covered. I had intended to add a link for the original 9/11/01 CNN,FOX,CBS,PBS,NBC and BBC original broadcasts for 9/11-13 but the link/site is no longer available? at www.televisionarchive.com ,aeven trying to use the internet "wayback" machine http://www.archive.org/web/web.php appears materials have disappeared. I was afraid of that and recorded a good bit. Maybe some else has a new link.

Not a Member!


Friday 11th January 2008 | 09:12 AM


Not a Member!


Saturday 12th January 2008 | 03:02 AM

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/43459/the_forgotten_anthrax_attacks_of_2001 interesting read re. the anthrax attacks too

Not a Member!

Mike Kennedy

Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 12:44 PM

Alright there folks,

I think that Zeitgeist does a very good job of bringing to the forefront in peoples minds that they shouldn't believe everything exactly how it is put to them.

The film may go a bit far with the one world government stuff, but the religion part was spot on and 9/11 stuff was good, however WWI and WWII were both started for reasons other than people trying to make money, as for Vietnam, i dont know, so can't comment.

The American Government has been covering stuff up for years and they do a very bad job of it, JFK is another prime example of this. 9/11 paved the way for Iraq, there is no denying that. Afganistan ??? whats that all about?

I also dont beleive Bush is running the show, the word puppet springs to mind for there is a much more powerful group behind him, and much cleverer too. However, I aint convinced that the one world government is the aim, just greed and ignorance, possibly ruthlessness too, by these "Backroom Staff".

You cant deny the movie is definitely a thought provoking watch and should be recommended so others can at least make their own minds up.

So I say spread the word.............

Not a Member!


Wednesday 16th January 2008 | 01:20 PM

im the admin from www.onliance.com
i need people like you to devliver the truth from day to day and sort out the rubbish in the media. if you would like to join let me know on the forums. thanks..

Not a Member!


Friday 25th January 2008 | 11:11 AM

While i am not as educated as i should be - I do beleive that the US Gov. has not provided necessary evidence to confirm a factual story.
Likewise movies such as zeitgeist and loose change suggest an alternate theory to the events of 9/11 but fail to provide enough evidence to confirm truth.

Must we all be lost in this world forever.

Not a Member!


Thursday 31st January 2008 | 08:42 AM

dude is this rodney guy for real? how can you say that these coincidences aren't enough to destroy all religion and prove it wrong!!!! How is this possible WHEN A STUPID OLD BOOK MADE EVERYONE BELIVE, remember folks this book had no facts in it and was written by a dude who wanted money and hoes. Ok rodney you got him, maybe joseph didn't have 12 brothers, WELL MAYBE JOSEPH ISN'T REAL AT ALL? MAYBE HE HAD 10,000 brothers???? you know nothing, nobody knows anything. But I'd sure as hell rather believe that science can prove just about everything rather than there is a guy in the clouds who does all the work...... anyone else on my side? Religion is so obviously not real, and if we didn't have such weak minded people who need religion to make it through their day and need it to kill people for their 'gods' then maybe our world wouldn't be so messed up.... Maybe jsut maybe we wouldn't have a government who allows the sale of tobacco and alcohol, killing hundreds of thousands of people each year, all to make some fat cats rich and happy. Illegal drugs like marijuana do not kill people in such great numbers so why is it illegal? Well there is no money and nobody who has the money and will risk their reputation to adorn it. The world is messed up guys, we don't need religion to mess it up more.....

Not a Member!


Saturday 2nd February 2008 | 06:31 AM

I felt the film was a bit disjointed.Didnt really see how part I links through to II and III.

ALL Religion is manmade, so no surprises there.The Horus comprison is just one of many myths and religions Christianity "borrowed" from.The film makers could have gone on further to check what actual contemporary historical evidence is there that Jesus actually existed(there is none....as an exercise try it yourself).The orignal Jesus message,however it started,has been hijacked and corrupted by the Christian(mainly Catholic) church for centuries for their own spiritual and financial gain.

There is plenty of 911 conspiracy theory out there,and the US gov. could not possibly spend time and money refuting every hair brained or cheap theory raised.
As a previous poster said,if there were any real hard evidence of a cover up some smart journalist/scientist/engineer would want to reveal it,immortality would follow.For every expert who questions a piece of the 911 scenario you can find another who contradicts him.So unless there is OVERWHELMING proof either way we can only err on the side of the official story.Fact is often stranger than fiction.
On the part on the Central Banks/Big business playing a much more important role in the start of WWI,II, and Vietnam.Sure, some always profit from war but thats life,its not always fair and its what goes with capitalism,warts and all.We also have democracy, and it seems the masses are going to excercise their right of ultimate censure and kick them out, The neocons are history already.Bush is on his way out,his star fading fast,just compare to the length of time religon has held sway over the masses.They could learn a thing or two from the Pope.
An ultimate one government world?Who do you then make war on to make a profit?Mars?

And what are we supposed to do about it all?Even if it where all an endless conspiracy,we are just individuals with little or no power.The films closing answer to it all?Well I certainly dont think the Hendrix attitude to "love" is a better way forward for mankind....pass the mind bending drugs someone.

Not a Member!

Tuesday 5th February 2008 | 02:49 PM

Just watched "Zeitgeist Movie" and while I am prepared to concur about the banks and the all-encompassing interests of a wealthy elite, I was waiting for the credits to roll at the end!

Who wrote this? Who directed it? Let's check out who are the (so far) nameless people behind this particular "curtain" before we accept it blindly.

Not a Member!

Bastion Bossy

Friday 8th February 2008 | 11:50 AM

This movie no matter what you believe about what it states you should have learned one thing you should think about everything.

Not a Member!

Tommy Duval

Friday 8th February 2008 | 12:15 PM

More than anything I say the thing I believe the most is we should all be open minded, which I believe is what keeps life alive

The religion bashing was concentrated way to much on December 25, they could have made more progress if they would have talked more about how Horus and all those deities they talked about had virgin parent's, crucified, ( I learned this from some real live Egyptologists, that it was really factual, not kidding either) stored in caves, reborn in 3 days, and all those other item. They could've also talked about the 12 Olympians and how they were sorted (If you really want to know for yourselves just talk to people who study mythology for a living, don't believe all the "facts" you see on the internet). They could have talked about Akkenhaton (a pharoah who changed his name to Akkenhaton, which means one who pleases Aton, aton being the sun). He was also one of the first to believe in monotheism, but failed utterly to reform the egyptians to believe in it.

I also believe this movie did one thing to me, make me think before I get too serious into anything. I think they also want people to look up all the things that can dissprove them, which they could say is a victory on their part because they made you think. Thinking in this movie was portrayed as the possible savior to this world and todays young don't think they think they got all they need right there. All in all how did all this information become known by thinkers like Einstein, Plato, Gallileo, Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, and to many too even state. If you made it through this long statement, I thank you for listening.

Not a Member!


Saturday 16th February 2008 | 08:52 AM

Jan, you don't judge a work on it's authors, you judge the work for yourself. You only create predeterminted dispositions when you say things like that.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 20th February 2008 | 06:25 AM

Rodney-He then goes on to tell us that Egyptian mythology is the basis for all Jewish traditions, listing, I shit you not:
Final Judgment
Virgin Birth
Death / Resurrection
Holy Communion
Easter & Christmas

The movie doesn't claim theses are the basis for Jewish tradition it clearly states they are the basis for Christianity which is true.

Not a Member!


Saturday 1st March 2008 | 05:51 AM

what a little gem of a film.... from the very core,straight out of americas inbred and non-explainably corrupt past.... re-oxygenated tales from a heavily smothered secretive core society . revived and released to illuminate the thinking masses. a hidden all controling highly self rightous self preservant core of select intelects, a simple old school clan.openly detailing factual tales that reveal real historical non fictions from a supposedly democratically sound....though communististicly moderated but ''declassified'' shit mixing bowl of history. i realise that ....from the very start of hairles apes chasing pussy.... neanderthol man even....haha bc in recorded biblical mythology.when commoners/cavemen envied,lusted..wanted to learn how to use and enjoy the kill aspects greed..to learn, envious of the instinctual lusts harnessed by others.... a simple want to be,to co-earse,stand alongside then above. to feel similar within,able to liken to and seen to understand supposed superiority..simple instincts....curiousity....read,write,bathe,eat,shit as lavishly as ....the fortifacation and establishment of the very same character floors that in modern man set to instill the basis of this blind and highly destructive self indulgent canniballistic greed....no longer just harmless ones who want not be laughed at by insecure control freaks whos educated self consumed articulate story telling abilities have enabled the worldwide creation and spread of mass deception to the unwitting?? when swallowed whole is supposed to be a giudeline for aspiring simpletons to lead worthy,fullfilling,reasonably taxed totally controlled lifes??..enlightening thus enabling the simple everyday commoner to truely feel valued living a worthwhile exhistance,all be it far from real equality,rashonale or likeness of being.... ha fucken ha ! as planned though,thier common crippled arms occaisionally grow tired and fall off,disabling the money earners who stratigically spread various propaganda like disease which tramples and ruptures all available morality and willingness of the simple kind. destroying any kind of solid structural resistances and visions from cruelly over taxed underlings, who became just a top shelf food item for a small price..... mal nurished ''servants of their cause''. eventually intelects evolve into scavengers able to harness and enlighten the will of starved simpletons ........ does time start from 0 ad???????????? was it at this point that time began....or was it just at this point that articulate mentally superior beings coined a master plan?....educated gimps that realised the use of the commoner can be and almost is as great as the value money itself.''high societities'' that pay to remain mysteriously secluded..trumps, rockerfellas....highrarchies that can no longer be stopped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a Member!


Saturday 1st March 2008 | 07:25 AM

I would ask you to look at the first listing placed by RODNEY .. He tries to discredit Zeitgeist by quoting from the film and showing you that Zeitgeist is rubbish or badly written. I am very sorry to say he does this by telling lies. This you can verify for yourself by watching Zeitgeist. However here are a couple of examples:


‘He then goes on to tell us that Egyptian mythology is the basis for all Jewish traditions, listing, I shit you not: Baptism Final Judgment Virgin Birth Death / Resurrection Crucifixion Holy Communion Easter & Christmas etc.
...all of which are Christian concepts.. not Jewish. No matter, it's not like anyone's checking up one you, is it? It's a good thing you researched this so well!’

In fact The exact words taken from Zeitgeist are

‘In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary foundational basis for the Judeo-Christian theology.’

So this is an excellent example of how RODNEY is in fact telling you lies in order to discredit Zeitgeist. It is with some irony that I note RODNEYS comment about people ‘checking up on you’ Well RODNEY we are checking up on YOU! And find you are a liar!

RODNEY also goes on to say that Zeitgeist lies about how many brothers Joseph had. Lets look at his comment:

Next up we hear about Joseph being direct transference to Jesus. After all they had the same number of brothers / disciples and both had miracle births!

Again, let's fact check, shall we? Joseph had 11 brothers (Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Joseph*, Judah, Levi, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun). Jesus had 12 disciples (I don't know their names). So, we failed maths, apparantly? 12-11 = 1; just in case you needed help. To top if off, Joseph had a regular birth. He had a Mum & Dad. He had 11 frikkin brothers!

The Reality is that Zeitgeist stated: Joseph was 'of' twelve brothers not 'had' twelve brothers
Jesus had 12 deciples . To be fair to RODNEY . I don’t know if Joseph was a miracle birth? But stating that it clearly was not based on the fact that he had a mom and dad is really odd? Jesus had a mom and dad too! Which proves nothing. However Zeitgeist refers to King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Gen. 30:22-24 with ref to the miracle birth of Joseph. I need to look that up!

But in short I hope the above shows you just how ignorant and misleading RODNEY and no doubt others here who dismiss Zeitgeist are. Zeitgeist paints a very true picture of what has and will take place in this world if we let it.

Not a Member!

Hometown Quotes

Thursday 6th March 2008 | 03:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Michael. War can only boost a sagging economy. Regardless of what the media tries to tell us, our economy is about the best it has ever been over the past few years.

It now looks like we are entering a recession, but that has nothing to do with anything other than pure economic trends and the fear the big market players have in the thought of a ultra liberal running the country.

Those "rich" the Democrats keep targeting with their future tax hikes would rather pull their money out of our market and move it elsewhere than give more to the government.

Increasing taxes never stimulates any economy and ours definitely need some stimulus.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 12th March 2008 | 05:54 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Thank you for your long post. I wanted to get some info about what was in this movie before I viewed it. You had the most information. Thanks for being so candid and commenting on so much. I feel that I can watch this movie with the right frame of mind and not get dupped. :-)

Not a Member!


Sunday 16th March 2008 | 03:40 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Yes Rodney I agree this movie is complete shit its a CIA propaganda film used to track domestic terrorists.

Not a Member!

Friday 21st March 2008 | 05:11 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Thermite gives off a different kind of "dust" Its chemical composition is not the same as the other stuff that was thrown everywhere, But I Do see many of your points. Much of this needs more investigation and explanation before it is used as evidence.

Not a Member!


Friday 21st March 2008 | 11:10 AM

...in response to this comment by Richard Robertson. Bravo Richard!

Not a Member!

Shane H

Saturday 22nd March 2008 | 03:08 PM


Maybe things look different from 'down under' but surely the conspiracy is staring you in the face.

A group of Syrian and Saudi terrorists attacked the world trade centre which is a crime against humanity. A crime being something you have to find the criminals in - its not an act of war.

The US government used this as a pretext to attack... Afghanistan and Iraq... as they had been planning to for some time (and this wasn't secret).


Not a Member!


Thursday 27th March 2008 | 05:24 AM

with all the usual criticisms to do with a piece of work of this nature aside - i strongly doubt the nature of this work to be that of propaganda, and if it is -

- (from dictionary.com) - "propaganda - information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc."

- from this i find it hard to see that making something like this will gain him personally, if so please let me know. In all the implications of this perhaps being true would far outweigh the implications of this not being true. Because of that, the making of this film is a positive thing to me.

The only consequences of believing this and the other docu's like this, promote the belief of good in human nature, and stop the violations of freedom, 1984 style, irrespective of whether all this turns out to be true or not.

Not a Member!

Catch 22

Sunday 30th March 2008 | 09:48 PM

This is for the people who weren't sure of the connections made between the first and then second and third parts of the film.

The connection attempted to be made between parts 1 and 2, 3 are to do with so called social control. People are familiar with the phrase, 'separation of church and state' and the criticisms towards religion and in particular that of the New Testament of Roman times by the film-maker, is that it was used as a form of governance and law for the Roman Empire.

The Holy Bible is a form of media, (yes, text is media) which in the day was the main source of spreading information to many people over large distances. The written word has for a long time been the primary source of information for people and the parallel the film attempts to portray is that television can be used to shape opinion, law and behaviour within a society much in the same way the Bible did and still does.

I am undecided about much of the content in the film, however I found it thought provoking. In the end it has got people talking, debating, researching and reflecting - all of which are positive things!

Not a Member!


Monday 31st March 2008 | 09:13 PM

Untill you can prove it's real, or false, it's just opinion so likewise people should stop "it is ireal" "it isn't" as untill we know both sides of the story..... both opinions are just that.


Not a Member!


Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 09:11 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Although i'm not really disagreeing with you, your logic is flawed aswell. You are doing the exact same things that you are accusing them of, mixing a bit of truth with nonsense to make it sound like a logical arguement. The idea that certain christian ideals are based on the zodiac and older "pagan" gods is logical in theory and you havent offered anything to offset what they said. And there is a reasonable amount of information on different "pagan" gods but the word "pagan" itself is a complete generalisation refering to polytheisist religions of wildly different types. Ok they might have mixed up jews and christians but again no eveidence to refute their claims, and the replacement of the sun with jesus (or god) is just common sense, for instance if you were a worshipped the sun and converted to christianity isnt that exactly what you would be doing? They never said the thermite caused dust thats just an outright lie on your part, the thermite was found in samples taken from ground zero which couldn't have been produced by the heat of the plane fuel. there are loads of holes in your comment but i am too tired too point them all out, i think if you read back on it and are honest with yourself you will see that too ( maybe not admit it :)), dont feel bad everyone pushes their own agenda your no different, i suppose that was the point of the movie in the first place!!

Not a Member!


Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 09:17 AM

...in response to this comment by Michael. I wouldnt class that as wreckage everywhere, in fact thats a very small piece of wreckage from boeing 757, you would think there would be ALOT more. Wheres the wings, the baggage, the bodies??? Wheres the video from the few hundred cctv cameras that ring the pentagon on that day??? Did they all stop working?? How come they have only released that stop motion 2second video???

Not a Member!


Thursday 3rd April 2008 | 06:07 PM

does anyone know where i can find the music of the movie?i ve google it torrent it soulseek it...but no chance!thanx

Not a Member!


Tuesday 8th April 2008 | 06:48 AM

I'm wondering if anyone has mentioned that in his testimony, the physics professor, examined a sample of the WTC wreckage and found traces of a pantented form of thermite know as thermate? That certainly seems to count as viable evidence. no?

Not a Member!

Unsung Hero

Tuesday 8th April 2008 | 07:38 AM

...in response to this comment by brian. Terrorists huh?!! Last time I heard terror was living in a hole in Afganistan!! Are now to believe that we as "patriot" Americans are the new terrosrist threat? This whole "war on terror" is insane!!! Terror is a concept not an enemy, this concept can always be manipulated into another enemy. In fact it has, we WERE looking for Bin Laden, then the terror was coming from Saddam, now you are claiming that WE, AMERICAN CITIZENS are attacking our own country!! I love our country and the people who made it what it WAS!! I am a NOT a terrorist, I am an American and VERY proud of it. As an American we have the right to question authority, THAT makes me an American. YOU on the other hand, you follow authority like a flock of sheep at dinner time. You agree with whatever is shown to you by the media. The worst part is, if somebody questions what they are seeing, you and MANY OTHER SO-CALLED AMERICANS label them as terrorists and "anti-american". Do you even know what the constitution is?!! YOU are the terrorists, you make wild accusations claiming that they are the enemy. It's the modern day witch hunt. So lable me as a terrorist, or anti-American, or a witch, cause I'll be damned if I'm going to let somebody think for me.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 9th April 2008 | 12:59 AM

...in response to this comment by Unsung Hero. ,'A few comments...

This film was registered by an American .Look it up on godaddy.com..
Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

A few things I did not notice in the film.
With regard the astrological stuff, there was no mention of the 13th sign of the zodiac,'Ophiuchus is a Sun-sign in the Real Solar Zodiac, an Ancient Greek constellation. The Serpent Bearer .The Sun can be seen against the stars of Ophiuchus between 30th November and 17th December each year.' There was also no mention of the Mayan Calender which ends in 2012 when there is a 13,000 year cycle of the planets aligning in the 13th sign of the zodiac.

And the other thing they neglected to mention at all were the Templar Knights, the modern day freemasons~who were supposedly a direct blood link to Christ.Agnosicism, I think I read somewhere, is another Christian deity worshipping Sophia the wise, Muhammed and Baphomet. This worship of Baphomet was to be their destruction.Incidently, King Philip IV of France who gave the order for execution of all the Templar Knights, was their biggest debtor. In wiping them out he erased the French debt to the Templars. Is how Friday 13th got its bad name, the execution order was given on Thursday 12th October 1307 to be carried out the following day.

I have often wondered if there is a link to the horsemen of the apocalypse by a certain star sign...Saddam, Mussolini,
Stalin and I believe Hitler, were all born in the first week of Taurus.

Zeitgeist..Food for thought ;)

Not a Member!


Wednesday 9th April 2008 | 01:05 AM

I totally forgot to say that if you divide the number of days in the year (365) it produces 13 months of 28 days each.

Not a Member!


Saturday 12th April 2008 | 05:52 AM

...in response to this comment by Michael. Well zeitgeist is not the media. The media is owned by multinational coorporations, zeitgeist is a privatly made film thats on the internet

Not a Member!

Thursday 17th April 2008 | 07:45 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Nice effort Rodney, I have only one thing to say in response. While you go to great lengths to criticise this film, you are completely missing the point. The film opens by telling the viewer to be wary of taking authority as truth over truth as authority. The film then proceeds to present a series of compelling stories that are in reality no less valid than the "Truth" that has been forced down our throats since mankind learned how to dominate their peers through manipulation of emotions using a presentation of logic.
You laugh off as ridiculous whenever anyone insists that the church prove that we should pray to their interpretation of God to avoid an eternity in hell... thus why should the tellers of an alternative (and more convincing in my educated opinion) story be expected to justify their right to freedom of speech?

Rant over.

Not a Member!


Friday 18th April 2008 | 12:06 AM

Well, I for one am not a believer in organized religion, such things are only created for profit. There is SOME relation between all of the messiahs of the ancient religions. Which can be wrapped into the zodiac as Zeitgeist had done. But to say that all the ideas of every faith is a farce is entirely incorrect. How can the creator of this advocate peace if he does not respect the faiths of other people? Perhaps he does respect them, but to me, shooting down their beliefs is a sign that he doesn't respect them. Secondly, it is entirely POSSIBLE that the U.S. government was behind 911. Such a conspiracy has already been tried, Operation Mongoose during the Kennedy administration ties into it, though that wasn't the exact name. Another one is Rex 84, during the Reagan presidency is also entirely POSSIBLE. But, none of these are PLAUSIBLE things for the U.S. government to do. All one can do is develop their own opinions. I think that was the goal of Zeitgeist, to make you think and result in the opening of your mind's eye. Rather than force you to believe their point of view.

Not a Member!


Saturday 19th April 2008 | 04:05 PM

Coming in pretty late on this one. Something Rodney (whom I frequently agree with) kinda' scares me with his:” No more invasive than a driver’s license" comment. I don't care what the government tells me I need to do to help my country remain safe. Today’s range of .o25m becomes 25m next week, and in two years their signals will be picked up by geostationary satellites far above.

I've read stuff in this thread about ridiculous leaps of faith to buy some using terrifying logic. Yea, but, look at the leap of faith we would have to take to swallow this 911 disaster explanation prepared for us by our very own representatives. You really can’t blame Americans for believing they are regularly lied to. by the very people who have the most to gain if the country can be made afraid.

I'm sorry Rodney, I just too skeptical of a person, to believe much more than 10% of what comes out of any politician’s mouth. I don't have enough education, or mind reading ability to know what really happened that day. I will say that it sure looked like a controlled demolition. But maybe all 747's do the same thing when they fly into 110 story buildings. I would be curious to hear what your thoughts are on the collapsed of WTC Bleg #7. It wasn’t hit by an aircraft. Perhaps there is such a thing as a sympathetic implosion.

And I am certainly not convinced a plane flew into the pentagon. There’s tons of stuff on that. Our government does not have a reputation of being truthful with the American people.

Do you trust Bush? How about Cheney? Do you trust the white papers that try to put closure on actions like these? Do you think there were WMD's in Iraq? Did you think having the Supreme Court decide the outcome of the 2000 election was a fair and totally proper decision making process? Do you believe the surge is working? Do you believe that Iraqis are better off today than 6 years ago? Do you think our journalists ask the questions we the people would like to hear answers to?

I don’t know who shot the Kennedy’s, MLK, and who all was truly involved in the attacks and building collapses of 911. But I will tell you one thing, I don’t trust for a minute the people who give us our official versions.

Behind the closed doors of the house and Senate offices, where do you and I stand? Not when we're there, when we can’t hear them.

I hate George Bush, and all his incompetent buddies... All of their explanations and white papers are as believable as "Your standard of life will only be getting better and better. The economy is strong. These people twist words better than my friend at the carnival twist pretzels.

O.K. O.K. No Tehrmite. I'll go-for the sake of agreement, that far in the interest of a reasonable discussion. Show me the clear photo of the plane hitting the pentagon. Where are the parts from the plane that hit it?. And come on, what is the story on Building #7.Why do we go to war in so many places? Who benefits? Any war! Vietnam, Afghanistan, the war on drugs. The war on poverty. If you’re in the right circles, any war is big bucks for you. War on teen pregnancy. War keeps the public afraid, the reasonable man off balance, and the companies Dick Cheney and his buddies own rolling in the dough... War, any war is Big bucks.

Answer me this...Do you think George bush and his administration give a rat’s ass about your life, whether you succeed of fail?

O.K. maybe it wasn't as governmentally orchestrated as some suggest. But their answers to the persistent questions as the war rages on as we speak, are such blatant lies, well, what and who am I to believe?

"Revenge is always the weak pleasure of a little and narrow mind." WE certainly have our revenge-weather it’s the right country or not we're not sure. I know if I was a Muslim I could easily kill an invader who comes to rape and kill my women. Maim my children, and torture my brothers.

Rodney, I'm sure you've read George Orwell’s 1984. He is off by a few years, but that is exactly what is happening. It hit so on the mark, it truly told the future. Also there is a movie called "A Crude Awakening" I highly recommend them both...

As usual I have rambled. For those who think that the Life and Times in the U.S. are hoping to improve, better think again.

I’m getting better, only 787 words this time...

Not a Member!


Monday 21st April 2008 | 08:20 PM

First part in the Zeitgeist is misinformation made to deceive and confuse you. First, there is a problem with the connection between Jesus and Horus. First, Horus wasn't baptized and Jesus was. Second of all, Horus wasn’t crucified nor did he have a resurrection but Jesus did. Jesus wasn't born in December 25, besides, not all Christians celebrate his birth Christmas in December 25, either. In fact, he was born in the spring but not during the winter. As far as, the twelve disciples why didn't this film show them and who they were?

Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not in Egypt, which is in Palestine, Jerusalem. Next, in the early 500 A.D the prophet Mohamed emerged, and Islam was born. Mohammad and his followers began to convert Christians to the new found religion of Islam they became very creative so this is when the deception began. After Mohamed’s death the crusaders occupied Egypt and killed both Christians and Muslims. Muslims became bitter and angry toward Christians in Egypt, so they began to conspire against them; they also began to question Christianity as a whole after what the crusaders did.

During and after this period, Books where written that had didn't earn academic respect and didn’t have any facts in them were published. Later these Books where researched and banned from Egypt. In late 1900’s these books were resurfaced again but by a new writers such as John Allegro and many others but then again these books had been removed because they’re inaccurate and misleading. Importantly, present is satans's era and he is fullfilling his prophecy thru his followers. This is the time that one must become enlightened with the truth because we are going to be judged in this era. Satan has been working extra hard these days to attack Jesus and his followers. These followers of Satan will mix truth with lies to confuse the observer. If u want to research the area of Horus pls check out the following: Egyptian Mythology: Horus, Encyclopedia Mythica: Horus, The Eye Of Horus, Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris. You can also see the present situation in Egypt for Coptic Egyptians and ask yourself if Jesus didn’t exist would people allow themselves to suffer this way for nothing?

You can google, "the other Israel" to have an even better understanding of what is going on today in our times. It's documentary put togather with complete research done by Ted Pike. You can also check out " why the Middle east bleeds" these two documentaries will enlighten u.

Not a Member!


Monday 21st April 2008 | 08:32 PM

Correction- When I was speaking of these Books written, I was speaking of the books that this documentary is following. Such as Acharya 's book "The Christ Conspiracy" (1999) is where this documentary came from, but this goes back to the books that where written in Egypt by Muslims that wanted to discredit Christianity.

Not a Member!


Monday 21st April 2008 | 09:07 PM

I agree with the rest of the Movie, I will provide you with these sites that will back up the same scenerio and more. This is concerning 9/11 but not the one's you all have mentioned: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=03b_1207146118
You can also check this one out:


Police state 2008: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=129_1204818883

Modified Food causing disease on the American ppl and bankrupting farmers all over the world:

North American Union:

Wexlar calls for impeachment:

Everyone should listen to Benjamin H. Freedman warning to American in 1961 very related to today's problems:

Important to Watch the documentary About Our history concerning the banking system. "The Money Master"

Good luck Everyone!!

Not a Member!

truth seeker

Wednesday 23rd April 2008 | 05:35 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. actually - this is not true.
RFID range 2.5 cm? yeah, right...
take a look on this one then:
450 feets range - how about that?
and this is a "commercial" model... today...
what it will be in a 5 years? for agences?
I know it for sure - in europe, there are gov's which are planning to use this technology to control people movements.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 23rd April 2008 | 11:27 PM

Truth seeker,
check out the video I'm going to post, it will enlighten you. But don't be deceived by it's name.

Not a Member!


Thursday 24th April 2008 | 06:34 AM

I think the author don't want us to take the film as truth, as we can see in the message on the movie's official website. I think that he just wants us to think a little bit more, to doubt, argue, discuss and take a look on other sides of a history. If they're right or wrong, no one can tell, but at least you're giving it a thought. The problem is that our generation isn't familiar to that.

And honestly? If Hitler could do such a thing as the Reichstag fire, why can't Bush do a 9/11? Because he isn't Hitler? Gosh, there's a lot of Hitlers spread in the world killing children, breaking families and giving a shit to the people. Let's put any patriotism, religion, ego or Paris Hiltons of the World beside us and do something different. Watching a movie and discuss its questions and probabilities may be the start of it.

Not a Member!


Thursday 24th April 2008 | 06:51 AM

"I think the author don't want us to take the film as *truth"

*Sorry, I meant "as the undenying truth".

Not a Member!


Friday 25th April 2008 | 01:13 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Wow you are ignorant... first of all, read a history book, because anyone who knows anything about history would know that Christianity is in fact based on ancient pagan religions. I HAVE done my research to back it up, given that i have studied anthropology and my mother IS an anthropologist. I am also Pagan so maybe I do know a thing or two about these ancient Gods, but feel free to denounce me too. Christmas and easter are NOT Christian concepts, they are Pagan holidays. Christmas is actually winter solstice and Jesus was born in summer (hmm odd huh?) And Easter is spring eqinox. The Christians stole these holidays as a way to denounce Paganism which was the dominant religion of the time. If you look at Christianity and paganism, there are MANY huge parallels that run through both religions, but I'm sure you won't take te time. Actually all religions are pretty close to being the same if you take a good enough look at them... but hey no ones checking up on you right? You know I don't understand why so many people are so quick to dismiss something as propaganda without doing their own homework to find out whether or not it's actually true. Please-for your own sake- find out what you are talking about before you open your mouth, lest everyone see how ignorant you truly are.

Not a Member!

Refuted Zeitgeist

Saturday 26th April 2008 | 07:00 AM

For anyone who is interested in the refuted version of Zeitgeist, the link is below.

Not a Member!


Monday 28th April 2008 | 08:34 PM

Hi- lively and encouraging debate here- the only really predictable response to a film such as this I feel. Despite the slight wooliness as to where some of its predominantly anecdotal evidence comes from, I think that despite the immediate content, 'Zeitgeist' makes at least one very intriguing point which is worth application to all aspects of everyday life- namely, a point about narrative structures. At one point, the film shows a quote, whose speculative caption suggests that such a quip might plausibly have been uttered by George W. Bush, but is in fact attributed to Hitler. Here, and throughout the film, the point made is that politics, like religion, is founded upon and then transmitted to the public through certain, established narrative structures which become repeated through the ages. 'Stories,' or narratives, help us to create coherence and 'make sense' of our world and surroundings, so it is no wonder that this is the case. What 'Zeitgeist' then does, quite importantly, is to flag up this issue, and to draw attention to the fact that 'truths' are always presented to us-are mediated to us- through these narrative structures. It thus stresses the importance of looking beyond, to see where these narrative structures come from, who produces them, who has the power to disseminate them, which groups' personal interests and agendas they serve to maintain, and how they might also be used to maintain the status quo (here shown best in the 'unquestioning docile public' concept- not a new idea at all, but one which Foucault kicked around for a long time, and other theorists before him, no doubt). The important message I take away from this film is the same as an important message of Cultural Studies- that 'truths' rely heavily upon stories and narrative forms (here, I must stress, 'story' is not synonymous with 'fiction')- and 'Zeitgeist' encourages us to interrogate truths and their validity by looking asking whom these stories ultimately serve. We are then left with the final irony... that 'Zeitgeist' itself relies upon the many of the highly repeated narrative structures of 'film' and 'documentary,' and is, of course, itself a story. In deciding how we take the film and whose interests we believe its 'story' serves, the film therefore offers itself as an exercise in critical thinking. (very self-reflexive!) So believe it or not, I take this as a general, if not rather self-conscious, encouragement to think outside the 'truth' box.
Happy thinking, asking and questioning to all!

Not a Member!


Monday 5th May 2008 | 04:40 PM

So I read a whole whack of the first bit - so addictive. But not the last half. Please excuse.

Rodney and Nixie - thank you so much. Your reasoned arguments are a breath of fresh air. Miramashee too. How's New Brunswick?

Nixie, if you were my artichect and I happened to be an international banker with loads of cash, I'd hire you anyday to build my next EgoWorld Bank.

I've been in the conspiracy camp for a while and this movie really depressed me further. It's not easy not trusting the largest govt below me.

The money part of the movie also depressed me. The Fed hasn't really been addressed in these posts. Is my "legal tender" going to be worthless once the microchips take over?

Forget the barcode scanning BChips. I'm sure the new nano-chips they're making right now can be embedded in us through water, food, or vaccines. Right?

What about taxation being against the law. Can I stop paying taxes?

As for the French and Canadians being pussies as one person commented, they're not the ones stocking up on guns, hiding from pseudo-Terrorists afraid to leave their homes, as they nutritionize on Cheetos and Twinkies.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 6th May 2008 | 04:06 AM

Sorry, I mean RFID chips.

Oh, and with further reading, I've read Chris' posts. Good job, man. Don't let the psych jobs deter you from uncovering the truth, even if it may more inline with the "official" than with CT.

I really wish there were some experts regarding part 3, the Fed Reserve part. Miramashee had alleviated my concerns when s/he mentioned that we're way richer now, after the Gold Std had been abolished. So good pt. there.

I think globalization kicks ass. I don't know what Clinton or Obama's vote-buying agendas are in beating up NAFTA. NAFTA has been better for the U.S. than it has for Canada. The U.S. gets our cheap energy and is allowed to swindle us on Softwood. What the hell are Americans bitching about?

I guess Clinton and Obama have to pander to the large number of ignorant Americans who don't know anything about economics.

So I think we've beaten WMD and religion to death here. Bush will be out soon, the victims of 9-11 can't be resurrected, religion is faith-based not fact based, and the twin towers are still gone.

So can we talk economics now? Discussions on the Fed Reserve are more useful and tangible, I would say.

So was Woodrow Wilson right in feeling bad for what he supported? Is the Fed Reserve really just an elitist debt creating machine? Or is this just the movie's left-wing anarchist agenda?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 6th May 2008 | 04:49 AM

Damn, I'm posting too much. And way off-topic for the following.

I'm from Hongcouver Vansterdam so I take some offence to the movie's dissing of drugs.

I used to think all drugs were bad, "say no to drugs", the whole media shebang.

I believe in God, not the corrupt parts of organized religion. I think that God created drug plants as gifts.

I think that humans who smoke the occassional joint, or partake in the occassional "natural drug", experience new things and open up new spiritual planes that were not accessible only being "in reality" all the time. But the drug use cannot be a habit.

Buddhists say not to get attached to things. So drugs are offered as gifts from God but we must not get attached.

As an example of the beneficial side of drugs, the first time I drank enough to act different, people really liked me. I used that knowledge to become more outgoing when I was sober. In that instance, alcohol usage was healthy. When on pot or whatever, you develop a certain bond with people that you can't always cultivate sober.

The real prob is addiction. But people get addicted to food, work, gambling, internet sites hehe.

A huge issue is this pointless war on drugs the U.S. actually profits from underground. Here is another conspiracy that should be addressed.

Not a Member!

Michael Tobin

Wednesday 7th May 2008 | 04:35 AM

I shouldn't have given this film to my (catholic) religion teacher, its been 3 weeks since i gave it to her and she hasn't given it back nor mentioned it to me...

Not a Member!


Wednesday 7th May 2008 | 05:50 AM

you guys are all whacked...Now your promoting this Dawkins fool on another post. We True Christians are even being fought from within, by movies like "For the Bible Tells Me So" that try to say the Bible says things that is does not. ...Why don't you go see what The Christian Road Warrior has to say at

Even though this man is black, he is actaully pretty smart. Watch him. You might learn something.

Not a Member!

Michael Smith

Thursday 8th May 2008 | 02:09 AM

Its not that they are whacked its just that so many atrocities have taken place in the name of christianity even to this day that most intellecuals have found it not to offer the hope that maybe it once did for people. The hope that everyone seeks is to find out the truth and not believe things just because they are fed to us from a young and impressionable age. Is there some truth in the Judeo-Christian religions, I think there definetly is. Whatever truth there is doesnt mean that there isnt truth in other faiths like Buddhism, or in modern science either. All faiths and science are after the same thing they just have different paths and methods of finding the truth. The truth is that there is one reality that we are all part of we just experience this one reality in many different ways and have many different ideas and philosophies about it. If you have one million people each of which has a slightly different belief system that they have developed does this mean that there are one million different realities or that there are one million different versions of the same reality? You see we all have our own version of reality whether you are an atheist, agnostic, christian, buddhist, or a secularist materialistic environmentalist. Each believes in different things and has found purpose in them. Of all the worlds religions the Abrhamatic or Judeo-Christain-Islamic faiths have been used in human suffering the most. Maybe this stems from all the hail, fire, and brimestone, and an eye for an eye mentality that is in the bible itself. If the bible is the true word of god and not a human translation of the divine then you should believe every word of it. On the other hand if many prophets have given their divine revelation and others have used these revelations to control and manipulate in the name of god then you could be heading into trouble. These religions have been causing much trouble in the world and so is this gods word being played out or is this the work of men using faith as a means of conquering. The truth I think is that we have much to learn and have a long way to go before we can truly understand what the real message of the few true prophets who have lived have meant without it gettting twisted, idealized, politicized, and used for malicious purposes in the name of god over time. If there is one god which is the same as saying is there one reality I agree. If we are part of this one reality then we each have a huge responsibility as keepers of the world in which we inhabite. Whether we worship the sun or the stars or the earth it is all part of this one reality and so the fruits of faith are in the works of the men behind them. What fruits we have are a direct result of our own actions and this is not only a scientific fact but also our collective karma, we truly do create the world in which we live and thus have the ability to change it anytime we want to wake up and take responsibility for it.

Not a Member!

Rick Maloof

Sunday 11th May 2008 | 09:39 PM

OK...If anyone actually gets this far down the list of "reviews" and "opinions", I've a few books that might help anyone wishing to do some research. Some are actually quite credible: "A peoples history of American Empire"...Howard Zinn; "The Iron Triangle-inside the secret world of the Carlyle Group"-Dan Briody; "What every American should know about who's really running the world"-Melissa Rossi; "The best democracy money can buy..the truth about corporate cons,globalization,and high finance fraudsters"-Greg Palast;"Why are we at war?"-Norman Mailer;"Dreaming War-blood for oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta"-Gore Vidal;"Cruel and Unusual-Bush/Cheney new world order"-Mark Crispin Miller; and finally (my favorite,and most revealing to me);"Rule by secrecy"-Jim Marrs.There's lots more..too many to list them all here.The one thing that bothers me...a lot: if true,what the hell do we do about it?Someone...anyone...enlighten me!

Not a Member!


Monday 12th May 2008 | 03:44 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. They can't track you from sattelites, but everytime it is used it will assumably leave a trace. Like The credit card or cellular phone (wich can be traced!).

Analyzing the data will give a pattern, which could be used in specialized marketing or potentially to track down "unadapting" people (f.x what books is bought, etc).

Not a Member!


Tuesday 13th May 2008 | 02:38 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Listen, about the RFID CHIPS. Of course they wont directly track you through satalites. But think of the computer age and "cookies". It is mainstream bussiness that will allow the PIN POINT tracking of every individual. Using that same barcode system. Keeping track of humans like inventory. Here is the example: You have a chip(or credit card in todays world). You go to the coffee store in the morning. You go to sub shop for lunch. You go to Friday's for dinner. And then you go to a strip club at night. All of those movements can easily be tracked and are on record if using credit card. Then anyone else, from the highest government official to someone as simple as your wife can know pretty much exactly what you do on a day to day basis(or track your EVERY MOVE). In fact this is the only way to proove identity theft. To go back and track people.

No direct tracking with RFID chip. You are correct. But a little intution and knowledge about commerical tracking technology will open your eyes to the fact that indirectly, we will be tracked. In fact we already are being tracked if we use computers and credit cards as our only transactions.

Not a Member!

Chris H

Thursday 15th May 2008 | 03:21 PM

I first saw Zeitgiest late last year. I have wached it several times since. Just this past evening I watched JFK for the first time, and I realized that I had absolutely no idea what "facism" really meant. So, I did a bit of homework, and now, I am restless. The similarities I noted among the charactaristics of fascism and elements that exist within America today have depraved me of the comfort of my bed and the warmth of my wife.

I thought I was callous to all this stuff by now. I considered myself enlightened. This was a mistake. This is what the movie truly is about.

"Songs of Experience" and "Song of Innocence" by William Blake (as well as a couple of works by Milton) sum up the delimma that the CONCEPT of this film stives for.

The innocent and uninformed live in a state of ignorant bliss. They know nothing for themselves. But, they are happy. The experienced mind or informed mind exists within a state of troubled passion (i.e. me not asleep right now). These minds are privvy to information. the seek and often find truth. yet, this renders them melencholy.

Which path to take? Ignorance or knowledge? Innocence or experience? I would submit that it was not this film's intention to sway people towards an alternate belief, but instead to get them to see that the outright acceptance of information given to us by exteranl (meaning not by YOURSELF) means, and to submit to blind obedience, is self treason.

I just joined this board today. I sort of feel like a lone voice among my close relations, and I think this will do me some good. I look forward to some insightful, informative conversation.

Here are some things in the movie that were either intriguing or unclear to ME:
- The beams of the WTC sticking up out of the rubble. Cut at perfect diagonal angles. Just like a controlled demolition. What is the explaination for this?
- The FAA drills being held that morning which matched the exact scenarios taking place in real-world, drills which confused air contollers. Were these drills really taking place? Note: the same case was in England, with the train bombings: the drills taking place MATCHED the real-world bombings.
- What are those "loading pens" supposed to be for?

I apologize for not reading all the posts before posting myself. I read the first fifty or so, then could no longer contain myself. So, I apologize if I have repeated questions that have been previously asked.

Not a Member!

Hulk Hogan

Friday 16th May 2008 | 02:21 PM

...in response to this comment by Chris H. The great George Carlin has a lot of insight about the ignorance of American people. On top of a very solid understanding of humanity. We are WILLFULLY ignorant. The fact of the matter is many things are right in front of our face. We just have "cell phones that can make pancakes, so no one wants to rock the boat"(don't rock the boat baby!). Not to mention our old animal instinct to believe a lion is in the bushes when really it is not( self preservation. Run away! to ensure safety). I will only say a couple of things. One that wasn't in zeitgeist and one that really needed to be emphasized more.

If your tired of the 9/11 crap like I am...skip to the second paragraph.

The towers... There is so much shit shoveled at us that it is impossible to decipher. Within weeks all the metal and debris from the WTC was gone and melted down for recycling(for big money by the way). The evidence was quickly and quietly shipped out and covered up. Now all we have is not so common sense. The almost free fall speed, path of most resistance, collapse into footprint. The fast clean/cover up when normally in a plane crash they take it all to a warehouse and rebuild it(oh wait, planes vaporize, scratch that). Above all of this plain to see physics is one simple fact I heard once but never heard again. THE CORE COLUMNS. Now lets think about this. 110 Stories of at least 45? core columns. That is a hell of a lot of very dense, very strong steel. Steel does not snap or shatter, it bends. Lets say for a second the moon(thats right, the fucking moon) fell on top of the WTC at blazing speed. No doubt the building would collapse huh? These core beams would not snap, shatter, and definitely not vaporize into thin air. At the very most they would bend and shear. Now if this pancake theory was correct... and lets say the jet fuel really did melt through the core columns(impossible). That was 90 stories up. What happened to the 80 stories of perfectly intact core columns? It is right in front of your face that no matter how much force was applied, without demolition you can only have two options for these long piece's of forged steel. They would A] still be standing in the sky like naked poles in a new construction. or B] they would be deformed, bent, and smashed so randomly that they would have been extending all over Manhattan like a plate of spaghetti. Much further than.....well.....zero feet away from the WTC's footprint. As far as I am concerned there are three possible "truths", you tell me which one is right. A] The pancaking of the floors somehow folded all of the core columns perfectly under itself like a well folded stack of towels. 2] The jet fuel heated the steel to molten levels causing a chain reaction of spontaneous combustion burning every last bit of steel in the 80 floors below Z] Something... somewhere......( a bird....A PLANE!.... superman!) ....CUT the columns floor by floor, to allow them to fall like normal debris(at free fall speed). Come on people wake the Fuck UP! P.S. my father designed(along with thousands of other engineers) the Boeing 737, 747, and 777. It is physically impossible to vaporize a 6 ton solid turbine block on impact .....PERIOD. unless we are talking insane speeds only an asteroid can achieve(many hundreds or thousands of miles per SECOND, not per hour). Someone call Einstein! we need help!

THE MONEY..... This is far more important than 9/11, like the movie implied. It has been common knowledge for thousands of years in all societies that a currency with no backing(gold, silver, etc) and a central banking system, can easily lead to corruption. Boom and Bust....for profit. Our founding fathers knew this. In fact it was one of the main reasons this country was founded. To get away from the central bank of England(taxation without representation). Everyone look it up. I learned this in the 4th grade when I wondered how it was possible for a country to be "in debt". Its kind of ironic that the world is filled with central banks now. The system we tried to get away from we actually helped spread( since our way is always the best!). The privately owned and operated Federal Reserve, coupled with the great gold heist of 1933 is a VERY VERY big red flag that has been waving in our face for almost 100 years. There is no way of getting around it. Right up there with pyramid schemes. Do the research, read about how this country was founded. Again its all right in front of your face. The great George Carlin thinks its already too late. Which it very well might be. "America is finished! This country was bought and paid for a long time ago." -George Carlin. This plan has been in the works since before our parents and grandparents were born. I might be willing to bet its been in the works since the fall of the Roman Empire. Like someone said the people in power are very patient. They will wait until this blows over just like it has the past 100 years. Then they will up the ante just a niche at a time. Again, like it has been done for 100 years. Bush is pretty ballsy to be doing so much so fast, but then again maybe that affirms the idea that anything we do is too little too late. My advice to you...enjoy "the ride" while it lasts.

"Its called the American DREAM....because you have to be ASLEEP to believe it." -Georgy

"The only true American value left is consumption." -Georgy

Just whatever you do "In the game of life, don't take it too seriously...no one makes it out alive." -Unknown

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow, What a Ride!' -Unknown

P.S. PLEASE DO NOT COME BACK ATTACKING ME OR MY THOUGHTS. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit. If you want to argue then you already lost brother. hahaha "You better say your prayers and eat your vitamins brother!"

Not a Member!

Michael Smith

Saturday 17th May 2008 | 04:44 AM

The people in power only have as much power as we give them. This is true of anyone, you give away your own power when you give away your sense of responsibility. When you say Im not responsible you have given away your freedom and become a victim. If you take responsibility for all the horors that happen then you say "how can I keep this from happening again". The whole problem is that people whine and complain but do nothing about it because they dont take any responsibility for things. We have to practice what we preach because actions speak louder than words. Presidential speeches mean nothing when they dont act in accord. This is the dillema as I see it we have irresponsible leaders who dont understand that freedom only comes to those who are responsible and no others. Stand up and fight. Leave your mundane jobs and the rest of the crap that your fed. Speak the truth and be authentic with yourself. We are just faking it to the max. Saying things that we think people want to hear and not understanding what the purpose in life is. The means dont justify the ends because there is no end its all one big frickin journey and if you maim and kill along the way then your a murderer. The U.S. has maimed and killed millions in the name of freedom from WWI till today and all for what. So we can install our view of reality down there throats. Shopping malls and gagets, baseball and beer, is this what all the soldiers die for. We arent even happy or free so why die for these things. We must stop the insanity in order to be sane. If you arent willing to give everything up then your not willing for change to take place. We have to be willing to say no more until they will listen. You have to do more than whine to make changes stick, becasue they will just appease you and then go on with more of the same. Do you think any Democrat is going to make any changes, or do they represent the same system of beliefs just rearranged a bit. Some day when we are finally sick and tired of going to war against enemies that we created in the name of financial rewards and instead see all humanity as one we will continue to suffer the same fates of all the past civilazations that cam before. We havent really learned to live freely till we understand that we are already frickin free and the onlything preventing this is our illusion that we arent.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 4th June 2008 | 04:49 AM

I wont comment but wow i must see this movie and continue the revolution!

Not a Member!


Tuesday 10th June 2008 | 06:00 PM

...in response to this comment by robert. Nicely said bro!

Not a Member!


Wednesday 11th June 2008 | 05:27 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Hmmm, only 11 brothers.. that would make,, Joseph the 12th now wouldn't it genius. ; )

Not a Member!


Thursday 19th June 2008 | 12:18 PM

...in response to this comment by andrew. What i like about the movie is that they dont ask you for anything other than to be more aware and join them in an organised protest for the government to be less secretive

Not a Member!


Thursday 19th June 2008 | 12:19 PM

...in response to this comment by andrew. What i like about the movie is that they dont ask you for anything other than to be more aware and join them in an organised protest for the government to be less secretive

and the christianity part is what i find most beleivable, although i have indeed, always thought of that as a fraud. especially when they mail you asking for 10% of your yearly income right after they build a new multi million dollar church.

Not a Member!


Thursday 26th June 2008 | 02:49 PM

...in response to this comment by vanislander. go make a shelter, then stay in it till 2013

Not a Member!


Thursday 10th July 2008 | 12:24 PM

...in response to this comment by Michael. Dude, I agree with you a hundred percent. I think this whole list of theories this movie throws at you is mind blowing to say the least and downright hard to ignore. But then your point exactly, why should we trust the "tube" as they say?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 29th July 2008 | 09:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Th film states: Judeo-Christian*

Not 'Jewish' concepts. There's a big difference.

Not a Member!


Friday 22nd August 2008 | 08:48 PM

...in response to this comment by Michael. There does not seem to be much left of the 'plane' - didnt the 'plane' explode on impact - the suggestion by the documentry makers is that some airline wreckage was added after the event. i was not there so we will never really know, but it does seem VERY strange that there is not even 1 clear image of the plane hitting the pentagon eg handican where there a plenty from the trade towers does seem strahe that there is not some images???

Not a Member!


Friday 19th September 2008 | 10:54 PM


dunno if any1 posted this or not ^_^

just read first ten posts or some and i've seen ppl talking about horus/jesus that was mentioned in zeitgeist. They mentioned not being able to find any of those facts on net via google yet there is a good page that i've posted that shows researches and parallels between Horus/Jesus

Not a Member!


Saturday 20th September 2008 | 10:32 PM

I've watched this movie several times, and always with as little bias and emotion as I can muster. I'm a mechanical engineer, I've spent much of my career with engines, analysis and development of fuels and power sources and the mechanisms that harness them.

The portion of the movie I can never get out of my head is the US government reports of the plane crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. The fact that our government is arrogant enough to assume that we would believe that jet fuel "vaporized" an entire plane is absolutely infuriating! The fact, yes I said fact, that our government so blatently covered up two plane crashes, and the deaths of all those passengers encourages me to believe that they are capable of much more.

Not a Member!


Wednesday 24th September 2008 | 11:14 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Actually RFID has a range of 1 to 2 m. I work with them too. I have to agree though that this is hardly able to be used as a long range tracking system. It could, however, be used to track your movements as you pass in and out of doorways and gates.

Not a Member!


Sunday 28th September 2008 | 07:07 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Nice try rodney, but you did as poor a job as the film did, getting things all mucked about. The "Jewish Traditions," which you cited as the film's parallel to Egyptian traditions, were not specifically Jewish at all. The narrator cited them as a part of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition. Maybe I'm being nit-picky, but the film also didn't say that Joseph had twelve brothers, but that he was "of twelve brothers," i.e. ONE of twelve. Perhaps it's purposely misleading, perhaps you just have to listen closer before you get all crotchety. As for the proliferation of unsubstantiated evidence, who would watch the film if it was crowded with footnotes, who would bother to do further research, and who can you really believe anyway? Were those people REALLY former IRS agents? Oh my god! Is ANYTHING REAL?!

Not a Member!


Sunday 28th September 2008 | 07:23 AM

...in response to this comment by Jackstone44. And jackstone, please tell me that last bit was sarcasm. Because if not, good god you're ignorant.

Not a Member!


Monday 29th September 2008 | 08:05 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. I partially agree with you on the religion they do attempt to conjure up a theory based on truth, exaggeration and manipulation. But i cant be mad considering my knowledge of christian, jewish and islamic beliefs tells me that the beliefs of the populace are definately manipulated. I believe in God and in Jesus (As Christians and Muslims do) but ive always understood that the bible is just a modern worship, not the entire thing.

There are many books that the church never said were not accurate and that were deeply followed by early christians that are not included in the bible of today.
Sum analysys of the text can ultimately lend to understanding why they were held back.

look, i dont have time like you but before you miscount so much fact as untruth, u should fact check. U left out the fact that much about the 911 theory and the bank theory is actually based amongst many facts.

Either way there 197 footnotes for the religious side of the issue at zeitgeistthemovie.com (U can argue the religious side until blue in the face, no one wins.

If u go to the site u will see they are actually promoting an idea on religion that they dont flat out state in the movie...and that is that man is god, not that christianity is astrology.

On a final note , the ID they were speaking of is the chip that is inserted in a person. U canbd news of the first family to have this done to their child on any of the major news sites...its pretty much old news.

But even with my weak reply, i have to thank u for rebutting a conspiracy dvd with less accurate info (Even when u state what the dvd says u facts are outa wack) than the dvd itself.

the whole point of this movie is to get u inspired to research the truth properly, mission statement on site flat out tells u to not take thois as fact without looking....so u may find the truth, whatever it maybe.


Not a Member!


Saturday 25th October 2008 | 09:50 PM

i think the church of scientology has done an excellent job of attempting to recruit new members with the ZEITGEIST film.

ZEITGEIST movie exposes some truths about the US government and raises great questions about religion. I think that people will easily accept Scientology religion, when they feel scared and not sure of what to do.

for more information, check out the ZEITGEIST movement and see what they propose as a new form of government. it's a lot like science fiction.

Not a Member!

The Truthiswhatis

Monday 10th November 2008 | 12:59 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. I just wanted to ask why online, everyone goes on to say "Reliable sources" prove that horus wasnt what the zeitgeist dvd preports. Funny thing is i go to college in NY, ive studied egyptian history as well as religion. I have not only been taught much about horus (Prior to ever seeing the zeitgeist dvd) Funny thing is almost everything that is said about horus is not only taught in colleges but is actually backed up by most all historical egyption books and beliefs. In fact I implore everyone to contact or go to a real egyprion historian and ponder these questions. Heck u could even skim thru the book of the dead and easily find thesae similarities.

Granted, I have studied christianity for sooo long, its perfectly easy for me to understand. Especially knowing that the majority of Modern Day Christians wwho only know of any christianity thru the new condensed/Edited King James Version.

Shame of it all True Christian Beliefs and history has been pushed so far away from christian eyes that its greatly understandable that they would believe whatever the church says.

When it come to what i believe i could never be azs the multitudes are like the emperoor with no clothes on, only they have no idea how long theyve been naked.

But on the same note i come across many christians who believe in hell (Something gnostics as well as early christians didnt believe in as well as having many christian books of original bible actually completely contradicting our new age belief in eternal punishment in hell)

I also find many who believe the devil came to this planet 10000 years b4 christ and implemented 1000's of mythological gods exactly in the same way the newest "True" god christ would later be...sadly this is an actual christian explanation....as it was told to me twice both times by priests.

Then again over 75% of everything on this dvd can be researched. I find it funny that u can go to cia.gov and findmuch of these so called conspiracies admitted to...such as the gulf of tonkin incident, the sinking of an american ship under orders of lyndon johnson, as wellk as 3 more admitted to false flag ops...but i guess if the public chooses not to take a few minutes and actually look up what our govt admits too we can easily disbelieve anything.

Oh and by the way can anyone explain to me while every year since 911 the govt has released more speculative info that never gets media attention....like how the fbi originally said they didnt know about the terrorist attack, then they admitted they knew but didnt communicate the info to the cia, now in 2008 the fbi has admitted that the previous statement was a lie, and in fact they had not only communicated a vast amount of info on 911 attacks in enough time for the cia to have prevented this? or my favorite...has to be our govt explanation that the reason all these plains could fly around for 20 minutes off coursed and unnoticed....was because on that same day, at that saME TIME THEY WERE EXPERIMENTINMG WITH THE IDEA OF A HIJACKER TAKING A US PLANE AND ATTACKING THE PENTAGON, SO THOSE MONITORING FLIGHTS FIGURED ALL OF THIS WAS JUST PART OF AN EXPERIMENT....LOL.

Oh and i love those pictures of so called plane debri, considering our own govt admits to not having been able to collect hardly any pieces of any plane.

Shame of all this is the jet fuel thing is so widely known by scientists u would think they wouldve came up with a better answer, jet fuel would have burned up entirely about 500 degrees b4 the temp that was a the hot zones, meaning there shouldve been not only plenty of plane debri but the black box shouldve been found.....People think the thermite answer is crazy, but if u needed to blow a plane up as well as its occupants, why not rigg it with thermite explosives, hit the target and have hardly anything left to find....well this could be a conspiracy, just like the fact that every election in the us since 1921(The year the CFR was created......Members now include...dick cheney, barack obam, joe biden, bill clinton, george bush jr and sr, ronald reagan, jimmy carter, richard nixon, etc.etc.etc.) has had two candidates one a cfr memeber one not, every election turns out with a cfr winner...especially love the speech cheny gave when he chuckles while telling the audience how he was head director of the cfr, something as he chuckles and notes "I didnt mention this when i was running for vp"...yeah LOL......either way every few years our govt declassifies info on events that we think were one way, but really were another....sad thing is almost no ones reads for themselves...instead all of yall go deep as hell on blogs and message boards half ass attacking every ounce of truth all in the name of those who constantly benefit off of our lives..even sadder is the fact that these men who hate u n me, u constantly ride out for...must feel good to choose comfort over truth......I ride for the youth not the power mongers.............Peace

Side note: if Jesus did exist.,...someone should tell Paul (Apostle from new testiment) Funny how he nevers places christ as ever being on the planet....in fact awfully strange how the only thing he knows of christ are the persecution, execution and descension to hell....none of which he ever places here....but then again paul (The slayer of christians b4 he converted) actually distorts much of the supposed christ's teachings, as many true christians today will tell you he 4ever changed christ's teachings (Of Yeshua) into some obscene new "Paulene Christianity" Shame of it all is if i were a true christian i wouldnt wish for the heavens to come to me...I mean who wants to sit in paradise while the rest of humanity suffers for the only unforgivable sin in christianity is the denial of the holy ghost....I can never be free or comfortable while others suffer, rot and repeat...

Not a Member!


Monday 10th November 2008 | 01:10 AM

oh 4got one last thing why did no one right a single thing about christ until 40 years after his ressurection...i m ean he dies for us in one the most painful deaths for our sins, and we totally forget about him for the next 40 years?????

I do digress tho, because i still hold some beliefe in christ as he is mentioned in all 5 (Christian, Catholism, judaism, islam and hindi religions) major religions...which it could mean that at the least he was a man attempting to teach something....im actually awaiting the release of the documentary "Jesus in India" should be released soon...for india has claimed since at the beginnings of A.D. that christ spent the missing years of his life in india teaching and in fact they have a book called "The Teachings of The Saint Isa" (Isa being Jesus as he was called in all old texts)

well my bad on rambling.


Remember...Lenny Bruce Said...."The Truth Is What Is and What Should Be is just a LIE sold to the people so long ago"

Not a Member!


Sunday 23rd November 2008 | 02:27 PM

...in response to this comment by Michael. Box cutter knife to steal a fifty-million dollar plane = Four dollars...

A thousand pounds of fuel to fly to the nations headquarters = Five thousand dollars...

The cost of rebuilding the outer Pentagon building = millions I'm sure...

A picture of large metal "debris" that hit the lawn at hundereds of miles an hour and didn't even mess up the grass = PRICELESS...

Not a Member!


Tuesday 6th January 2009 | 06:22 AM

Hulk Hogan has it right! The movie is full of untrue information........designed to make you believe that the entire contents are bullshit? Wrong.
All the info about the banking system is very verifiable and true. We are at the mercy of a very few powerful people.

Not a Member!

Florin Andrei

Tuesday 2nd June 2009 | 01:44 PM

Here's my review:


Summary: The sources and references used by the movie have very serious issues.

Not a Member!


Sunday 7th June 2009 | 05:58 PM

It is amazing that just as I was watching the movie on google, my explorer froze and gave me some bulls.. message and closed. Then when I googled 'zeitgeist movie' to try watch it again. I got directories of many blogs including this one - where the statements of the movie are reputed! I am no expert - But I am with whoever spreads LOVE not WAR! You cannot push for the destroyment of LIFE in all its forms, in the name of GOD (who built LIFE) It does not make sense to me. I dont care how rosy you put it!

Kurt Merki

Kurt Merki

Sunday 20th September 2009 | 12:58 AM
No total kudos

“Religion can never reform mankind, because religion is slavery.”
Robert G. Ingersoll 1833-1899
A “Zeitgeist” movie quotation
An excerpt of my book:
Does “Zeitgeist-Movement” or “Barack Obama” Have The Answer To World Peace?
Watch out for the book it will be very soon out!

Follow some of my comments on this web-link!

It is true that Religion was, is, and will be slavery to mankind, unless “Man” understands the difference between a Religious organization (which has a hierarchy or runs like a Government) and Jesus Christ. (Is the Kingdom of God - Mark 12:32 and Matt. 6:10 ) Jesus Christ never established a Religious organization. To support my statement, please visit the web link of Perry Marshall http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/ and read the article: “The Seven Great Lies of Organized Religion”, especially Lie #5: which says: “There is no single truth. Everyone needs to explore and find a truth that works for them”. My comment to this statement is as simple as: I have many times experienced when people lack knowledge and understanding they have difficulties to judge and comprehend between natural and supernatural issues. When this happens, they become suspicious or worse they turn into superstition. Simply confused or even getting mad! Furthermore, many people can`t discern spiritual matters between right and wrong. They only follow the “masses” and then accept to be brainwashed. They are brainwashed to stand up to defend for their indoctrinated faith. At the final stage they become fanatics and when they are challenged by other faiths, on doctrinal or theological issues, they become defensive violent, defending “a truth” which they had never searched for, but blindly followed. This happens even to “Christian Religious Organizations”. That’s how a Religious conflict or war triggers off.
Through the adoption of a Christ-like life, not Religion, millions of people have been transformed and liberated from slavery. If such a change would not have happened and continues to happen, one would wonder how much more corrupted the world would be.
In any case the example given by Robert G. Ingersoll is not a good example, because his personal life story like others mentioned personalities in the two “Zeitgeist” movies were extremists, rebellious and radical in characters. Simpson referred to Ingersoll as "this daring blasphemer." Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._IngersollNone of these gods mentioned in the “Zeitgeist” movie could proclaim as Jesus Christ did by saying: “I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE…: (Jn.14:6) All what these false gods could say and do, just like every other peaceful human being is to advocate/pursue; justice, love, peace, and so on. Where are their followers and scriptural legacies today? Jesus Christ`s scriptural evidences make Him of what He declared: “I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE…:. It is the uncommitted and ignorant Christian and some: “Christian Religious Organizations” who showcase today to the world Christianity (The Church) as follows:
• When Jesus Christ started His Church it was: “A Way Of Life”
• When the Church came to Greece it became a Philosophy
• When the Church came to Rome it became a Government
• When the Church came to Europe it became a Tradition
• When the Church came to the Far East it became a Religion
• When the Church came to America it became a Business
• When the Church came to South America and Africa it became a Entertainment!
….and why?
Because of “Man`s” love for power and fame, which derives from selfishness and over-ambition, of which the movie “Zeitgeist” is also a part, making fame by presenting false doctrines and deceiving the ignorant. The very ignorant ones “Zeitgeist” is accusing for not reading enough of the devilish things that are happening in this world, uses the Bible quotation like: “… and the truth will set you free.” (Jn.8:32- NIV). The Bible has even stronger words like: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6) One of the viewers of the “Zeitgeist” movie has asked this question: “Which sect has given the contract of this movie?” The Bible says in 2 Tim. 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desire, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”
Again 2 Tim.3:1-7 summarizes all that I have put right with these comments and I quote:
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Despite that Christianity has often gone astray, because of false and deceptive acts of institutional doctrines (Religion), it has proved that Christianity has been sustained, not like the Deities mentioned by “Zeitgeist” and groups them as equals to Christianity. The fact is; it is not the Word of God (the Bible) that needs to be reformed, but “Man”. Here are some evidences: In the 15th century Martin Luther http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther opened to Christianity the centuries hidden Word of God (The Bible) In the 19th century “The Azusa Street Revival” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Street_Revival reawakened Christianity from her orthodox institutionalized rules and behavior (Religion). God will always use “someone” to reform His church when “Man” goes astray. Jesus statement in Matthew 16:18 makes that clear, when He said: “… I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
Again, it is not Jesus Christ (His Word-the Bible) who is wrong, but the sinful nature (selfishness) of ALL of us. (Ref. human nature page 76-79, starting from last paragraph) Romans 3:23 says: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. We ALL are part (including “Zeitgeist”) of 9/11 and other shameful conflicts of this world, deriving from our sinful nature of which selfishness is the number one offence.
The solution for “Man” is; to reconcile and be at peace with his Creator (Jn.3:3) When “Man” is at peace with his Creator, “Man” will also be at peace with his neighbor. The rider will then know his destiny and not as “Zeitgeist” ends its first movie, suggesting philosophically that:
“Life is just a ride”
My advice towards peace is:
“If we see in every Man God`s Creation, the world will have peace!”
Kurt Merki, Snr,
(Gen.1:26) Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…”

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Thursday 22nd October 2009 | 11:03 PM

...in response to this comment by Michael. Thats why they did it. They thought no one would believe such audacity. Humans also have a tendency not to think critically when they are in an emotional state. I will admit zeitgeist covers this issue poorly. watch the movie "loose change" for a better overview of this event.

Not a Member!


Monday 8th February 2010 | 10:03 AM

your comments are scathingly blythe. did you watch this documentary and feel threatened afterwards? Or uncomfortable that the idea of governments and secret organizations do bad things n secret blow the top of your head off.

Your idea that he takes leaps of faith and judgment is pretty irrational yourself considering that most history you learn is written by the victors or that the reasons for wars were beyond the simple reasons you've heard of?

Much criticism of this documentary is grossly unfair. I doubt you spent as much time analyzing other official reports and i also doubt that your knowledge of anything ranges from beyond what you can find on the net.

The things he has included might not all be correct, but they were probably inserted in good faith (much like the 9/11 report i assume).

If you want to trust the Bush Jr era gang then do so, but rememer that the USa is one the most corupt and cheating countries on the planet and it has interefered illegallly with other countries for it's own gains, which is patently true in South America, the far east and africa. The proof is out there. FACT

I suspect that like most critics who want to savage this film and the work of the creator because your mind operates on a very narrow band of imagination and ability to detect hidden truths.

e.g. if a building is designed to take a plane impact that spectacularly fails to....
or how a building near to but not hit by plans decided to collapse by itself, mimicing in entirety a controlled demolition.

if every piece of stock footage of a building being purposefully collapse looks identical to building 7 is it possible that only building 7 could avoid the laws of physics and collapse in a way convinient for breakers and salvage? i don;t think so.

Zeitgeist gave you bad news and you were scared. So you went to nit pick instead of looking at the big picture.

The truth has been stretched by governments worldwide and by people you know yet you accept that without voicing anything i imagine so you're obviously not interested in the fate of humanity at all.

Zeitgeist did incredibly well in showing why organised religion is unoriginal and illegimate as a modern social influence and showed that politics has well and truly left the control and fear of the general public decades ago.
Sure it's no 'factmaster 3000' but you have nothing comparatively better to offer so i ahve no choice but to label you as a sheep rather than a person, as i do all critics.

People like you will tolerate all abuses, so long as you don't have to make sense of them/ don't affect you. but then when the veil of civilization and it's not so innocent face is revealed you suddenly about face. Suddenly thing sdesigned to save you and open your eyes become scary and threatening o you resort to un-ending and unfair criticism.

It doesn't matter if he got some facts wrong and some facts right.
We are talking abut ancient history pieced together by historians who rely on their best professional opinion with whatever evidence is available.
A fact is merely a sui generis. An assertion made with supprting and concurred evidence, but facts aren't truths. So as much as people can deny what he says, they can't deny in a finite sense, because they have no truths either, just facts.

Obviously no-one was going to document the starting date of their religion, but Jesus shares a stupid and convinient amount of background with other figures in the religious world.
Messiahs aren't even a new idea per se.

I think you should watch it again in silence with your least talkative friend, or perhaps someone who doesn't always agree with you. or better yet have a real discussion with someone.

Either way 9/11 was clearly an inside job because you just can't fly planes around where you like without people knowing on the ground, you can't use cell phones in the air, explosions felt are undeniable evidence, steel can't melt with jet fuel, passports can't survive plane crashes, and for both 9/11 and londons 7/7; having training exercises running on the exact scenario both times is more than coincidental.

Open your eyes man.
Zeitgeist isn't a new bible or guide to shady figures for you to follow.
It's an eye opener and nothing more and you are a barrier to the populous doing so.
Is that how you want to be thought of? the person who dissuades people from even investigating facts to determine truths?

Not a Member!


Tuesday 9th March 2010 | 11:37 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. you provided no actual facts just opinion to prove him wrong. You obviously is passionate but you have to use actual refernces to back up your arguments. I was lookibng forward to reading some counter facts but you provided none. Just something you should think about for next time.

Not a Member!


Thursday 13th May 2010 | 05:41 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Pliz Rodney even i can see the conspiracy and im not even an American I dont know what is so complicated for to see...............................................................................................

Not a Member!

Henk V

Thursday 13th May 2010 | 06:52 PM

Ive got this thing about facts Pette. Zeitgeist didn't.

Should have been called scheitgeist. It stunk worse that a History channel show. If teenagers point out the continuous begging of questions, what sort of movie is it? A stinker.

Give me a 2012 or nostadamus video anytime. Saves taking diazepam after a bitch of a day.

Scheitgeist had me laughing from the opening dialogue.

Flu Vacc. anyone?

Marvin the Martian

Marvin the Martian

Thursday 13th May 2010 | 07:49 PM
105 total kudos

...in response to this comment by Henk V. here here. I love a good conspiracy, but this was just over the top and didn't even have an action sequence.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!

Henk V

Thursday 13th May 2010 | 08:04 PM

IameToo, we in oz have been chipped since 1979. The doctor tells us and its good for ambulance work and cit. They just read your bar code.

Ask Marvin, he would have had to fill out the forms as a North American political refugee.

Its easy for him now, he can stand next to an ATM and get all his personals on screen. He screams when he sees his super fund pop up!

Me? I don't like banks, tall buildings and am banned from firearms stores and pharmacies. No point goin' to the ATM if you can get a gun.

Not a Member!

Marilyn Hanson

Thursday 13th May 2010 | 08:27 PM

Just an interjection to the doomsayers of zeitgeist. Pacing all the gods in different places is pointless. God themes moved between the Mediterranean - Egypt - ANE- Mesopotamia -Persia and possibly as far as India. These moved by trade and motif.

Its not hard to imagine that motifs were fairly limited and the coinage was too. If you look at all these pantheons they are the same for a reason. Even the hardened christian has to admit there was a fair bit of bad blood between the competing motifs.

Its not that Mithra, Apollo, Dyonisis were the pre-dating gods to JC, its just the motif really got a hot grip in an Apollonian culture. Every bit of paganism attached itself to it and voila, christianity. The power that was to become the church state of Rome was well on its way.

The fact that Marianism appears 900 years later on invasion of islamic states is pretty indicative; a good idea is a good idea. When the world is shit, what we call a shit idea, may be a tootin one.

Not a Member!

Henk V

Thursday 13th May 2010 | 08:34 PM

May I add. They are worshipping the wrong god. The blessed virgin appeared at Fatima. This appeases the billion strong catholic church of today. It also appeases the billion strong Islamic movement as they invented Marianism as you call it.

Had she appeared in Salt Lake city they would have all been irate!

Lourdes was just a drop in the bucket.

Not a Member!

Marilyn Hanson

Friday 14th May 2010 | 01:29 AM

the celebrations of the axial tilt sort of diminishes religion and zeitgeist.

Marvin the Martian

Marvin the Martian

Friday 14th May 2010 | 06:07 AM
105 total kudos

...in response to this comment by Henk V. no refugee status. managed to get aussie citizenship. a bit of a gaff, but it makes it easier to complain.

Give Kudos | Reply | Comment URL | Profile | Top
Not a Member!


Tuesday 17th August 2010 | 04:57 AM

...in response to this comment by Michael. Mainstreen corporate media is a tad different than independent media. If you think that media can't be corrupted just like any other money-making corporation then you are naive.

Not a Member!


Tuesday 1st February 2011 | 08:11 PM

...in response to this comment by Andr. "Asking why there aren't many prominent scientists and media people who speak out for the cause? - they have a career to lose, as they will be ridiculed by the ignorant majority that wouldnt even bother to think and analyze

This is all so very sad"

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! omg...that is the most anti-intellectual garbage I have ever heard in my life. Is that why prominent scientists and academics also don't speak out about Santa Clause? Because he really exists, and they just don't want to be ridiculed for their belief? LMAO!!!!!

Honestly, anybody that believes this Zeitgeist crap REALLY need to get an education (and no, high school doesn't count. I mean something relevant to this) . Or at least a class in Critical Thinking.

Add a comment

Login to Rusty Lime

Not registered? | Forgot your Password? Cancel Login