The Collabaration of Conspiracies

[Socks]

Through the 18 years of my life, I have read, seen, and heard conspiracies from many silly aspects, such as Tupac's death, Kurt Cobain's death...but the one I hear about the most is the one about the government....

A neighbour told me:

"...In society, we as the American people, only know 10% of what's actually going on....The 90% is information that we don't want to know..."

For the first time of my life, I believe this conspiracy. After watching THIS (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/), (which is a 2 hour documentary conspiracy film), I realise that this probably may be true. This film answers all questions to the government, through fact and international history.

What do you think?

Personally, This film just turned my world inside-out and upside-down.

Edit: I had an enigma trying to see if this would work in Meeeeeeja or General Pap.
Meeeeja is more for commentaries and reviews. General Pap is basically made out of "general chit-chat".
Seriously, it's not a waste of your time. Watch it.

This thread is purely opinion. Serious businesses seem to be more of the topic here. What's your opinion of human life? How can your life be impacted on others? Are our lives only in line for people to achieve something greater than human life?

If this thread is too tl;dr, just tell me and I'll try to condense/summarise it for ya.

[katt]

"...In society, we as the American people, only know 10% of what's actually going on....The 90% is information that we don't want to know..."

After watching THIS (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/), (which is a 2 hour documentary conspiracy film),

.

two hours?

well no wonder we don't want to know it.... we like our conspiracy videos to last about two minutes tops. two minutes is more than enough time to plant the seeds of doubt

[Darkscull]

this is that zeitgeist film?

I remember that it didn't make much of a splash, controversy-wise, outside of america. everyone else is already aware of what we don't know (and especially what you don't know :p ), and how much of it there is.

[katt]

has someone made a 30 second cartoon version of it re-enacted by rabbits? It would be very handy

[Splush]

I might be wacky enough to watch this film and tell you what I think, but not right now. In the mean time, there's a little summary of it on it's wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist%2C_the_Movie) for anybody wondering about it, also there's links to people talking about it in the references section. It sounds like a slightly painful two hours based on that summary.

If anybody is in the mood for watching another, slightly shorter, video about the scary state of the world, I watched this the other day and I thoroughly recommend it: http://fora.tv/2007/10/09/Naomi_Wolf_End_of_America

Or you could read the book that the lecture is summarising, but we all know reading is for nerds.

[terrorbite]

Zeitgeist is alright. Its just a pooling together of info/footage from other documentaries though. Its a good starting point if you want to learn about these things, but it doesn't go into much detail.

I recommend skipping the first section about religion though (the first half an hour or so). Its pretty questionable and throws a bad light on the rest of the film.

[InstaCpu]

Typical tripe, not even original.

[Smokey]

The wiki summary just makes it seem like guy whining about religion, guy whining about 9/11, guy wining about the rich. Think I'll leave the film unwatched.

[Boyinabox]

More 9/11 conspiracy nonsence?

How many times do people need to point out that BUILDINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BE HIT BY A PASSENGER JET AT MAX SPEED WITH A FULL LOAD OF FUEL before people understand this? Anything between a Piper and maybe (maybe) even a 737 at low speed lost in fog or with engine troubles during landing, not a 757 at top speed.

And debating the historical truth of biblical events? I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the bible is total BS, the only thing thats important in that whole book is that a chap said "Hey folks, be nice to each other for heavens sake!" and that people may have actually listened for a change.

I really hate conspiracy theories.
Truth = Using the given information and evidence to find what happened.
Conspiracy theorists = Start off with preconcieved idea and do all that you can to back up this original idea, no matter how flimsy evidence for it is. Ignore the pieces that don't fit your view.

[katt]

The wiki summary just makes it seem like guy whining about religion, guy whining about 9/11, guy wining about the rich. Think I'll leave the film unwatched.

yeah that was pretty much my impression of the wiki summary too.

haha its kinda funny actually...three totally unrelated controversial things...it makes me think he is going more for shock value than actually having a genuine point about a particular topic to get across

[terrorbite]

Why not actually watch it, before saying these things (last few posters)?

Granted that Zeitgeist doesn't go too in depth, but it pools information from documentaries that have, and it references real evidence. There's very little theory in it that hasn't been backed up by stories from media outlets you guys accept as the truth (tv news stations and their associated websites etc).

How many times do people need to point out that BUILDINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BE HIT BY A PASSENGER JET AT MAX SPEED WITH A FULL LOAD OF FUEL before people understand this? Anything between a Piper and maybe (maybe) even a 737 at low speed lost in fog or with engine troubles during landing, not a 757 at top speed.
You're not an expert. Neither am I. By your logic, there no way the buildings could've survived. By my logic, they could've.

Just so its out of the way, I'll briefly mention what I keep mentioning in these threads. LOOK AT BUILDING 7. Any person with half a brain watching footage of that collapsing can see it was a controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein, the owner of it, told them to "pull it". Police and fire officers told people to get back because it was coming down. The BBC accidentally reported it had collapsed before it had. There were fires on only a couple of floors, and it wasn't badly damaged. Other buildings were closer to the twin towers and had more debris hit them, yet miraculously didn't collapse. There's more, but I hate repeating myself. All of this footage is available. Look it up.

So yeah, the twin towers...

Jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than the reinforced steel used in the towers core columns. There's no way it could've melted them, even if there was constant fuel (which there wasn't, since most of it burnt off in the explosions). Sure it might've weakened some of the columns, but these buildings were massive and had numerous columns, most of which weren't hit by the plane.

Even if the planes did weaken the columns, and somehow caused the floors above the impact zones to collapse, they wouldnt've fallen so perfectly and neatly, at near freefall speed, and pulverised the entire buildings to dust.

Almost immediately after the collapses, the remaining pieces of the core columns were loaded onto trucks and shipped off to china to be melted down. Why? Surely they would contain important evidence?

After the buildings collapsed, firefighters reported seeing pools of molten metal underground. Aerial thermal imaging shots show intense hotspots under each building (including building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane), which remained for weeks. Physics professors have analysed samples and found traces of thermite, which is used in the demolition industry to cut through metal.

There are numerous reports from witnesses hearing (and being injured by) explosions that happened in the basements just moments before the planes hit the towers. There's lots of footage of these witnesses (look it up), which were broadcoast on the day but have never been talked about in the media since.

Also, isn't it convenient that Larry Silverstein, who already owned Building 7, bought the twin towers just weeks before the attack? And isn't it convenient that those 3 buildings collapsed on the day, even though building 7 which was further away than other buildings wasn't hit by a plane? Yay for multi billion dollar insurance payouts. Kerching.

Damn. I've wrote a lot (by my standards, hehe). But yeah, do your own research. Don't believe what I say. There's a zillion other points I either can't remember or can't be bothered to write any more about.

It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation, wants him to think, feel and act.

The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.

Edit: Here's some links to other documentaries that I recommend:

9/11: The Road To Tyranny (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105)
Martial Law 9/11: Rise Of The Police State (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661)
Terrorstorm (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230)
America: Freedom To Fascism (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173)
Endgame: Blueprint For Global Enslavement (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261)
The Money Masters (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936)

Here's one just about the demolitions of the twin towers on 9/11, heh. Pretty in depth:
9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536)

[Boyinabox]

Gah.
Please please please Terrorbite. Please at least try and read/watch some of these sources so I don't have to do a ridiculously long post like this again:

Screw Loose Change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561)
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_of_7_W orld_Trade_Center

Jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than the reinforced steel used in the towers core columns. There's no way it could've melted them, even if there was constant fuel (which there wasn't, since most of it burnt off in the explosions). Sure it might've weakened some of the columns, but these buildings were massive and had numerous columns, most of which weren't hit by the plane.

The planes didn't destroy the columns, but they did completely remove all the fire protection for the columns on impact. And when you say there wasn't a constant fuel for the fire you forget the actual building itself; floors, ceilings, furniture, paper and the hundreds of other flammable materials. And you don't need to melt the steel to cause it to lose strength, a fire such as the one in the towers would be of sufficient temperature to reduce the strength of steel to well below a safe level.

Even if the planes did weaken the columns, and somehow caused the floors above the impact zones to collapse, they wouldnt've fallen so perfectly and neatly, at near freefall speed, and pulverised the entire buildings to dust.

Why not?
Its perfectly logical that the WTC collapsed straight down, as there wasn't an external force applied on it that would make it fall anyway other than straight down. Put simply, when the struck floors lose the strength to hold up the thousands of tonnnes of building above them they simply fell, like a ball would if you dropped it.

Just so its out of the way, I'll briefly mention what I keep mentioning in these threads. LOOK AT BUILDING 7. Any person with half a brain watching footage of that collapsing can see it was a controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein, the owner of it, told them to "pull it". Police and fire officers told people to get back because it was coming down. The BBC accidentally reported it had collapsed before it had. There were fires on only a couple of floors, and it wasn't badly damaged. Other buildings were closer to the twin towers and had more debris hit them, yet miraculously didn't collapse. There's more, but I hate repeating myself. All of this footage is available. Look it up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/6/66/0168u.jpg/320px-0168u.jpg

I'd also like to point out:
Storage tanks contained 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel to supply the generators. Fuel oil distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor. After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center, possibly adding to the devastation of the September 11 attacks.

Just so its out of the way, I'll briefly mention what I keep mentioning in these threads. LOOK AT BUILDING 7. Larry Silverstein, the owner of it, told them to "pull it". Police and fire officers told people to get back because it was coming down. The BBC accidentally reported it had collapsed before it had.


Pull it, as in pull the firefighters out?
And I have seen that BBC World footage, ever considered the fact that the blue screen footage she is standing infront of is time delayed?

I could go on but to quote you here:

There's more, but I hate repeating myself. All of this footage is available. Look it up.

edit:\

Forgot about:
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/0a/06/20060908054809990009&imgrefurl=http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/rusting-artifacts-await-place-in-sept-11/20060908030109990001&h=267&w=400&sz=20&hl=en&start=8&um=1&tbnid=EQJ5ltW3ZVLZcM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=124&prev=
News story about the fate of the 9/11 debris

Also some of it was melted down for use in the ship USS New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_York_%28LPD-21%29).

[terrorbite]

I guess all we can do is agree to disagree. The sites I believe say one thing. The sites you believe say another. You presumably believe what you're told by the mainstream media. I don't.

There's hundreds of examples throughout history of governments carrying out these false-flag operations and blaming them on their political enemies. Why should 9/11 be any different? The evidence is overwhelming.

I've got nothing to gain from believing these things. I don't believe it because I hate the government or because its exciting. I don't want these things to be true.

Throughout history, there's been great wars and the rise and fall of empires. The same thing is happening now (the desire for power will always be intrinsic to mankind). The only difference now is that instead of a physical war, we're fighting a psychological one. Peoples opinions are no longer their own. They're imposed upon us by the mass media.

When you break free and engaging in critical thinking, its a great feeling.

[Darkscull]

I guess all we can do is agree to disagree. The sites I believe say one thing. The sites you believe say another. You presumably believe what you're told by the mainstream media. I don't.

you're right, you don't believe what you're told by the mainstream media: you believe whatever you're told by someone who disagrees with the mainstream media.


personally, i believe what i want to believe, and base those beliefs on my personal assessment of the evidence at hand. I will never understand why that's such a rare situation

[terrorbite]

you're right, you don't believe what you're told by the mainstream media: you believe whatever you're told by someone who disagrees with the mainstream media.
I read the news from the same places as most other people. The difference is that I read it with a critical perspective, especially when it comes to political stories. Most of the news you read is spun in some way.

personally, i believe what i want to believe, and base those beliefs on my personal assessment of the evidence at hand. I will never understand why that's such a rare situation
Dunno what you mean by that, but yes I'm the same. Its just that we've both ended up with different beliefs based on the evidence :)

[Boyinabox]

I guess all we can do is agree to disagree. The sites I believe say one thing. The sites you believe say another. You presumably believe what you're told by the mainstream media. I don't.

The problem with that kind of thinking is that you end up with a conspiracy with a ridiculous number of conspirators (the government, the military, the media, the families of the victims on the flight, the structural engineers who compiled the 9/11 report, etc). Unless the BBC and Popular Mechanics are actually in cahoots with all this then there would simply have been leaked information and documents from more reliable sources than just university students with a flair for the Michael Moorish (I'm looking at you Loose Change).

Unless you also believe NASA faked the moon landings by paying off every corporation, astronomer, amateur radio enthusiast, reporter, the astronauts and the Soviet Union. Or that Diana really was murdered and your name isn't Al-fayed.

[Darkscull]

Dunno what you mean by that, but yes I'm the same. Its just that we've both ended up with different beliefs based on the evidence :)

I mean that you seem to trust in the non-mainstream sources as much as extremely naive people trust in the mainstream sources.

I take everything with a pinch of salt, and end up somewhere in between.

[Splush]

Not having the knowledge of civil engineering necessary to tell whether the evidence of foul play is valid or not, I have to fall back on Occam's razor and say that the simplest answer is most likely to be the best one, and the simplest answer as best as I can tell is that a group of militant Islamists hijacked a bunch of planes and flew them into buildings. I can't say it's true for sure, it's just what I've judged to be the most likely explanation.

[terrorbite]

The problem with that kind of thinking is that you end up with a conspiracy with a ridiculous number of conspirators (the government, the military, the media, the families of the victims on the flight, the structural engineers who compiled the 9/11 report, etc). Unless the BBC and Popular Mechanics are actually in cahoots with all this then there would simply have been leaked information and documents from more reliable sources than just university students with a flair for the Michael Moorish (I'm looking at you Loose Change).
That's just it though. There are as few people involved as possible with these things. The vast vast majority of the government and military wouldnt've known anything about it, and certainly the media wouldn't know anything.

If you watch news footage of the attacks from the day they happened, the news stations come up with all kinds of ideas. Many of them say they believe explosives were planted in the buildings for example. But the day after, presumably they got a call from the head of their companies telling them not to focus on certain aspects because they were never mentioned again.

As for the military, you'd have thought they'd intercept the planes given the relatively huge time span between the planes crashing. Why did they do nothing to stop the attacks? Because COINCIDENTALLY they were running war game exercises on that day, and they couldn't distinguish between the real attacks and the exercises.

Btw, did you know that terrorism exercises were also COINCIDENTALLY being carried out on the day of the July 7th bombings on London? What are the chances eh?

As for the 911 Commission Report which you mentioned, there was a group of people in charge of compiling that. For each aspect of the case, if there wasn't a unanimous decision, it would be dropped from the report. So you can see how the findings from that could easily be altered.

What I'm rambling on about is, events like this don't need a huge number of people involved.

[Boyinabox]

If you watch news footage of the attacks from the day they happened, the news stations come up with all kinds of ideas. Many of them say they believe explosives were planted in the buildings for example. But the day after, presumably they got a call from the head of their companies telling them not to focus on certain aspects because they were never mentioned again.

Excuse me?
I remember watching TV that day. Don't you remember the reports of multiple car bombings at the White House, the TOTAL destruction of the pentagon, bomb threats at the UN? Do you remember hearing about them after 9/11?
No, because that day the media were getting truckloads of stories all at once and couldn't verify them all. As the dust settled over the following days those stories were dropped because a clearer view of what happened could be assembled. There hadn't been a carbomb at the whitehouse, and only one side of the Pentagon was damaged.

You can't take the media reports from confused eyewitnesses that were recorded on 9/11 as trustworthy sources. For example, the Fox News clip where the reporter says "A side of the building has collapsed" as the whole of WTC 2 comes down.

As for the military, you'd have thought they'd intercept the planes given the relatively huge time span between the planes crashing. Why did they do nothing to stop the attacks? Because COINCIDENTALLY they were running war game exercises on that day, and they couldn't distinguish between the real attacks and the exercises.

Thats not the whole story. You've got to remember that the USAF was designed to defend against attack from aircraft outside US airspace before 9/11. After the end of the cold war the US didn't need to have fighter squadrons on constant standby, on 9/11 there were only 49 fighter jets in the whole US in a "ready to scramble at first notice" state. And you say the fact they were running war games as if that were something suspicious and unusual. The military is ALWAYS running training exercises and wargames, because thats how they test equipment, develop tactics and train soldiers, its not as if the military gets sent to war without having ever done any training.

What I'm rambling on about is, events like this don't need a huge number of people involved.

How do you smuggle hundreds of tonnes of demolition charges into office buildings with tens of thousands of workers in with nobody noticing? How do you get the media to agree not to blow the lid off the whole thing?


The problem is that you see the pre 9/11 USA as an impenetrable fortress defence wise, that could only have been demolished from within by shady characters with alterior motives or something like this could never have happened. The reality is that pre 9/11 had small weaknesses in its "fortress" that several saudi terrorists found and exploited. Simple as.
It was simply a form of attack America had no real defence for.

[Cap'n Zog]

As I said in the previous thread, the fact the US were performing a training exercise may well have been know to an international terrorist network who then planned their attacks for that day. I mean for example, say one member of the network happens to know a squaddie at one of the bases who in the pub complains about not getting a holiday in x months time due to a big anti terrorism training thing which he has to take part in, although i'm sure the information could be obtained in more complex ways, that is just as plausible as half the garbage spouted by a bunch of people with no idea what they are talking about.