Zeitgeist.. Well, if you are to watch it, at leat know what zeitgeist actually means except really cool sounding Germanic. Rebecca Black and Nyan Cat are other zeitgeist phenomena...
Did I say I didn't know what Zeitgeist meant?
And excactly how many scientist buy into this..?
How many scientist believe that 9/11 happened the way the 9/11 commission said it did?
Did anyone watch it?
"The Zeitgeist movie series is pretty cool, but I can't buy into a full blown government based conspiracy - it serves to leave even more loose ends. I'll give you tower 7 though"
I'm glad you've at least watched it. I don't expect everyone to believe everything this series says, I don't. If people watch part 2 and are still fully faithful in their government, they are, and I quote, ignorant.
From the wikipedia article about WTC 7 collapse -
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say that the buildings that collapsed on September 11, including building seven, were felled by controlled demolition. The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.
The use of thermate instead of explosives is discarded by NIST on the basis that it is unlikely the necessary 100 pounds of thermate for each steel column could have been planted without being discovered.
Ever heard of googling?
Just because there isn't a viable explanation hasn't been found yet doesn't mean conspiracy! That is EXACTLY the same as saying because there isn't a scientific explanation of how the universe was formed & how life started, it must be the work of god.
About the movie - I haven't seen it & with a 5gb/month data transfer limit, most likely won't see it in the foreseeable future, but I'd like to quote from a review of the movie -
The 9/11 truth segment of the video is, of course, of much more recent vintage, but, here too, it mostly repeats accusations that have gotten widespread play in the uber-skeptic milieu.
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.
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.
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.)
The over-all temper of the video is rather like the John Birch Society on acid, with interludes by Harry Smith. Incongruously, after spending nearly two hours trying to scare the bejeezis out of its viewers, Zeitgeist ends on an oddly upbeat note, telling us that Love -- not Fear -- is the answer, We are all One, and featuring sound-bites from Ram Dass and Carl Sagan.
It's a shame, really, that Zeitgeist is, ultimately, such a mess. There are plenty of legitimate questions about what transpired on 9/11, just as there are plenty of shady doings in international finance or puzzling aspects of religious history, for that matter. And what is coming down in the name of National Security is truly unnerving. Yet, bundling them all together in disjointed fashion does justice to none of them. Time and again, Zeitgeist maximizes emotional impact at the expense of a more reasoned weighing of evidence. But, perhaps that's the intention.
From wikipedia -
A review in The Irish Times entitled “Zeitgeist: the Nonsense” wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones." Other reviews have characterized the film as "conspiracy crap", “based solely on anecdotal evidence” and “fiction couched in a few facts”, or disparaging reference is made to its part in the 9/11 truth movement.
Some journalists have focused on it as an example of how conspiracy theories are propagated in the internet age. For example, Ivor Tossell in the Globe and Mail argued that contradictions in the film are overwhelmed by passion and effective use of video editing:
The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.
Filipe Feio, reflecting upon the film's internet popularity in Diário de Notícias, stated that "Fiction or not, Zeitgeist, The Movie threatens to become the champion of conspiracy theories of today."
Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentioned Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American on skepticism in the age of mass media, and the postmodern belief in the relativism of truth. He argues that this belief, coupled with a "clicker culture of mass media," results in a multitude of various truth claims packaged in "infotainment units", such asZeitgeist, Loose Change, Poltergeist, or The Twilight Zone.
Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist "a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop", an example of unethical film-making.She accuses Joseph of "implicit deception" through the use of unreferenced and undated assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of “twisted evidence” and use of Madrid bomb footage to imply it is of the London bombings (she approvingly cites a student journalist who calls it an "out and out lie") amount to ethical abuse in sourcing (in later versions of the movie, a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings). She finishes her analysis with the comment:
Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film’s determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.
Other reviews have been similarly negative.
If people watch part 2 and are still fully faithful in their government, they are, and I quote, ignorant.
From the reviews of the movie, I would think that it would be stupid to base your views on this movie.
Watch the collaps of WTC 7. Tell me in your own words what you think happened.
I'll say again -
Just because a viable explanation hasn't been found yet doesn't mean conspiracy! That is EXACTLY the same as saying because there isn't a scientific explanation of how the universe was formed & how life started, it must be the work of god.
The collapse of WTC 7 is a mystery of sorts, but that doesn't imply that there was a conspiracy. These conspiracy theories don't have a leg to stand on.
If there was the conspiracy, then the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't make sense. Had there been any conspiracy(inside job, prior knowledge etc) wouldn't 2 passenger planes crashing into one of the most important buildings in the country be enough to start a war? Why the overkill?
But if you want me to describe in my own words what I make from the videos of WTC 7 collapsing, then here goes -
A building collapsed.
"Tell me in your own words what you think happened."
I think the building fell down. That's the only conclusion I can draw. How it fell down I have no clue about, seeing as I am not a civil engineer, nor have I surveyed the site for evidence. However, there are a lot of civil engineers (and other experts) which have looked at it, looked at the evidence, evaluated everything, and have a conclusion which runs straight against yours.
I tend to trust the opinion of experts. They usually know more than I do (when sticking to their own field).
Your assertion that bribery would extract truth but torture would only extract lies is unsound. Why could not the subject just give lies for the bribe just as you say they would if tortured? I am not sure if you know how torture works, but I don't think they just let the subject go when he gives some random info to make the pain go away, but I would think they check the veracity of the info. They ask questions to which the correct answers are already known to test how they are doing as well before they get to the unknowns. They just don't send him home with a handshake, a bag of cheetos and a bottle of pop for his troubles the first time he blurts out some nonsense. No friend, they continue playing Celine Dion over and over and over until the subject cries out that he will tell them everything as well as perform oral sex on them and their barnyard animals as well if they like if only they will play some metallica instead.
If accurate information could not be extracted under heavy torture then bribing someone with justine bieber tickets or an iPad2 with Angry Birds already loaded would be less likely to do so don't you agree. Tell me, how much total agony do you think you could withstand before spilling all your best kept secrets or would you hold out for the bribe of a shiny new Chevy Corvette?
Non-consensual torture is abhorrent, and is rightly outlawed, but I think it is difficult to argue that it would not be effective in extracting information from a tight-lipped scoundrel who will not divulge the secret after you had already frowned with disapproval in his general direction many times and told him he isn't being nice.
If you are going to argue that it works, please provide some evidence. You can postulate all you like, but in the real world torture has failed miserably.
Evidence? I have to do some research on the topic, any volunteers..?
The issue with info from torture is that it may or may not be correct. If it is never correct, then one could just do like muslim terrorist, make them confess something silly and then cut their heads off.
From a synopsis of the TRUE story of Bravo 2 Zero (also a brilliant book and movie):
We witness the interrogation and torture of Andy and Dinger who have now been turned over to the Iraqi Secret Police (the dreaded "White Socks") in a secret service prison in Baghdad. Their interrogator is well-spoken and relentless. Andy is continually beaten - his teeth are smashed and at one point a dentist is brought in, not to repair his teeth, but to increase the torture.
After a couple of cover stories, Andy decides to almost tell the truth, leaving out a few salient points.
When someone who has undergone torture training break at some point (tho still maintaining control over the information released) I doubt I would ever be able to do the same if captured.
Eh? I handed you a synopsis of real world events where torture extracted information from one of the most trained in resisting torture. A primary source - the holy grail in history.