"Zeitgeist"--the Movie

[dalebert]

   Lastly, does it really matter whether the evil we face today is the result of a 4000 year plot that has evolved over time, or Freemasons, or Rothschilds, or simply because people with power tend to abuse that power? If I finish this movie(my computer conked out for the 5th time shortly after part one), will I be more able to defeat the conspiracy than I currently am?

When I realized you hadn't watched the whole movie yet, it clicked and I realize why you wrote that. It's been a little while since I saw the movie, but I didn't get the impression that it's promoting a particular conspiracy or another. The impression I got was that it showed the nature of man to create irrational beliefs for the purpose of controlling people. It didn't say there is a big 4000 year ongoing conspiracy by one organization. What it's doing is creating analogies and showing how similar the tactics are so that people can be alert to such things.

I personally don't believe that Bushies planned 9/11 and the movie doesn't say that, or if it did, I've since forgotten that part. What it does do is leave you wondering if they knew more than they let on, sooner than we are led to believe. As a for instance, I found myself wondering if they were reluctant about shooting down commercial planes with lots of civilians on them but rather than say that, they took a cover up route. I feel like all the move did was expose information that raises questions, questions that were left suspiciously unanswered or even hushed up. The specific conclusions are left to the viewer.

[Ruger Mason]

Google is your friend!

Yeah . . . I know.  I've done my research and I told you what I believe.  Prove me wrong.  Don't just tell me you're finding all this evidence that disputes the movie without actually sourcing your statements.

I was merely offering advice, not offering to be anyone's personal researcher.  You 9/11-truther folks are the ones making the extraordinary claims, and so its your burden to prove it to the rest of us.  Odd too that the film isn't sourced either!

[Insurgent]

The film is sourced http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm
and some clarifications made since creating the final release of the film are on the site as well. The site is a work in progress and will be fleshed out more as time goes on. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/clarifications.htm

[Insurgent]

Yeah, I used to like Penn & Teller. I have to wonder if someone has to resort to name-calling and profanity to punctuate their arguments. Is that something that Penn thinks will help him be convincing?

Yeah, no kidding. What I think is BULLSHIT is the intended effect of this episode--to demonize people who question official stories as kooks, moonbats and uninformed. What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?

From the list of techniques on the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
I find at least half a dozen that jump out. How many can you find?

[error]

Oh, not nearly as many as I see in this thread, in Zeitgeist, in Loose Change, etc...

[armlaw]

What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?

[/quote]

I guess I'm going to have to revisit the new revision, just to stimulate the gray matter into more analysis. However I find it most interesting that what I found to be the most remarkable was the closing admonition, which if I remember correctly was something like this;
"When the LOVE of POWER is replaced by the POWER of LOVE, we will have peace."Hmmmmmm worthy of at least some consideration ?

[Insurgent]

What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?


I guess I'm going to have to revisit the new revision, just to stimulate the gray matter into more analysis. However I find it most interesting that what I found to be the most remarkable was the closing admonition, which if I remember correctly was something like this;
"When the LOVE of POWER is replaced by the POWER of LOVE, we will have peace."Hmmmmmm worthy of at least some consideration ?

You've got the gist of it. Philosophy worthy of consideration? Yes, I'd say so! 

The film is worth revisiting, several times. I've watched it four times and always get something new out of it; watching it once (or only the first few minutes  ) barely scratches the surface, due to the intensity and depth of material that it covers.

[Insurgent]

Oh, not nearly as many as I see in this thread, in Zeitgeist, in Loose Change, etc...

After you finished watching "Zeitgeist", which techniques of propaganda did you find to be employed in it?

[jaqeboy]

Yeah, I used to like Penn & Teller. I have to wonder if someone has to resort to name-calling and profanity to punctuate their arguments. Is that something that Penn thinks will help him be convincing?

Yeah, no kidding. What I think is BULLSHIT is the intended effect of this episode--to demonize people who question official stories as kooks, moonbats and uninformed. What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?

From the list of techniques on the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
I find at least half a dozen that jump out. How many can you find?

Good analysis, Insurgent! (I'm not really going to count, but that list is a hugely helpful aid to understanding what we read, view, hear  etc. in the MSM.

I wonder what happened to Penn? What made him turn to the dark side? Lot harder to tell about Teller  , but he's complicit, of course. Penn must know good and well that he's using those techniques - he's not stupid.

[Ruger Mason]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIdQQ2hubfc

[alohamonkey]

Ruger, thanks for posting that link.  I've never seen that before.  I have two issues with their explanation though. 

#1 - The only real justification that was given for the collapse of WTC 7 in this movie was that the "fire cooked the steel".  I'm at work now but when I get home I will try and find the scholarly report I read that proves that an open-air flame can not reach temperatures high enough to weaken steel.  Everyone's explanation (including NIST's) of the collapse of the twin towers concludes that ONLY jet fuel can cause a fire to burn hot enough to weaken steel (and even that is debatable).  There was no jet fuel in WTC 7.  Compare the fires in WTC 7 to the fires in the Windsor building in Madrid:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K6erWMPhVF4

These buildings were constructed in a similar fashion.  Why would one remain standing while the other one collapses at free fall speed into it's own footprint? 

Also, take a look at these other WTC buildings that were closer to the twin towers.  They suffered much more damage than WTC 7 but they remain standing.  Why?

WTC 6 - http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg
WTC 5 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html
WTC 4 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html

And . . . don't you think it's odd that BBC and other news networks (CNN) reported that WTC 7 fell more than 20 minutes before it actually did.  Not only did they report that it fell, they knew WHY it fell before it even collapsed.  That seems odd when even the individuals in the movie that you posted seemed surprised that the building collapsed.  FYI - the Solomon Building is WTC 7 and you can see it behind this reporter
FYI - the BBC claims to have lost this footage
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s



#2 - Even if WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage, the building would not have collapsed universally at free fall speed.  I'm pretty sure you've played Jenga before.  I know I have.  When you remove a piece on the side, the structure topples.  WTC 7 would have toppled in the direction of the electric substation (the part of the building with structural damage) and then collapsed at an angle.  Instead, all supports, beams, and floors collapsed at exactly the same time causing the building to fall into it's own footprint at free fall speed.  Odd.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5J8YUsK2FnY

From wiki, FEMA's conclusion on the collapse of WTC:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_7

[jaqeboy]

What alohamonkey said, but without the Jenga comparison.

[jaqeboy]

... and, of course why did Larry Silverstein say "We decided to pull it" and no one at NIST or FEMA says, "oh, okay, I guess that's the real reason WTC 7 came down."

But, of course, this is a Zeitgeist thread. Out of respect for that, we ought to move the 911T discussion to that thread: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1747.0.

Also, for "what to do to increase awareness locally" you can go to the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth questions group. I think there used to be forums on the Meetup sites, but don't see that now. I'm sure we can get something set up for discussing what video to show next locally and how to announce to the public, plans for street actions, etc.

Re Zeitgiest, I think it tries to point out the incredibly extreme measures that have been used against people (9/11 attacks) to manipulate them into wars that are against the interest of civilization, and how they are bamboozled about how the world works (most religions) and how most are being completely misled (govt and complicit media) while they are stolen from (money system). It does take the alternative to the govt story about 9/11 as a given and it doesn't pretend to be the "definive proof" work on that.

[alohamonkey]

What alohamonkey said, but without the Jenga comparison.

I've been involved in hundreds of 9/11 truth debates and I've never thrown that comparison in there until this one.  It was sort of spontaneous.  You didn't like???

[alohamonkey]

I agree Jaqeboy.

I'm very interested in researching and analyzing the producer's sources for the religion portion of the film.  Religion is something that I was raised with and fell away from a few years ago.  I now see it as another method of control and persecution.  I watched another interesting movie recently (I'll try to find the name and post it here) that analyzed the escalation of fanatacism in Islam as well as in Christianity in recent years.  It was really interesting to see how similar the two religions were.  It was also interesting to note how the two movements were alike and how anti-religious each groups' actions were.  Organized religion is another method of dividing and polarizing the population to gain greater control.  It has been used to coerce normal, rational people to kill each other for centuries.