Lister Engine Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: rpg52 on December 24, 2007, 07:33:47 PM

Title: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rpg52 on December 24, 2007, 07:33:47 PM
If you have a fast connection and a couple hours, this movie will change the way you look at the world.  While aimed at those living in the US, it's relevant to nearly anyone.  Even if you don't believe it, you will look at social institutions a bit differently.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Every one have a great new year - life is just too short not to enjoy it, at least occasionally, IMHO.   ;D
Ray
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on December 24, 2007, 08:08:35 PM
I just killed my monthly bandwidth limit downloading the new Ron Paul DVD to harass my friends(haha and you all too) and family with, looks interesting.

Warning if you start researching this stuff, you'll most likely become a unhinged conspiracy theorist.  You can't prove any of it, but a guy standing over a dead body with a smoking gun is also circumstantial to some degree. 
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rpg52 on December 25, 2007, 01:29:59 AM
As someone has said, just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you.   ;D
Ron Paul is an interesting guy - so far to the right he shows up on the left occasionally.
 I read a story once about a guy with a conspiracy expose he wanted to publish (one of the left-wing variety).  No-one would touch it, except a right-wing ex-Air Force general who owned a publishing business.  Despite the fact that the general completely disagreed with the politics of the book, he published it, because no one could tell him what he could or couldn't publish.  One of those true patriots.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on December 25, 2007, 02:32:51 AM
He sure seems to have a bunch of support from the left.  Talking with others in his campaign has made me come to think there is no left and right, just a distraction from what both sides are doing and no one wants. 
Felt real funny at first when I found myself, a conservative, agreeing on politics with a liberal athiest.
 

 
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on December 28, 2007, 12:54:49 AM
I watched it.

Some of it has been a corner stone of my own belief system and perseptual filter for the world around me for a long long time.

Some of it is realy far fetched.

Its probably better to be a little suspiscious of everything in the mass media, politics and organized religion.

I think its more important to remember I have a mental filter I use to block out things I don't like or want to hear, most people do. And lots of people with lots and lots of money and agendas find ways to manipulate me and my filter. Its as easy as spending billions of dollars on spin doctors to convince me that Coke is the real thing and not just brown sugar water or Colateral damage realy isn't people ....
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: sid on December 28, 2007, 01:49:50 AM
spin doctorings has it.s place// maybe//brown sugar water maybe be coke// but  it is the was it is presented that makes it cost more//if I repaired your microwave and it had a bad fuse and told you it would cost $100.00/ you would think I was crazy... but if  I told you it had a bad inline surge protector and it would only cost $100.00,  that would be a different story/ you would be glad that it was that cheap//or if your dryer had a bad belt and I told you it would cost $140.00, you would think I was crazy// but if i told you that it had a bad drive assembly and it would only cost $140.00// that would be a different story// it is how the customer precieves the value that counts//it works//sid
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rmchambers on December 28, 2007, 05:07:58 AM
It was an interesting bit of media to be sure.  The stuff about the Fed and the Neocons didn't surprise me a bit - in fact it made what they do a little easier to understand.

All I know is this country is going to hell in a handbasket.  when my kids come home and their math homework is on estimation and they get counted wrong for having the RIGHT answer, the EXACT answer then there's something really bad going on.  I argued the point with the teacher at the last parent teacher night.  "why would you estimate when figuring out the exact number is just as easy?"  "do you want the next batch of civil engineers to build bridges with the load tolerances estimated? would you drive a car over one?"  deer in headlight looks.

I dunno.

Happy new year everyone!

RC
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on December 29, 2007, 12:49:57 AM
That is a very interesting question.....

In the old days before the pocket japanese brain the measure of a realy good engineeer was the ability to use a slide rule and round figueres as needed to come with good answeres that were close enough to do the job. Your better engineers could round off numbers and do mental gymnastics that resulted in things slightly overbuilt to be on the safe side without being so stupidly over built they were clumsy.

For simple math I would prefer to see people actualy come as close as practical long hand, but its just as important to know how to round off numbers so the errors don't stack thge deck one way or the other.

Calculators have made uses lazy since no one uses tables anymore. Tables force you to understand the logic behind the math. Those Log keys and pie to the impossible to remmeber hqave taken a lot of the real magic of math ( that is the understanding of the problem ) away.

I'm awful in math now, but I still know to trust the accuracy of machines only as good as the people who feed in the numbers ....
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Stan on December 29, 2007, 02:14:05 AM
I have had so many "discussions" with parents who insist their kids only need the steps to punch in the numbers in their calculators to get the right answer instead of the understanding of how the relationships betweeen the numbers work.  The different algebraic formulas for finding sides and angles of right triangles comes to mind.  :P
Stan
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rmchambers on December 29, 2007, 03:30:49 PM
Doug I agree with you that being able to take a WAG at a value and refine it from there is a good skill.  What I'm disappointed by is the kids coming home with a question such as:

John has to hand out awards at the school assembly there are 430 students at the assembly.  The awards come in boxes of 20.  Estimate how many boxes of awards John will need for the assembly.

The way the problem was written and what they've been told about estimation the correct answer worked out to be that 10 students wouldn't get an award (they were on a section about rounding down).

I said,   430 students, 20 awards per box.  21 boxes - 420 awards, not enough, one extra box and have 10 left over.

The teacher said "No, they were estimating to get the least number of boxes" so I said "so you're telling me that you'd rather guess enough boxes and have 10 kids crying because they got nothing than get enough awards and have 10 spare in case of breakage or miscounting of the students?" and she said "yes, that was the exercise" So I had to go into sarcastic mode at that point and said "so which students get stiffed on the awards and who gets to explain why 420 of Johnnie's school mates got awards and Johnny didn't? - I'd like to see you estimate who'd be the least upset about not getting an award"

The "new math" has gotten to the point where they aren't teaching the kids for the purpose of giving them skills they can use, they are teaching them how to pass the standardized testing to comply with the "No Child Left Behind" act that our "I'm all about the education" president pushed on us.

It's not right.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on December 29, 2007, 04:37:13 PM
I understand your point....

Thats a realy stupid question to ask a kid anyway and the answere doesn;t make sence to me for the same reason as you.

Almost enough is like a little bit pregenant lol.

And Stan your absolutely right about trig and algebra. If you can master those two skill 80% of all the real figuering in this world makes sence. Add a little calculas to explain how the worlds variables work togehter some statistics ( two things that don;t get enough push in the modern education system ) and everything can be explained.

English too:
We should produce high school gards who can write in technical English. You need to be able and sit down a a type writer and make a proper report or document thats easy to read. Well written doesnt mean flowery it means simple correct and prescise. There's a skill I lack lol.

Ever kid should be able to cook, sew, run simple shop tools, change a tyre, file a tax return, explain how goverment works, know what the capital of Finland is and find it on a map, create a personal budget, understand the law, be phisicaly fit, read and write in a clear English and perhaps even speak another ( I think Latin would be a good thing  since its a root language ) before they get a high school diploma.

The cost of higher learning also needs to come down especialy for the kinds of jobs we need in the future. If you need large numbers of trades people, then maybe thats something that should be almost free as apposed to say making the study of modern dance more afordable
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: dieseldave on December 29, 2007, 07:35:46 PM

   If you want to find out whats really going on when it comes to the global oil situation,go to    www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/   

   This is a real EYEOPENER!
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on December 29, 2007, 10:24:27 PM

   If you want to find out whats really going on when it comes to the global oil situation,go to    www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/   

   This is a real EYEOPENER!

That sure ought to drive the last nail in the economy's coffin.   So looks like I'm planting rape seed next spring, figure I should beat the rush.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rmchambers on December 30, 2007, 01:38:42 AM

   If you want to find out whats really going on when it comes to the global oil situation,go to    www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/   

   This is a real EYEOPENER!

That sure ought to drive the last nail in the economy's coffin.   So looks like I'm planting rape seed next spring, figure I should beat the rush.

They call it "canola" here in the US.  Rape is bad, negative connotations, not to make light of a horrible thing, but you can't put the sensual back in non-consensual sex.

Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Quinnf on December 30, 2007, 02:22:49 AM
Along those lines, I've been wondering how come they still call the boat you take to get across a stretch of water a ferry.  Seems like somebody's feelings are just waiting to be hurt on that one.      ::)

Quinn
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: dieseldave on December 30, 2007, 03:48:24 AM
 
   Makes one want to fill a container full of Listeroids and ST Generators,and get them over here FAST! For when S**T hits the fan!

   The crop to plant for an energy source is 'INDUSTRIAL HEMP' 100 to 130 gallons of raw oil per acre. Pithy core is 77% cellulose to make alcohol.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on December 30, 2007, 04:14:26 AM
You know the damb thing is just depressing ( I mean the movie and links posted ). I am not particularly offended by ferries and or the political fall out from saying rape seed.

All the Lister engines and oil seed in the world will not save you from humanities ability to find the  "inner stupid"  and look for the for the fastest most convenient way to piss away the great resources of the world.

 
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on December 30, 2007, 06:17:48 AM
Sorry I didn't realize that canola is now canola seed, though it only became canola when it hit the store shelves.

 
   Makes one want to fill a container full of Listeroids and ST Generators,and get them over here FAST! For when S**T hits the fan!

   The crop to plant for an energy source is 'INDUSTRIAL HEMP' 100 to 130 gallons of raw oil per acre. Pithy core is 77% cellulose to make alcohol.
Are you sure?  I though it was about 25% of that.  But still like you said, alcohol, plus fabrics, plastics, feed.   

But there are currently too many troubles growing hemp, that may get fixed soon. 

I guess this is a decent part of my becoming active in politics, to reign(try real hard) in the federal goverment(USA) that seems to be out of control, if not rouge.  If everything falls apart form the top down, then most communities survived just fine before walmart and homedepot.  But if our the federal goverment,(USA) keeps running like it is there is no doubt we will end up bankrupt.  For some reason I can't imagine them making a bad situation any better. 
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: captfred on December 30, 2007, 07:41:02 AM
here's another nail, why don't we read anything about this in America's fair and balanced news.

type in "dollar vs euro oil" in a search engine, follow a few links or check this one out from The Hindu (Indian newspaper)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/op/2003/04/22/stories/2003042200070200.htm

Explains a bit.

Fred
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: dieseldave on December 30, 2007, 06:40:28 PM

  Dollar vs. Euro Oil.   Makes for interesting reading!

  Attention to everbody posting on this thread! STAY ALERT AND WATCH OUT FOR BLACK HELICOPTERS! 
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rpg52 on January 02, 2008, 10:45:28 PM
Re:  Dollar vs. Euro oil, Robt. Newman did a quite funny video on the History of Oil, in which he illustrates the effect of Saddam deciding to do oil exchanges in Euros vs. the dollar.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=genre%3Acomedy

All this stuff is quite complex, and likely impossible to explain in any visual medium.  Pretty interesting anyway.  How the peak oil effects will shake out is impossible to say - the advice in the peak oil webpage is quite good though - to be found on the bottom of the last page.  #1, get out of debt, #2 take care of your health, etc., etc.  Good advice no matter what happens in the next decade.  Hope  your New Year is a good one.   ;D
Ray
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: mike90045 on January 03, 2008, 03:41:15 AM
 
   Makes one want to fill a container full of Listeroids and ST Generators,and get them over here FAST! For when S**T hits the fan!

   The crop to plant for an energy source is 'INDUSTRIAL HEMP' 100 to 130 gallons of raw oil per acre. Pithy core is 77% cellulose to make alcohol.

I'll call your Hemp, and raise to 200 gallons

"Jatropha is well able to yield as much as 1900 litres of diester per hectare (200 US gallons/acre), largely exceeding the capacity of rapeseed"  from Wikipedia.  Only slightly poisonous  ! 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_curcas 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Stan on January 04, 2008, 03:02:12 AM
Papers here in Ontario (no, just visiting) today are full of big wigs speculating about "peak oil".  No longer just the territory of acid soaked paranoid hippies I guess.

Stan
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on January 08, 2008, 02:05:26 AM
I decided to actualy start reading some of the facts behind this movie and followigbn link after link I stumbled across this pole by ABC news.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/views_of_bible_poll_040216.html

Religion doesn't scare me some of the nicest people I ever knew were deaply religious.
The invisable man that lives in the sky started loosing his power over me I guess around the age of 12. By my late teens I was reading Marx so that kind of closed my mind to the any literal belief in Gods.
The idea that a majority of Americans actualy believe this stuff is true scares me ( sock making machines, spiders, circus midgets with slavic names and some types of farm amchinery also frighten me so much for my credibility..... )
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: oliver90owner on January 08, 2008, 07:30:46 AM
Doug,

You can leave out the sockmachines! :)  Nearly all mine are older than the oldest CS.  That one shown by the link on this forum is a new manufacture machine but is really a copy of a machine from nearly one hundred years ago.  In my opinion, not even a very good copy as there are issues with the new machine which were not a problem with the original design (they got it right!).

Most of my machines (and I have about 30) date from the 1880s through to about the 1920s.  I do have one which, I believe, was a variant of an earlier design and made in WWII. 

You can drop weights on your toes, pinch and prick your fingers if not careful (you were responsible just for your own health and safety in those days!), but make nice comfy socks which actually fit your feet in a natural fibre if one so wishes.  They don't usually attack you unless you are touching them - then operator beware!

Cranking a sock machine is generally more easier than (hand) cranking a CS.  They were put onto line shaft operation as well so were more mechanised than one might think.

Regards, RAB

Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rcavictim on January 08, 2008, 12:56:22 PM
An example of what scares me is that we have a Minister in the Canadian Federal Government named Stockwell Day who is on public record as believing that man walked with the dynosaurs just a few thousand years ago.  I refer to this piece of work as `Dynosaur Boy`, to distinguish him from any sensible human being.  There are many agents of  S T U P I D  in all sorts of positions we have collectively assigned power.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: biobill on January 08, 2008, 02:45:48 PM
Doug,
  Those numbers were a real eye opener for me. Had no idea they would be so high. With 61% of the (voting) public subscribing to the biblical version of creation, it will be hard to build a concensus on modern day problems based on FACTS. Speaks volumes on the gullibility of the masses. Perhaps the answers lie in something more mystic. If a religion, that worshiped the god "Petros" and made wasting his bountiful resources a sin, were to catch on, we might have an answer to Peak Oil ;)     Bill
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: cujet on January 10, 2008, 01:25:16 PM
I have watched both the short and long versions of this movie.

I found it very interesting. But I also can find plenty of fault, untruths and outright lies in it. Not surprising, as they even claim that it is not truth!

For instance, they claim there was no debris from the airliner that crashed in PA. Yes there was! AND,,,, similar high speed, near vertical impacts leave quite similar remains. I inspected and F-4 Phantom crash years ago. All I could find was tiny bits of wire and small aluminum fragments. Where did the airplane go? How about Value Jet, straight down into the everglades? No debris found there either! Hmmmm.

You see my point, the movie has many truths in it, but some of what they say is fictional. How to know?

Even the bit on Christianity contains a bunch of disproven, manipulated information or outright lies. Does that make what they are saying totally untrue, no. But it does bring into question the credibility of the authors. The bit about December 25th has been totally disproven. Yet they state it as fact. Also Horus did not have anywhere near as many similarities to Jesus as they claim. Sure the epic of Gilgamesh and the Book of the Dead are similar. Plagerism, it sure looks like it. But the relationship of astrology??? Hmmm. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Chris
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rmchambers on January 10, 2008, 01:45:23 PM
I guarantee if you dug deep enough in the Everglades you'd find a bunch of alodyned aluminum and wires and such large pieces like jet engines and landing gear isn't going to get torn apart as easily as the airframe would.  Same thing with Shanksville PA.   IF there was a plane there, there WOULD be enough material to find. 

That area in PA. was supposedly strip mined a while back so the earth is spongy so something with significant speed would penetrate it.  Matter doesn't just get destroyed by impact.  They "chose" not to dig it all up for whatever reason -

"It's the final resting place for all those poor souls on the flight"
"There's no plane there, so no use digging for it but don't tell anyone"

You don't have to believe every conspiracy theory out there but if you have an open mind, you can't help but think there's an awful lot about the "official" explanation that doesn't make a lot of sense.  "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see" - I thought this was written by Mark Twain but apparently it's by Dinah Mulock Craik.

RC
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on January 10, 2008, 05:12:19 PM
If I walk around showing what I realy think and feel about the world on my face and told them what I think I know is the truth I would probably loose a lot of friends and respect. I might even get in trouble for saying what I think is the truth.....

So suck back those sour faces boys and get out there with you safest happiest Suburban Idiot smiles. It doesn't realy matter what is right is wrong in absolute terms, we know what wrong in our own little corner of the world so maybe its just better to prepare for what is most likely to happen and nod and wink to those who seem to already realize it.

There are many agents of  S T U P I D  in all sorts of positions we have collectively assigned power.
Stupid is as stupid does, he got elected a Minister, any other ministers around here today to argue Dorris Days POV?

If a religion, that worshiped the god "Petros" and made wasting his bountiful resources a sin, were to catch on, we might have an answer to Peak Oil.
Ah that God Petros has alot of worshipers, they all know waste is a sin but its kind of like the Catholics and that hole sex with a condom thing ( cause there are never too many people at the table ) and wasting oil is only a sin if you realy can't come up with a good reason to start the car.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: cujet on January 12, 2008, 08:08:37 PM
I guarantee if you dug deep enough in the Everglades you'd find a bunch of alodyned aluminum and wires and such large pieces like jet engines and landing gear isn't going to get torn apart as easily as the airframe would.  Same thing with Shanksville PA.   IF there was a plane there, there WOULD be enough material to find. 

That area in PA. was supposedly strip mined a while back so the earth is spongy so something with significant speed would penetrate it.  Matter doesn't just get destroyed by impact.  They "chose" not to dig it all up for whatever reason -

"It's the final resting place for all those poor souls on the flight"
"There's no plane there, so no use digging for it but don't tell anyone"

You don't have to believe every conspiracy theory out there but if you have an open mind, you can't help but think there's an awful lot about the "official" explanation that doesn't make a lot of sense.  "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see" - I thought this was written by Mark Twain but apparently it's by Dinah Mulock Craik.

RC

No question about that. The parts, in some form, still exist. They just are not visible. The F-4 crash was typical of these type of scenes. The heavy parts have enough energy to penetrate.

As for the Pentagon, those people saying this was an inside job are idiots. An airliner went into the pentagon. The parts were removed, where they get off saying there were no parts is beyond me.

Chris
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rpg52 on January 12, 2008, 08:48:01 PM


"As for the Pentagon, those people saying this was an inside job are idiots. An airliner went into the pentagon. The parts were removed, where they get off saying there were no parts is beyond me."

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but, when the image of the airliner is superimposed over the impact area on the side of the Pentagon, there aren't any holes where the two 12 ton engines would impact.  Also, where are all the seats, luggage, bodies, etc. in the videos of the still smoking impact site?  Why were the tapes from several security video cameras of adjacent businesses confiscated?  Just too many questions for my taste.  I don't necessarily believe all the conspiracy theories, but there isn't much of any convincing evidence for the "official" story either, IMHO.   ::)
Ray
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rbodell on January 12, 2008, 11:00:30 PM


"As for the Pentagon, those people saying this was an inside job are idiots. An airliner went into the pentagon. The parts were removed, where they get off saying there were no parts is beyond me."

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but, when the image of the airliner is superimposed over the impact area on the side of the Pentagon, there aren't any holes where the two 12 ton engines would impact.  Also, where are all the seats, luggage, bodies, etc. in the videos of the still smoking impact site?  Why were the tapes from several security video cameras of adjacent businesses confiscated?  Just too many questions for my taste.  I don't necessarily believe all the conspiracy theories, but there isn't much of any convincing evidence for the "official" story either, IMHO.   ::)
Ray

The engines were probably in the building.
Tha plane that crashed in the field had nothing left but dust and very small pieces. You have obviously not seen the results of a plane crashing into a solid object. Camera video tapes are normaly confiscated for any plane crash investigation.

If two people of which one is the presiden't couldn't keep a B* quiet, then how could thousands of people keep something like 911 quite when there are thousands of government employees waiting to sell a story of some big scandal of this size.

I have more faith in my government than to beleive such garbage even exists. It all comes out eventually, even a *J.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rpg52 on January 13, 2008, 01:12:21 AM
Yeah, you are right, I haven't ever seen a plane crash into a building or other solid object.  But, according to the video I saw, there was only one hole in the Pentagon, and it doesn't make sense to me that two 12 ton engines could have hit the concrete wall at several hundred mph without making a mark.  Kind of defies the laws of physics IMHO.  I'm still willing to be convinced, but haven't seen any actual evidence that supports the official version. 

Having said that, my faith in my government was pretty shaken a few decades ago when they wanted me to go kill some southeast Asians because they didn't believe in capitalism.   Though I still vote and participate in society in other ways, I don't necessarily believe everything they tell me.  I'll remain a skeptic until I see some physical proof.   :)
Ray
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on January 13, 2008, 01:14:09 AM
I still like the story about the Invisable man who lives in the sky and he's all seeing all powerful and knows all but needs MONEY....
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rmchambers on January 13, 2008, 01:21:00 AM
There are many aspects of the events of that day that I have trouble believing the official storyline.

1. 4 sets of marginally proficient VFR pilots managed to commandeer and pilot large commercial airliners at speeds exceeding their design specs for the altitude they were flying, making fairly steep turns in order to hit their targets, and in the case of the Pentagon, a descending 270 degree turn with extremely high precision given the very little damage done to other things in the trajectory. 

2. Tower 1 and 2 fell at near freefall speeds.  These buildings had a core framework of steel pillars, almost 50 of them each I believe.  It's clear from the video that the planes did not hit the buildings in the center so I find it very hard to believe that the core steel was compromised in such a fashion that the entire core structure failed allowing the buildings to collapse down upon themselves and wind up in their own footprint.  Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough even inside a jet engine where conditions are ripe for heat - to melt steel.  The smoke from the building was black, implying an oxygen starved fire which tends to burn cooler.

3. WTC 7 wasn't hit with any airplane and yet it collapsed entirely into its own footprint around 5pm or so the same day.  The official story was fires inside weakened the structure.  To date no steel-framed building has collapsed like these buildings did due to fire.. before or since.

4. Early reports of the PA plane that crashed in Shanksville were that debris was found a few miles away from the crash site.  Why?   If the plane was shot down (and nobody would fault the air force for doing that given what the other 3 planes had already done) why not just own up to it?  Having a story about the passengers taking over and becoming heroes is nice I suppose but how realistic is it?  And regardless of how many souls lost their lives on the plane, why wasn't the area excavated to find all the pieces?  This was a crime scene after all.

5. I've listened to some of the recordings from Boston center when they called NORAD and told them "we have a plane that is not responding and has changed course/altitude/stopped squawking"  NORAD asked them if this was a drill or real  ATC said this is real.  I find it VERY hard to believe that the US couldn't have scrambled intercept planes from OTIS (near Cape Cod MA) or McGuire (New Jersey) and been able to intercept these aircraft.  I've also heard there were numerous "war games" going on that day which "confused" the military. For pete's sake, this country has the best military in the world, and yet 4 planes (slow in comparison to the interceptors) managed to fly around for over an hour and nobody got near one?

6. There's testimony from Norm Mineta (former DOT guy) who was in the same room as buckshot dick cheney who was being asked "do the orders still stand" and cheney replied that "if you haven't heard anything to the contrary the orders still stand" a few times this conversation happened in front of Mr Mineta.  The story goes that the underling was asking if the orders not to shoot down the approaching airliner (to the pentagon which has surface to air batteries on the roof) were still standing.

I just think there's an awful lot about that hateful day that we don't know and probably will never know.  I find too many holes in the official story and until those get answered satisfactorily then I guess I'm always going to be a bit distrustful of those who tell it.

RC
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on January 13, 2008, 04:11:11 AM
#1:  A superimposed picture of a jetliner shows that the engines should be stuck in the ground before impact.  If the decent angle was great enough to avoid that the light post and generator would not have been hit.   Pentagon releases a few frames of impact with no aircraft visible, yet at the speed the nose or tail should have been visible at least.   

#2 Steel could have been weakened, but clear to ground level allowing a free fall?  Massive explosions in the basement? Lobby looked like a bomb went off? 

#4 One early responder is on film saying no pieces ... nothing.. just a hole"

The 9/11 commission nows says they were definitely obstructed.

And Clinton's B* sure gave the media something to talk about other than Clinton trading missile tech for campaign money.   

Something is real wrong with 9/11, and everything it has lead to.

But heck I still believe in the invisible man in the sky, even with all the money wasted on science that is meaningless other than to disprove Him.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on January 13, 2008, 04:23:15 AM
Re #2 - the steel was only weakened in the section just above the impact point. Once the floors above started dropping, they just squashed everything else in a cascade failure.

Jens
With ZERO resistance? :-\
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Stan on January 13, 2008, 04:25:07 AM
I've followed enough building demolitions to know that everything has to be set off "just right" or even a 10 story building will fall over sideways, causing havoc for all concerned.  We're talking about buildings a hell of a lot taller than 10 stories.  I don't know anything about conspiracy theories but I do know a little about gravity and physics.  Those buildings falling straight down like that seemed surreal to me.
Stan
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on January 13, 2008, 04:43:33 AM
Your not the only one to wonder, but I don't know enough about engineering and strengths of material to come to any reasonable conclusions. I also tend to avoid from explosives and the people using them
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rbodell on January 13, 2008, 05:10:56 AM
Yeah, you are right, I haven't ever seen a plane crash into a building or other solid object.  But, according to the video I saw, there was only one hole in the Pentagon, and it doesn't make sense to me that two 12 ton engines could have hit the concrete wall at several hundred mph without making a mark.  Kind of defies the laws of physics IMHO.  I'm still willing to be convinced, but haven't seen any actual evidence that supports the official version. 

Having said that, my faith in my government was pretty shaken a few decades ago when they wanted me to go kill some southeast Asians because they didn't believe in capitalism.   Though I still vote and participate in society in other ways, I don't necessarily believe everything they tell me.  I'll remain a skeptic until I see some physical proof.   :)
Ray

So instead you believe anything you see on the internet?
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on January 13, 2008, 05:39:23 AM
Re #2 - the steel was only weakened in the section just above the impact point. Once the floors above started dropping, they just squashed everything else in a cascade failure.

Jens
With ZERO resistance? :-\

Why do you say ZERO resistance ?????  If you exceed the load bearing capacity of he structure the structure will collapse even though it is putting up all kinds of resistance (just not enough of it).
Just in case someone feels they need to point out that the structure used to hold up just fine so why did it collapse with the same weight - there is a huge difference between a stationary object and a moving object. The stationary floor of the building wasn't built to handle the impact from the floors above so every floor failed in succession as the floors above came down. Since the structures support was at the core and that core was weakened, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the entire thing comes down straight. Heck, even if the support structure was different, once you get a bunch of floors moving straight down it makes no never mind what you have in terms of support, the thing will keep going straight down as every support element is vastly overstressed.

Things may very well have been different if the impact point would have been higher and a smaller mass would have started to move. If I recall correctly from the documentary that I saw, there were a number of things that had to line up right in order for the collapse to happen - it just so happened that everything came together.

Jens

In order to get free fall speed you can't have resistance.  And I'm not saying floor #1 would have had any measurable effect on the whole tower coming down on it.  But they should have added up to more than zero.

The show you watched ignored the strenght of the walls?  They were a significant structrial element.

It just so happened that it came together twice, at different impact points, in the same amount of time.   

Yeah, you are right, I haven't ever seen a plane crash into a building or other solid object.  But, according to the video I saw, there was only one hole in the Pentagon, and it doesn't make sense to me that two 12 ton engines could have hit the concrete wall at several hundred mph without making a mark.  Kind of defies the laws of physics IMHO.  I'm still willing to be convinced, but haven't seen any actual evidence that supports the official version. 

Having said that, my faith in my government was pretty shaken a few decades ago when they wanted me to go kill some southeast Asians because they didn't believe in capitalism.   Though I still vote and participate in society in other ways, I don't necessarily believe everything they tell me.  I'll remain a skeptic until I see some physical proof.   :)
Ray

So instead you believe anything you see on the internet?

But a broken clock is exactly correct twice a day.  Even a working one can't do that.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: rpg52 on January 14, 2008, 12:09:46 AM
OK Guys, we've likely beat this dead horse long enough.  Those with faith still have faith.  The skeptics are still skeptics (myself included).  It is a wonder to me though that if the "official" 9/11 story is true, why not release the info to prove it?  Until that happens, I'll remain skeptical of the whole scene.  Meanwhile, back to this peak oil thing.  Are there any skeptics out there of that theory?  (I can't wait to hear!)   ;)
Ray
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on January 14, 2008, 12:49:39 AM
Yes I believe in Peak oil because Jack doesn't.

Sadly I do believe in Peak oil because I have seen the peak in some other commodities already
Specificaly what I am refering to is non ferrous Sulphide ores. I believe we have entered into an era where not only energy will be expensive but metals because the worlds remaining reserves are oxidised ores that require a lot more energy to extract wile the remaining sulphieds will be deaper and harder to mine as demand increases.

This is my paranoid double whammy that I have never read any papers on...

I believe the most critical shortgaes will be in rare earth metals, followed by Platinum group, then cobalt, nickel and finaly copper. But I could be totaly wrong and we will find new cost effective ways to extract metals using acid leach or something.

But it all comes back to oil and if the front end cost of producing metals rises too high because of energy we are screwed because we don't recycle a growing suply
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: buickanddeere on January 14, 2008, 01:42:31 AM
   Old landfills are a concentrated source of metal.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: clytle374 on January 14, 2008, 01:50:42 AM
   Old landfills are a concentrated source of metal.
I have always thought they are the mines of the future.
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: Doug on January 14, 2008, 02:17:29 AM
The trouble with that is the amount of crap that goes with it.
Its real hard to get non ferous metals out of garbage and then you need to use the electro winnings process to seperate the metals and creat something pure.

buickanddeere how big a footprint does the KiddCreek met site make on the Hydro One map?
That's why ( that and things like the S furnace are electric ).....
Title: Re: Zeitgeist movie
Post by: buickanddeere on January 14, 2008, 03:53:51 AM
  Never heard tell of KiddCreek until now and doing an internet search. Probably have driven around it while wondering around 1/2 lost looking for moose.
  If they are smelting via electric arc then yes Hydro One will notice when they flick the switches on. KiddCreek may as well use lots of watts. There is not enough transmission capacity to send all the power from Northern & North Western hydroelectric sites south. If there is enough rainfall that is. Another two circuit 500KV line is required, it would assist Bruce Power transmission bottle necks as well.
  Some of those hydro electric sites were given away to friends of those busy "improving" Ontario Hydro in the late 1990's. Not before most sites were refurbished for higher efficiency and greater output.