Discussion of ZEITGEIST, The Movie: Part 3 of 3 (47:05)

[Dan.Linehan]

I saw Zeitgeist the movie tonight, and wanted to start a discussion thread on it.

Here's the link: ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Part 3 of 3

Its a mash-up of history, futurism and economic policy that I find absolutely fascinating.

The first three or four minutes are a little slow, but stick with it and listen to the story being told, its a good one.

And share opinions here, I'm very curious to see what everyone thinks.

• Will North America adopt the Amero as a currency standard?
  
  
• Will the adoption of the Amero result in the dissolution of the United States constitution?
  
  
• Did the United States invade Iraq because Iraq stopped accepting the USD in 2000?
  
  
• Is the United States going to invade Iran now that Iran has stopped accepting the USD in 2007?
  
  
• All new United States passports now have RFID chips in them. Will injected RFID chips be next?
  
  
• What will happen if someone refuses to get an injected RFID chip? Will there be any recourse for falsely accused fugitives?
  
  
• Was 9/11 a false flag attack? Will there be another?
  
  
• Is the federal reserve really behind wars for profit?

[Erin Pavlina]

I saw the movie like back in October so I'm not fresh on the details, but one thing I heard recently on the news was that the RFID's were NOT going to have a chip in them... initially.... It seems like most congress people or whoever was voting was against the chip part. I think they liked the idea of having one ID but didn't like the chip part.

[Dan.Linehan]

RFIDs are the actual chips themselves. The Real ID card won't be chipped with RFID right away though.

[Erin Pavlina]

Ah gotcha.

[Brutha]

# Is the United States going to invade Iran now that Iran has stopped accepting the USD in 2006?

Not if the US get a democratat as president in 2008.

# Will the adoption of the Amero result in the dissolution of the United States constitution?

A constitution isn't the key. It's a symbol for certain values.
Attacking the symbol isn't the way to attack the values behind a constitution.

As long as people believe in the values the new organisation will also have those values.
The UK for example does quite well without a constitution but with a citzinary that believes in seperation of power and human rights.
American lawbreaking: Illegal immigration. - By Tim Wu - Slate Magazine makes a fine argument on how the words written in the actual law don't have any effect any more when nobody believes in the value behind the law anymore.

The danger to freedom doesn't come from outside dangers like RFID chips or a North America.
Those things can only do damage when the internal societal values are broken. On the other side you don't need any outside factor to do damage when the internal values are dead.
Don't fear the unknown.

# Did the United States invade Iraq because Iraq stopped accepting the USD in 2000?

I think they invaded to get influence in the region and over the Oil.
The switch away from the USD is one of the sign that the lost influence before that.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

A constitution isn't the key. It's a symbol for certain values.
Attacking the symbol isn't the way to attack the values behind a constitution.

Not a constitution...The Constitution.

It's more than a symbol. Written word has special meaning. When an American talks about going back to The Constitution, they want our government to uphold the agreements in it; because that's what a constitution is, a contract or agreement between the ruled and ruler.

[schola]

I appreciated Zeitgeist for waking me up to some topics I wasn't aware of, but like a few other politically charged documentaries, it's a little loose with the facts.

[Brutha]

It's more than a symbol. Written word has special meaning.

That exactly the point of a symbol. A symbol means something.
But the important thing is whether a certain agreement exist in a society in it's culture.
It doesn't matter that much whether that agreement is written down (which it isn't in the UK).

On the other hand you can't attack the agreement by erasing the words, because the agreement is deeply embedded in the culture.

If the US doesn't understand that difference you get major problems. You think that you can go into a country like Iraq, write up a constitution and get the agreement.
Unfortunatly it doesn't work that way, because the important thing aren't the written down words but the understanding of the agreement.
If that agreement leaves the cultural identity the written words are useless.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That exactly the point of a symbol. A symbol means something.
But the important thing is whether a certain agreement exist in a society in it's culture.
It doesn't matter that much whether that agreement is written down (which it isn't in the UK).

Eh? First, Britain isn't exactly a shining beacon to the free world.

Second, are you saying that the UK doesn't have a constitution or written laws that determine what the government can and can't do? Because it does.
Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For crying out loud, modern England was founded on the "Original Constitution," the Magna Carta.

If the US doesn't understand that difference you get major problems. You think that you can go into a country like Iraq, write up a constitution and get the agreement.
Unfortunatly it doesn't work that way, because the important thing aren't the written down words but the understanding of the agreement.
If that agreement leaves the cultural identity the written words are useless.

Apples and oranges. The United States went into Iraq and imposed a new government on them. They didn't bring it about themselves. I agree that it doesn't seem like the people of Iraq want a republic, but that doesn't imply anything about the necessity of a written constitution.

A constitution is important because it's a contract between the governor and the governed. Its main effect is to limit the power of the government.

Values are subjective and language is inefficient. One man's idea of "freedom" is different than another man's. That's why it is necessary to define these values in written word. And even then the definitions are subject to interpretation.

Do you hold this same line of thinking for other agreements that typically require a contract? If you made a business transaction with someone, would you simply accept their word for it instead, because they claim to have the same values as you?

[Brutha]

For crying out loud, modern England was founded on the "Original Constitution," the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta certainly does nothing to prevent the parlament in the UK today to take freedoms away from citizins. But their are a lot of other things in writting like the human rights (those have also be signed by the US by the way), that provide an understanding that the parlament isn't allowed to do certain things.

Eh? First, Britain isn't exactly a shining beacon to the free world.

The US isn't either with nice little laws like the patriotic act.
Your constitution certainly didn't prevent that patriotic act.

from wikipedia: Because the UK has no single codified documentary constitution along the lines of the Constitution of the United States, it is often said that the country has an "unwritten constitution".

Sure, they are laws that describe the powers of the parlament, but those don't have a special status of being unchangeable.
They are normal laws, that change and evolve over time.

Values are subjective and language is inefficient. One man's idea of "freedom" is different than another man's. That's why it is necessary to define these values in written word.

Your Constitution doesn't do that. When it is written it was for example understood in way, that didn't gave black people the same rights as whites.
Things like the right to the freedom to have sex with your adult partner the way you want would now be understood as being granted as basic rights by the constitution.
When the basic understanding of freedom changes and a majority (as in a majority that controls the public forum and the three branches of goverment) sees the concept of freedom different than you, citing the constitution won't help you.

Do you hold this same line of thinking for other agreements that typically require a contract?

Most

If you made a business transaction with someone, would you simply accept their word for it instead, because they claim to have the same values as you?

When Nafta would transform into a souvereign entity you can be quite sure that there will be a massive amount of paper involved.

But contracts change and have to be kept up to date.

In addition a contract that I make with another person gets it power through the laws of the state in which I live (I can sue on legal grounds my relativly powerless partner if he doesn't uphold his part).
I can't do the same with a state, when that state acts uniform (the three powers agree on what they want to do). You need a powerful third party to uphold written contracts.

Apples and oranges. The United States went into Iraq and imposed a new government on them. They didn't bring it about themselves. I agree that it doesn't seem like the people of Iraq want a republic, but that doesn't imply anything about the necessity of a written constitution.

It an example of what a country with written constitiution but without a "cultural constitution" looks like.
It a extreme.

[robertanthony]

This is a two hour movie so only watch it when you have lots of time. After the religion comes the politics and some shocking info about the twin towers and the USA economy. At first when I watched this movie I thought this was a religious movie but as the movie evolved my blood went cold many times as the CIA, Bush, Central Bank are mentioned. It's one of those movies you should copy before it is banned.

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition

Rob

[Sylvia]

um... excuse me? banned? the day my country publicly banns movies is the day im getting the hell outta here. f*** that.

anyway, isn't there some way to block/blacklist certain internet sites in a country if they are against the law? like, i think i heard something about other countries doing that because they can.

i want to move to the moon. (not really, luckily i believe in the human race and goodness in the world... its kind of like believing in aliens a lil bit :P)

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Sylvia

anyway, isn't there some way to block/blacklist certain internet sites in a country if they are against the law? like, i think i heard something about other countries doing that because they can.

China does this - they filter google and block youtube entirely.

[Dan.Linehan]

Speaking of,

Google Summer of Code accepts Tor for 2008 program.

Tor trumps censoring firewalls, like those in China.

[Edubra]

The Movie explains why US didint hear ONU and attacked Iraq. But at the end with microchip to all I saw something about the 666, the number of the Beast from Apocalypse, so what part of Bible we should consider,... Why the author did not make a relation about that,... the rest is great,.. A youtube video of channel 4 video shows some UFOs on the scene, ... where are they on the movie,.. and the 10.14.08 ,... it is a hoax, or not.

Edu - Brazil

[Dharma]

I see part III as our consciousness showing us what will happen if we stay on our present course. The House rejecting the bailout bill is promising news. It opened some space for new options, new choices.

Will North America adopt the Amero as a currency standard?
I think the plan is to tank the dollar and, lo-and-behold, a NEW WORTHY CURRENCY, that just happens to be coined and printed, must be enacted NOW! Just like the patriot act, the bill will be preprinted so congress can rubberstamp it and save us from complete annihilation. Pshhh.

[*]Did the United States invade Iraq because Iraq stopped accepting the USD in 2000?
Yeah, we don't want maverick Saddam ****ing up our plan to control all the money.

[*]Is the United States going to invade Iran now that Iran has stopped accepting the USD in 2007?
Probably but people are smarter now and we also cannot afford it. Look for a false flag attack if they start getting desperate.

[*]Was 9/11 a false flag attack?
Definitely. Steel buildings don't fall from fire. Those suckers were demo'd. Shock and awe du jour.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dharma

I see part III as our consciousness showing us what will happen if we stay on our present course. The House rejecting the bailout bill is promising news. It opened some space for new options, new choices.

Will North America adopt the Amero as a currency standard?
I think the plan is to tank the dollar and, lo-and-behold, a NEW WORTHY CURRENCY, that just happens to be coined and printed, must be enacted NOW! Just like the patriot act, the bill will be preprinted so congress can rubberstamp it and save us from complete annihilation. Pshhh.

[*]Did the United States invade Iraq because Iraq stopped accepting the USD in 2000?
Yeah, we don't want maverick Saddam ****ing up our plan to control all the money.

[*]Is the United States going to invade Iran now that Iran has stopped accepting the USD in 2007?
Probably but people are smarter now and we also cannot afford it. Look for a false flag attack if they start getting desperate.


[*]Was 9/11 a false flag attack?
Definitely. Steel buildings don't fall from fire. Those suckers were demo'd. Shock and awe du jour.

Please tell me you don't really believe that, if you do believe that I suggest you do research on steel failing after exposure to high temps and the logistics of placing charges in the towers. I also suggest viewing footage of buildings being demo'd and the resultant visible and audible explosions.

Also recall the Titanic was unsinkable.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by jeff3

Please tell me you don't really believe that, if you do believe that I suggest you do research on steel failing after exposure to high temps and the logistics of placing charges in the towers. I also suggest viewing footage of buildings being demo'd and the resultant visible and audible explosions.

Also recall the Titanic was unsinkable.

I do believe what I said. What happened there goes against all my firefighting training. Not enough fire load for long enough time to make it fall. Oh, and how *pretty* BOTH buildings fell!

Yes, I've seen some live demos and also have heard a ground level video tape when one of the towers fell. I can hear the pops going off.

If the titanic can sink, then charges can be placed in the towers. Yes the logistics are quite incredible and so is two towers perfectly falling from an intense, but short fire.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dharma

I do believe what I said. What happened there goes against all my firefighting training. Not enough fire load for long enough time to make it fall. Oh, and how *pretty* BOTH buildings fell!

Yes, I've seen some live demos and also have heard a ground level video tape when one of the towers fell. I can hear the pops going off.

If the titanic can sink, then charges can be placed in the towers. Yes the logistics are quite incredible and so is two towers perfectly falling from an intense, but short fire.

Who do you think put the charges there?

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by jeff3

Who do you think put the charges there?

I have no idea. Someone who wanted us to start a war with Afghanistan/Iran, someone who wanted us to have enemies.

Blowing them up is the only way I can conceive the towers falling. For me it seems like a 1 in a million chance that the collapse could have been from fire.

You've caused me to look at it again, and, yes it does seem crazy and a lot to orchestrate. But I cannot fathom any other way for those to come down nor the terrorists having the resources to pull something like that off by themselves.

[Dan.Linehan]

There were explosions underground right before the buildings fell - large enough to cause seismic spikes.

For what it's worth.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dharma

I have no idea. Someone who wanted us to start a war with Afghanistan/Iran, someone who wanted us to have enemies.

Blowing them up is the only way I can conceive the towers falling. For me it seems like a 1 in a million chance that the collapse could have been from fire.

You've caused me to look at it again, and, yes it does seem crazy and a lot to orchestrate. But I cannot fathom any other way for those to come down nor the terrorists having the resources to pull something like that off by themselves.

The simplicity of their plan was the key to it's success. They actually only had to enter the country,take flying lessons, and buy a box cutter, all 3 things were easy to do at that time, only requiring money. Osama Bin Laden is a career "hater" , I've seen a lot of his video and unless it's mis-translated he comes off as having intense hatred for westerners and our way of life. He is also a very intelligent person and is revered by his associates. Basically he sits and thinks of ways to F-up our way of life while he is awake and probably dreams about it at night.

I've seen and studied the conspiracy stuff and found it lacking from my point of view. I'm still open to new info, but what I've seen is not convincing to me. The sounds that were heard as the towers fell were the floors pancaking and progressively getting louder as the mass increased because the weight of an additional floor was added each time they gave way. This also accounts for the speed at which they fell, the inertia was tremendous and cumulative, causing the speed to accelerate once the process started.

I even have trouble believing a handful of guys with box-cutters could do what they did and understand why someone would say,"it's just not possible these guys did this" , but this is a classic example of an 'Achilles heel' or 'chink in the armor' scenario. They found a weak spot in our security and exploited it. They carefully planned this and no doubt spent months rehearsing the details while they were taking flying lessons, going over and over the whole thing in their minds, Intending it, feeling it, tasting it ect.... all the stuff we talk about being necessary for manifesting things. I actually heard people were beginning to have dreams and "reflections" about this, which leads me to believe it was planned for some time and the thought forms were very well established. There was even a CD cover that came out with a plane flying into the towers, the CD art came out 2 months before 9-11 Link here http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://gothamist.com/attachments/arts_jen/200801coup.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gothamist.com/2008/01/29/nyc_album_art_t_4.php&h=300&w=300&sz=24&hl=en&star t=21&usg=__Lw6BGQKniHiO6iLztxI1pZDoals=&tbnid=nzf9 XNmE7PlWFM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3D9-11%2Bcd%2Bart%26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%2 6hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

There were explosions underground right before the buildings fell - large enough to cause seismic spikes.

For what it's worth.

Source?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by jeff3

Who do you think put the charges there?

This is an interesting question.

In a country where 400 people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined -- I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that they might have things going on that we don't know about.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that they might have things going on that we don't know about.

I bet it's more than we can even imagine...

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by jeff3

Source?

Yeah, it looks like the seismic stuff has been debunked.

It was a combination the seismic data, plus an interview with someone who worked a couple levels down who said he heard explosions beneath him right before the collapse that made me think underground explosives might be a possibility.

But now it looks like the timing of the seismic spikes were at the same time as the collapses, not before.

Not sure why he heard explosions underneath him before the collapse though.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

This is an interesting question.

In a country where 400 people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined -- I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that they might have things going on that we don't know about.

I understand that but demolition of buildings this big requires lots of charges,det cord or E-caps, and many man hours of carrying, placing and wiring this all up, not something that would not be noticed....or charges big enough to leave no doubt as to what they were. The jihadist use of crude explosives (like urea nitrate or ammonium nitrate) in the past makes me think they are just unable to access the good stuff (that would cut steel) , this would mean it would likely be an "inside" job and that would require lots of people to be approached, recruited and kept quiet about what was going on. I just don't buy it. I know people will do anything for money and power, I just don't think this was doable as an inside job. If anything, I might could be convinced that someone knew but failed to act or pass the info on to someone who would.

[Dharma]

We could go on for a long time about the information available. There are a few videos of firemen that were interviewed after the collapse, possibly the next day, and from what they say it doesn't add up to just a plane in the building. But that is my opinion.

It's probably not worth it to argue this anymore, at least for myself, since it will change very little:

2 planes hit two buildings in NY
both buildings fell

If it was an inside job or not, it was taken advantage of by our government, I feel, to pass the Patriot act and start a few wars.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by jeff3

I understand that but demolition of buildings this big requires lots of charges,det cord or E-caps, and many man hours of carrying, placing and wiring this all up, not something that would not be noticed....or charges big enough to leave no doubt as to what they were.

One thing that makes me suspicious about this, is that if it is as easy as a plane crash and a hot fire to bring both buildings down in the same manner, then why would the explosives need to be planted all over the building? If somebody actually rigged that building to blow and didn't want it to appear as a controlled demolition, all they would really need to do is plant a few explosives in key places (ie the core support beams in the elevator shaft). Take a few of them out and you should get the subsequent pancake collapse.

The sub basement explosions are pretty strong evidence of this as well. There was a hero janitor (William Rodriguez I think) who testified to the 9/11 commission about his coworkers who were burned badly by these explosions and how he saved their lives. Of course this testimony was omitted from the report. I do believe it's possible the building COULD HAVE fallen from the plane taking out core columns plus the fire, however I find it more likely that the process was aided by a few key explosive charges, or even possibly thermate. There's lots of evidence of explosions before the building collapsed, so really it's hard to say what exactly happened.

Then of course there's good ol' building 7. Allegedly hit by debris from the towers and then caught fire and collapsed almost symmetrically. Comparing building 7 and other controlled demolitions, they look almost the same, minus the obvious flashes and charges in the hollowed out building, however I believe if they didn't want to make it obvious, they could have done it differently.

Personally, I don't think 9/11 was soley an inside job though. I believe it was a collaborative effort of several nations (including Israel and Saudi Arabia) combined with other key elements within our government. I don't think it's as simple as "the government did it", because that would be very hard to cover up. I'd say it was more like a plan of the global elitists. But to think our government had nothing at all to do with it, even with fore warnings, doesn't add up.

[jeff3]

I have seen explanations about building 7 that seemed very plausible, but don't remember where, I'll see what I can find.

I think it is VERY important to know who did this and who did not, if it was an inside job, heads should roll, literally.

I was disturbed by the speed and "knee jerk" way the Patriot Act was pushed through, although I don't entirely disagree with it's contents. Anything that effects freedom and liberty should be carefully considered and follow the proper channels for passage. Bush is basically a megalomaniac who was fortunate his family ties allowed him to act on all his delusions, I hope a they make monument proclaiming him the worst president ever.......and I'm generally a republican!