zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Sep 30 2013 08:04

The problem is, TAE, precisely that you're not keeping an open mind.

You've been presented with detailed, clear scientific evidence which contradicts the Truth Movement claims. Instead of actually looking into that further, you decide to immediately dismiss Fleur as a liar. This is not the reaction of someone with an open mind.

Also, just curious, why would Fleur (a libertarian communist with a zingy critique of capitalism and structures of authority) deliberately lie about this? Why would she spend her time fabricating this stuff? Why would that be in her interests? Also, could you give a specific example of one of these "lies"?

Fleur has used demeaning remarks? What about all your sexist bullshit? (which you haven't even acknowledged or apologised for, by the way).

Finally, you feel sorry for people who base their opinions and ideas on scientific evidence and logic. Amazing.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

safsafsfsafs

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 30 2013 09:00

Seriously, TAE, you're going to open yourself up for another round of debunking?

Quote:
I'm pretty sure people who claimed that the attack of the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag, were ousted from society as loons and nutcases. People who claimed that the US govt. completely made up the story about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction were dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

See, now neither of these statements are true. Note here, that I didn't call you a liar. I'm just correcting your incorrect suppositions - which are, again, incorrect.

I mean, Jesus, even before the war in Iraq, UN weapons inspectors were saying there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Quote:
Even Noam Chomsky is near the fence about 9/11.

Also, just not true.

Quote:
Fleur on the other hand seemed like the type of person who would try to win at any costs

Man, you've got some serious deductive powers.

Quote:
maybe it hurts his/her pride as an American to admit that her own govt. did it.

One, Fleur is not American. Two, you obviously don't understand anarchism if you think anarchists are blinded by their love for their countries.

Look, it's not that I don't get it. You've obviously spent years peddling this and you've just had your argument disemboweled. That's got to be rough. But, after asking people to watch your dumb hours-long movie and to fact check it, you then refuse to read Fleur's post because it's too long. I mean, WTF?

Quote:
Is calling people honey sexist? Just wow.

Finally, wow, just wow.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Sep 30 2013 08:55

I'm not going to bother addressing the other astounding logical deficits at this point. Let's just get stuck into this bag of putrid meat -

Quote:
OMFG. Sexist remarks? I am sexist just because I assumed Fleur was a girl?

Slightly sexist for that one, yes. But I wouldn't hold that one against you, if it weren't for the following bullshit.

Quote:
Is calling people honey sexist? Just wow.

Yes. Talking down to women in this way is sexist. Just curious, would you have called a poster you believed to be male honey?

Quote:
If you're referring to my rape analogy (which was harsh, but not sexist in any way), then I have nothing to say.

Well, that just shows you to be a completely insensitive person who doesn't give a shit what traumas others may have been through and is happy to rub those traumas in people's faces.

Oh and guess what, trivialising rape is sexist.

Quote:
if anything, I was being sexist against guys for using a guy as the aggressor rather than a girl

The world must be a scary and confusing place for you. This is one of my favourite sentences ever.

Also, in case this slipped your mind, you called Fleur manipulative, a liar, compared her understanding of science to that of a child, and (before being called out on your sexism) refused to believe that someone with a vagina could possibly know more about the melting tempuratures of metal than you.

So yeah, that's what's sexist and needs apologising for.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 30 2013 09:02

TAE, for you:

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=flipbook

Tell you what, TAE, you read this, I'll watch Zeitgest. Then we'll compare notes.

Now, who's up for a game of bad argument bingo?

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

asfassa

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 30 2013 09:32

So when was the last time you called a man (or someone you assumed to be a man) "honey"?

Also, the person calling folks "manipulative" "liars" has the nerve to talk about arrogance? Pfff....

Quote:
err.. I don't think our definition of the word "sexist" is the same at all... Calling someone honey is NOT sexist.

Not your call to make buddy.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

safafafs

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

safasfasf

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Sep 30 2013 10:31

Shit. You got me. I'm mentally ill. That's the only reason I find sexism offensive. I guess neither you nor chilli can decide what's offensive, but how can we trust women to either? They're all fucking mental! They get all annoyed when you casually throw around rape analogies and talk to them like they're fucking children and show a disturbing level of venom towards them. And then they expect you to fucking apologise! Don't they know that men get raped?!

Anyway, boy, I felt a little sorry for you when I thought you were just a sad harmless fucker who's been sucked in by some fairy tales, but now I find you're a sad nasty fucker who's been sucked in by some fairy tales. Less sympathy.

(sorry for flaming)

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Sep 30 2013 12:30

Why hasn't this sexist moron been banned yet?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 30 2013 16:22

I see you took the weekend off too. Only, I didn't entirely slack off here. I have seen the Zeitgeist movie, although not at all recently, so I decided to watch it again. As you said yourself, you haven't bothered checking any of the points you made (your entire basis of your argument is from the very hinky Truther resources) I have at least done you the courtesy of examining your primary source.

Firstly, you have been called out as a sexist, having exhibited sexist behaviour. Of course you refute this. It is classic Truther behaviour, if someone says something you don't like you just deny it. In your mind, as you say you were not being sexist in any stretch of the imagination. However, in your mind you adhere to a conspiracy, which at it's core stretches back hundreds of years and is firmly rooted in anti-semitism. Have you investigates the origins of this theory at all? Also, in your denial you called Commie Princess mentally ill.

Quote:
Have you actually lost your mind? Are you schizophrenic?

If you really think I was being sexist in any way, then go see a doctor. Period.

So we can throw ableism in there as well. This, is neither surprising or new. Peter Joseph often accuses people of being mentally ill when they disagree with his theories or contradict them with any inconvenient facts. Also, Steven Jones is in the habit of instructing Truthers in exactly what they are supposed to say. Not exactly a sound foundation for having an "open mind." Incidentally, when it comes to Jones, how do you reconcile the Truther theory that religion is a fallacy designed for social control and your blind faith in a man who's body of work includes vast amount of time seeking, and in his opinion proving, the veracity of his own Mormon religion?

So, I said I'd give my opinion on the film and here it is, having rewatched it yesterday.

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen it, the Zeitgest Movie (henceforth referred to as ZM here) is 2 hours long and split into 3 parts, the first debunking Christianity, the second part how 9/11 was an inside job and finally an overview of how the world is managed, essentially by an international conspiracy of bankers, to keep us in a perpetual state of war, in order to keep them in profits. It doesn't specifically say Jewish bankers but it's heavily implied. You would have to be woefully ignorant of history not to pick up on that one. It's a conspiracy theory which extends back for hundreds of years and the movie is not exactly dog whistling because it's audible to anyone with a glancing knowledge of history.
ZM has a narration and a series of voice-overs, some of which are not very clear who they are.You have to be paying serious attention to work out who is talking a times and there's also a lot of audio statements stating things as fact with no attribution or context at all.
It also helps to be familiar with all the usual suspects, Jordan Maxwell, Lyndon Larouche, Alex Jones and the Illuminati, the latter two not being at all overt but they're in there. It also uses the conveniently dead Bill Hicks and George Carlin. Personally, I would love to know what they would have thought of Zeitgeist. I don't suppose it would be pretty.
It has the overall production values of a political ad or TV commercial, channelled through the X-Files, filled in with lots of stock footage; natural history shots, historical figures, old movies (I can't believe they haven't been sued for this,) and emotionally charged news footage from 9/11. Skip the first 13 minutes, it goes absolutely no-where.
At the same time it is incredibly manipulative and I can see how it could be persuasive to someone with little or no knowledge on the subjects touched upon. It's endlessly repetitive, it could have said all it has to say in a quarter of the time but choses to drill the same points into you with little or no qualification. It's also something which only looks at the world from an American point of view. It falls utterly flat at times when look at it from outside the US borders and US interpretation of history.

Part 1.
This is 40 minutes debunking Christianity. There's really nothing in this which is new. I can see that for someone whose only real knowledge of religion is Christianity, of the literal interpretation of the Bible, which has such a loud voice in the US, that it might be surprising or interesting, but to anyone who has ever read about the religious mythology of other cultures there's nothing revealing here. ZM basically says that Christianity has borrowed heavily from Ancient Egyptian religion. It says it over and over again. Also that ancient cultures were seriously into sun worship and astronomy, which is not exactly a revelation, given that there'a archaeological evidence for this from Stonehenge, to South America, to Egypt and beyond.The ancient Chinese were building astrological observatories in 2300 BCE.
It explores various aspects of Christianity which have occurred in other religions and talks about astrological constellations. A lot. It says "the age of Aquarius" so often I've had that awful song of the same name stuck in my head ever since. Repeat, repeat, repeat, just in case you didn't get it the first four or five times, that's the M.O. of the ZM.
It's no surprise that religions migrate and morph. Ancient people were far more migratory than we often give them credit for. Try and figure out the conundrum of the pineapple in Pompeii. The gods weren't any different from the people who believed in them, they moved and were adapted to whatever culture they ended up in.
ZM puts much emphasis on how Jesus was a retelling of the story of Horus, the virgin birth, resurrection etc. Virgin birth is common in many mythologies, however in many ancient languages the word for virgin was the same for girl, they were synonymous (unless you were Phoenician, in which case it was a whole different story. Resurrection is a common feature, not unsurprisingly given that gods are supposed to be immortal.
There's other, already common knowledge stuff, like Old Testament stories being lifted from Babylonian (ie pre-Judaic) traditions, like the Flood (Epic of GIlgamesh) and Moses ( Sargon of Akkad. Mesopotamian)
It's 40 minutes of saying stuff which has been said many times before, although surprisingly made no mention of ancient Persian religion, which probably had a far greater influence, structurally, on the Abrahamaic religions. None of this is new ideas, all of it is repeated constantly. Some of these things were drawn on heavily by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (not the Greek fash) whose members included WB Yeats and the greatest charlatan of them all, Alester Crowley.
FINALLY, 38 minutes in it says that religion is used for social control. It took that long to make that point. However, this laid the foundations for the "it's all a conspiracy to control us" theory.

*saving here, I don't want my internet connection to die and lose this*

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 30 2013 16:28

Tyrion:

Quote:
Why hasn't this sexist moron been banned yet?

Hold on, I haven't finished with him yet.

Zeitgeist movie part 2.
This opens with the planes slamming into the Twin Towers, 10 times in all, with obviously ovelaid fake sound effects. There is obviously no subtlety here. Words are repeated over and over again, over news footage of the attacks on the WTC. Demolition, demolition, demolition. I stopped counting how many times this was said. There's an unattributed voice saying that they were obviously destroyed by world class dynamite (which actually contradicts the Truther thermite idea.) Who says this? Someone else saying there were actual devices planted in the building. Again, who? There are lots of on the spot footage on 9/11 of people saying it looked like a demolition, which is what you would expect people to say. People always talk in metaphors when asked to describe something they've never seen before. "It looked like...fill in with something you are familiar with for comparison purposes..." Constant repetition of the words "demolition" and "explosions" just to reinforce the idea. And Truthers suggest that it is the other people who are brainwashed.
There's nothing much which hasn't been said in this thread already which is in the ZM about the collapse of the Twin Towers. Go read previous posts. There's Pentagon CCTV footage from the lobby and parking lots, which would never have picked up the sight of the plane anyway. The Pentagon hijacker was a bad pilot. Just how good a pilot do you need to be to slam a plane into an enormous target? ZM shows footage of the Pennsylvania crash and compares it to an unspecified Nigerian crash, obviously crashed on take-off with most of it's fuselage intact. As opposed to this crash site

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010705/world.htm

Or this one

http://www.pulsamerica.co.uk/2011/05/23/argentina-this-week-26/

Molten metal. Molten metal. Molten metal.
I get the explosions in the basement obsessions now though. There's people in the ZM who were in the basements saying that immediately before they heard they heard the planes hit they felt something they interpreted as explosions. That's simple harmonics, as well as transmitting the sound of the crash faster than through the air, the steel structure would have transmitted the vibrations to the basement. It would have shook the shit out of it. It didn't make it an explosion however.
The whole 9/11 footage, as well as being misleading, is as exploitative as hell, showing vulnerable, frightened people being questioned and their on the spot responses given in all this chaos and confusion as spurious "evidence" to back up these claims. The "experts" are the usual suspects; Steven Jones, another Scholar for 9/11 and Jones' partner in nano-thermite hoarding, Niels Harritt.
There's stuff about the 9/11 commission being a a cover-up. No shit, people weren't being very fulsome with the truth relating the the biggest security balls-up ever.Of course people and institutions were covering their asses, it doesn't automatically lead to the extrapolation that they did it themselves. Evidence of incompetence, yes. Evidence that governments and their agencies are not truthful with us. It's a huge leap to say that it's evidence that they did it themselves.
Then some of the opinion gets really interesting. It takes a whole 105 minutes before someone (Jones) finally says "false flag" and "wake-up." Finally, got there. This id followed by several minutes (lack of subtlety again) of repeating the word "terrorism" over and over again. Yes, 9/11 was used as an excuse for war. It's a large leap to say it was done deliberately to set one up. But this is "explained" later in part 3.
The next "expert" opinion is offered from "historian" Webster Tarpley, positively stating that 9/11 was a false flag operation, pre-planned to get the US into was with Afghanistan and Iraq. Tarpley has been weaving tall tales about false-flag, black-ops being orchestrated by Masonic Temples since 1980. He's also a former high ranking member of Lyndon Larouche's US Labor Party and former Senatorial candidate for this conspiracy theory party.
Next, we have former (Memphis, LA & Dallas) FBI bureaus chief Ted Gunderson, stating that the CIA were behind the Embassy bombings, Lockerbie, the attack on the USS Cole and 9/11. Gunderson's other investigations absolutely prove that there is a covert CIA group called The Finders, who are behind a massive operation kidnapping children for satanic ritual and sexual abuse, ritual murder, high-tech, secret weapons research on these children, mind-control research as well as child slave-labour for ALIEN CONTROLLED FACILITIES. This is Illuminati stuff here. Basically, Gunderson believed that the CIA was controlled by aliens. To be honest, the X-Files did this so much better. It does kind of make you question the quality and, well sanity, of his work. And this is a man who is offered by the Zeitgeist Movement as being an expert witness on the subject.
Goes on to say that Madrid and London were inside jobs as well and then uses Davis Shayler, at the period in his life when he was most media-hungry, given his enormous, mounting legal bills. The man had books to sell.

*saving again. btw, I'm not particularly checking for typos, I hope there's not too many.*

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 30 2013 16:31

Part 3.
The real heart of the matter. Our puppet-masters and how they pull the strings.
One hour and thirty minute in and I was rapidly losing the will to live and would have probably welcomed a spot of alien abduction at this point. However I pressed on wearily.
The are tons of quotes, mostly taken out of context, by famous people alluding to shady powers manipulating things -THE BANKERS! The Thomas Jefferson quote hasn't been sourced at all, it's taken from a private letter, attributing it to Jefferson, but no primary source. He may have said it but we'll never know. There's a whole lot about the American Revolution (sorry, I completely zoned out at that point,) but it all adds up in the end to one thing; an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers. They don't explicitly say Jewish but it's massively alluded to. The banks they use as references were all Jewish-run or Jewish-founded. They use quotes from famous anti-semites, who were known to use the Jewish banker conspiracy to advance their anti-semitism, such as Charles Lindbergh and former mayor of NYC John Hylan. The ZM firmly plaes the blame for the 1908 banking crisis firmly at the feet of the four Jewish owned banks, Warburghs, Rockerfeller, Rothschilds and especially JP Morgan -coincidentally of course that JP Morgan was heavily implicated in the 2008 banking meltdown. Although, to be fair the biggest player in the 1908 crisis was the Knickerbocker Trading Company, but they're not around any more to picket on Wall Street.
The international conspiracy of Jewish bankers is centuries old. It was behind the 1190 massacre in York where the entire local Jewish population were herded into a tower and burnt to death because they refused to "loan" - it wasn't actually loans, it was extortion - any more money to finance the war effort. It was the ideology which underpinned the part of the Spanish Inquisition which slaughtered the Jewish population of Spain, it underpinned the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and it was the excuse which sent 6 million European Jews to their deaths in the gas chambers. It is a very old idea and it is the foundation of the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory. And, Taesaen, you have the temerity to call me a racist? Have you ever read any history except that outside the narrow parameters of the Zeitgeist movement? You have to be especially ignorant of the past to miss this one.
According to the ZM, the point of this banking conspiracy is that the bankers are manipulating the world to keep them rolling in cash from the business of war and to illustrate this it uses 3 particular instances to "prove" it.

1.
The bankers wanted the US to enter World War One and to do this they orchestrated the sinking of the Lusitania, in which many Americans were killed. The movie stated that the US then entered the War "a short time after." That is a blatant lie. The US entered the war a few weeks short of TWO YEARS AFTER. And this is an obvious case of only looking at history from an American standpoint. The US exited the war relatively economically unscathed. Europe on the other hand was devastated economically. Russia had a revolution, Germany had an (unsuccessful) revolution, the whole continent was economically wrecked and unstable. What advantage would this have for this international Jewish banking cabal? The European economy was in a far different condition to the US one.

2.
Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbour by cutting US trade in oil to Japan, by providing loans to China and military aid to Britain. I will concede that there is some evidence that British military intelligence did withhold information that might have suggested that there was an attack on US soil in the works - they were desperate for the US to get into the war, Britain and the Allies could not fight a war on both the European and Eastern fronts without the US - but the concept of US neutrality was bullshit from day one. It was inevitable that the US would enter the war eventually. It had been providing logistic, material and intelligence to the British from the get go, often through Canada. There's lots of sinister stuff about US businesses funding both sides in the war. Guess who? Yup, the Rockerfellers. Isn't this the normal function of capitalist enterprises to seek out profits wherever they can find them? And why would the banks behind these businesses want the US to enter this war, when it would automatically mean the closing down of these markets? They'd make more money from neutrality and continuing to do business from both sides. It also makes no sense in the argument that that the banks want to prolong wars; entry of the US would lead to a shortening of the conflict.

3.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. This was when an incident in 1964 involving a US warship was mistaken for an attack by the North Vietnamese, which prompted an escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. This is what is considered the beginnings of the Vietnam War, although in reality the US had been there since the early 1950s. They had been edging the French out of their colony, then called Indo-China. If you don't want to read a history book, try Graham Greene's The Quiet American, which is about creeping US control of Vietnam. It was written in 1951 (not published until 54.) The US had been escalating it's military presence in Vietnam foe years, sooner or later the Vietnamese would fight back, even if you completely ignore the fact that Ho Chi Min was a former CIA operative (sound familiar) who had felt that the US had reneged on it's wartime promises and by the 1960s there was a huge number of Vietnamese willing to fight. Whatever started the (official) war, it was inevitable. Learn a little about history and imperialism. It'll help you a lot.
ZM says that the war was provoked by the US easing trade restrictions to the USSR, who they KNEW were providing most of North Vietnam's military equipment. This another blatant untruth, USSR provided very little military equipment to N Vietnam. That was the Chinese. There was massive hostility between Russia and China at the time and there was no detente/trade between US and China until after the war, under Nixon. The USSR was in no position to fight a war with either the US or China, which would have been a likely consequence of moving into that area. ALso, ZM says that the Rockerfellers were financing these military factories in the USSR. Wrong again. USSR military factories were state-run and had no US funding, Rockerfeller or otherwise. In fact there was no American financing of Russia until the 1980s. But let's not let a few facts get in the way of a god conspiracy.
ZM also claims that the US rules of engagement were specifically designed to give N Vietnam a tactical advantage and thus prolong the war. This would be the same rules of engagement that the US never kept.

It took a whole hour and 40 minutes for ZM to invoke Godwin's Law and tell us to Wake Up! Brevity is not a concept valued by the ZM.

It starts wrapping up with a stellar analysis by Lyndon Larouche, recapping these points. Let's remember that Larouche is a convicted mail-fraudster, that he attempted to embezzle elderly people out of their savings, that he thinks that HIV was invented in a lab as a sort of biological warfare and that people with HIV should be interred in camps. That rock music was invented by British Intelligence (he uses the word British as code for Jewish) as a form of psychological warfare and that all classical music should be rewritten so that it performed in a particular pitch which he thinks is correct. And this is the man that the ZM feels is a reputable political and historical analyst to promote their opinions.
And the best for (nearly) last. Yup, it's the Rockerfellers again. A man called Aaron Russo is quoted spilling the beans on his former friend, Nicholas Rockerfeller, who had allegedly told him, prior to 9/11 how the whole thing was going to happen. False flag attack on US, including the WTC, Afghanistan, Iraq, the whole shebang. Russo, was probably best known for being a washed-up movie producer, his many bizarre interviews with Alex Jones and for founding these people

http://www.restoretherepublic.org/

He was also a former prospective Libertarian presidential candidate. Nicholas Rockerfeller, on the other hand is best known for not existing. There was a Nicholas Rockerfeller, a lawyer in California, who may have told people he was part of the dynasty, but he's not one of those Rockerfellers. Aaron Russo on the other hand was a has-been C-list celebrity with scant regard for the truth.
There's a bunch of stuff about the media and education, but honestly I can't be bothered with it. Zeitgeisted out.

The excruciatingly long ZM and ends with the words "If only people realized the truth" and apropos of nothing, photos of American liberal's darlings, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr and John Lennon.
The Revolution is Now. Apparently.

There you go, I sat through two hours of the most excruciating, half-truths, total lies, manipulations, endless stupefying repetition, junk science, crass simplification, masses of complete omissions about any other function of capitalism and government other than the IT'S THE BANKERS WHAT DONE IT. And I did it all sober. I quite honestly have no idea how anyone can be so ignorant and gullible to be taken in by this at all.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 30 2013 16:20

TAEHAEN:

At this point I can't be bothered to go back and go through all your new posts, I'll look at them later but I could do with a Zeitgeist break right now. I'm sure they're much of the same, feeling personally persecuted by someone disagreeing with you, paranoid ramblings about anything not part of your dogma being lies and manipulations and quite possibly part of the very conspiracy you're so convinced of. You feel sorry for people who base their opinions on scientific theory and logic, do you? As opposed to what? Fantasy? Quasi-mystical clap-trap?
At this point I can only agree with Commie Princess, you're closed-minded, unwilling to look at anything which contradicts your Truth, as you see it. You're delusional and offensive. There's no arguing with you, is there? You think any argument contrary to your faith is false and manipulation and as a consequence of the argument, in your opinion is in itself very evidence of your theory. You go round in ever tighter circles, feeling more and more persecuted. This is why we end up with people like Charles Manson, Timothy McVey, the Unabomber, all conspiracy theorists, with zero grip on reality. Why you chose to bring this here, to a libertarian communist site is a mystery to me, when there are plenty of message boards where you can all swap your tall tales and feed into each other's paranoia.

I will give you my opinion as to why OBL and Al Qaeda were behind 9/11 if you're interested. But you're not interested, are you?

To everyone else:

I'm not going to advise you to watch the ZM or not, if you haven't already seen it. But it is bloody awful. If you've got two hours to spare. It's a very long two hours though.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

safasfaas

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 30 2013 19:04

I'm not sure this will help, but there's a difference between doing something sexist (something that just about all men - even those with the best of intentions - and most women will do from time to time) and being "a sexist".

When you spoke down to presumed women (disregarding their opinions and calling Fleur "honey") and spoke much more respectfully to me (calling me "man"), that's a sexist act. It's a double standard and a manifestation of patriarchy.

When called out on, you lashed out incredibly defensively and started questioning the womens' mental state. This is, again, classic patriarchal behaviour. Don't make me tell you about that etymology of "hysterical" (google it).

And, mate, if a women calls you sexist for, in their eyes, trivializing rape - don't say "men get raped, too.'' Sure, that's true, but the vast majority of rapes occur towards women. And that's because rape is a crime of power and, in a patriarchal society, men have more power than women.

So, as you put it, "in your mind" you weren't being sexist. Fine, that's probably true. But if you're called out on sexist behaviour, have a f*cking think about it. It's when you fall back into ALL the standard defensive responses that you go from doing something sexist to being "a sexist".

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 30 2013 19:06
TAE wrote:
I...backed out of this 9/11 crap

Sellout!!!!! The bankers have sucked you into the official story.

You used to be cool, man.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Sep 30 2013 19:24
TAEHSAEN wrote:
I HAVE STATED THAT FLEUR IS MORE CLEVER THAN I AM NUMEROUS TIMES

Maybe she's part of the Jewish banker intelligentsia pulling the strings behind everything?

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

safsafsafsag

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 30 2013 20:14

Dude, I was dismissive and made fun of you from the get-go! (See post #79)

If anything, Fleur was a lot more respectful in actually taking the time to explain shit to you.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Sep 30 2013 20:40

HELLO FLEUR

PLEASE BELIEVE ME THAT DESPITE THE CAPITALS I’M NOT SHOUTING AT YOU. I STARTED IN CAPS WITHOUT NOTICING AND THEN JUST CARRIED ON AND IT SORT OF GOT AWAY FROM ME AND THEN I COULDN’T BE BOTHERED TO START OVER. THIS 911 STUFF CAN GET INFURIATING ENOUGH TO REALLY SUCK YOU IN AND I FIND MYSELF WITH A FEW POINTS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY/DISCUSS IF YOU’RE INCLINED TO, NO WORRIES IF YOU’RE TOO BUSY OR HAVE HAD ‘ENOUGH ALREADY!’

Quote:
In W/mK, light concrete has a coefficient of 0.1 - 0.3 (almost nothing) , carbon steel is 43. It is very different, hence why I am asserting it is like a furnace. So the concrete is a very good insulator, keeping the heat within the floors and ceiling, made of concrete. It's like a furnace. The heat is not escaping. The math "proving" the case for the conspiracy theory totally ignores this. But, apparently it is really funny to read.

NO IT DOESN’T. IT EXPLICITLY ASSUMES FROM THE BEGINNING THAT NO HEAT ESCAPES:

‘The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.’

YOU PREVIOUSLY SAID:

Quote:
“No-one can tell us what it was like in the floors above or adjacent to the planes because they're all dead.”

YET LATER IN THIS SAME ARTICLE THAT CONTAINS THE NINTH GRADE MATHS, THREE RELATIVELY UNHARMED SOUTH TOWER SURVIVORS SHOW UP:

‘Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."’

HOW LONG DOES A JET FLAME TAKE TO GET GOING? I’M OBVIOUSLY MISSING SOMETHING HERE BUT UNLESS THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE INEXPLICABLE THINGS THAT HAPPENS OFF THE CAUSAL CHAIN OR JUST ANOTHER CASE OF TROOFER ECONOMICAL ACTUALITE COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW SURVIVORS GOT THROUGH THE FURIOUSLY HOT CONCRETE CRASH FLOOR FURNACES TO THE GROUND AFTER SPENDING 15 MINUTES COLLECTING THEIR THOUGHTS?

Quote:
To put it in context, the 10,000 litres of jet fuel the planes were estimated to be carrying at the time of impact ( the 767 can carry as much as 91,400 litres) and taking the latent heat of fusion of steel as 2.72 E05 JKg and specific heat capacity of 0.466 J/gK there was sufficient energy produced to melt 354000 Kg of steel (approx 70% of all the steel in one of the floors turned to a puddle.)

IN YOUR EMPHASIS ON THE LARGE QUANTITY OF FUEL HERE YOU SEEM TO BE CONFUSING HEAT, WHICH IS AS YOU KNOW AN EXTENSIVE PROPERTY THAT DEPENDS ON PARTICLE NUMBERS, WITH TEMPERATURE, AN INTENSIVE PROPERTY THAT DOESN’T VARY WITH THE QUANTITY OF MATERIAL. THIS IS FURTHER SUGGESTED BY YOUR USE OF THE LATENT HEAT OF FUSION, THE USE/MENTION OF WHICH ALSO MAKES IT APPEAR THAT YOU ARE ASSUMING WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ASSERT. IF YOU WERE TO FILL IN THE STEPS OF YOUR QUANTITATIVE REASONING LEADING TO YOUR ASSERTION IT WOULD REMOVE ANY DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR PROOF.

Quote:
I'm not saying that it melted this much, not even nearly, it has the potential to melt this much. But even a minute fraction of this would be enough to bring down the building.

AND HERE TOO.

WHAT SORT OF FLAME ARE YOU CLAIMING AS THE CHIEF CULPRIT? DID THE FLOORS OF THE WTC CONSTITUTE A CONSTANT VOLUME CHAMBER WITH THE FUEL AND OXIDANT MIXED IN PERFECT STOICHIOMETRIC PROPORTIONS PRODUCING A JET BURNER FLAME WITH THE KIND OF HEAT OF FUSION YOU ASSERT? OR DID THE ADIABATIC CONDITIONS OF YOUR OXYACETYLENE TORCH PREDOMINATE? BUT THEN WHAT ABOUT THE BLACK SMOKE WE SAW THAT SUGGESTS A FUEL-RICH DIFFUSE FLAME OF LOW HEAT INTENSITY? THERE WAS CERTAINLY A LOT OF FUEL AROUND TO BE HEATED, WHICH WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE FOR HYDROCARBON BURNING IN AIR (WHICH IS AROUND 1300K I.E. NOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL) BY ABOUT A FACTOR OF 2. FROM WHAT I’VE BEEN ABLE TO GATHER EVEN WITH REDUCED RADIATIVE HEAT LOSS DUE TO SOOT AND FLAME VOLUME THE WTC STEEL WOULD NOT HAVE EXPERIENCED HIGHER TEMPERATURES THAN AROUND 1100K, NIST ASSERTS THAT THE IMPACT RIPPED THE INSULATION OFF THE STEEL. THEN AGAIN THEY ALSO SAY THAT 1273K COMPARED WITH 573K CORRESPONDS TO 7 TIMES THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER TO THE UNPROTECTED STEEL. I DON’T REMEMBER EVER SEEING THE DISTINCTIVE AND VERY PENETRATING BRIGHT WHITE ALUMINIUM FLAME IN ANY OF THE FOOTAGE I’VE COME ACROSS EITHER. I’VE HEARD IT SAID QUITE OFTEN THAT THE TOWERS WERE GIANT SAILS DESIGNED FOR WINDS OF UP TO 30 TIMES THE WEIGHT OF A 767 AND THAT DESIGN REDUNDANCIES IN THE PERIMETER COLUMNS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE REMAINING 1/3 OF THE COLUMNS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THREE TIMES THE STRESSES RESULTING FROM A 900K FIRE ON THAT VERY STILL DAY.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT KEVIN RYAN, THE FORMER MANAGER OF UNDERWRITERS LABS, A COMPANY COMMISSIONED BY NIST TO CONDUCT FURNACE EXPERIMENTS TO TEST THE FLOOR MODELS IN AUGUST 2004? IN HIS VERSION OF EVENTS, THOSE TESTS DISPROVED THE INITIAL ‘PANCAKE’ THEORY OF THE COLLAPSE BECAUSE THE FLOOR MODELS DIDN’T ACTUALLY COLLAPSE IN THEIR FURNACES, EVEN WHEN TESTED OVER MUCH LONGER PERIODS THAN THE ACTUAL COLLAPSES. HE ALSO SAYS THAT GOVERNMENT UPDATES ON THE REPORT STATED THAT TESTS ON ORIGINAL SAMPLES PROVED THAT THE TEMPERATURES WERE NOT HOT ENOUGH TO EVEN SOFTEN STEEL, THEREBY CONTRADICTING THE NIST SUMMARY STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE FLOORS DID COLLAPSE AND THAT THE STEEL DID SOFTEN. THE ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THIS HE SAYS WAS THE REASON FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ‘PANCAKE’ THEORY WITH THE ‘INWARD BOWING’ THEORY, WHICH WAS PRODUCED ENTIRELY BY FINITE ELEMENT METHODS ON THE COMPUTER USING TWICE THE FUEL AND TWICE THE TIME ELAPSED BEFORE COLLAPSE. RYAN WAS FIRED A WEEK AFTER HE PUBLICLY CHALLENGED THE NIST REPORT.

Quote:
My friendly expert has refused to do the math to calculate just how hot it got in there because the official report has already done this very well and he's not doing it himself. It'll take about a month to do and quite reasonably doesn't feel this would be a valuable use of his time.

NO OFFENSE - AND I’M GLAD YOU GAVE THAT TAE CHARACTER A GOOD BEATING (WTF WAS THAT MESSED-UP ROPE/RAPE EPISODE?) - BUT I’VE NEVER FELT HAPPY RELYING ON ‘EXPERTS’ IF IT’S AT ALL POSSIBLE TO FIND STUFF OUT FOR MYSELF. I DON’T KNOW IF THIS A PARTICULARLY ANARCHIST ATTITUDE OR JUST ME.

WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECULATIVE EXISTENCE OF NANOSCALE PYROTECHNICS WITH EXCEPTIONAL PROPERTIES A QUICK SEARCH PRODUCED THIS 2004 PAPER FROM LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY:
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf

OR THIS ONE CALLED ‘ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES WITH SOL-GEL CHEMISTRY: SYNTHESIS, SAFETY AND CHARACTERISATION, AN ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY GASH, SIMPSON AND SATCHER TO THE 29TH INTERNATIONAL PYROTECHNICS SEMINAR IN 2002.’:
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf

WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS http://physics911.net/experiments-with-nanothermite/ IS IF IT ISN'T JUST A PIXIE FROM TROOFYLAND?

NONE OF THE ABOVE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SUGGESTING THAT THE US GOVERNMENT NEEDED ANY EXCUSE IN 2001 TO CONTINUE IN THEIR STARRING ROLE IN CAPITALISM. I THOUGHT I WAS MORE MATURE THAN THIS AND I FEEL A BIT EMBARRASSED BUT I’M REALLY INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, IF YOU HAVE TIME.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Sep 30 2013 20:47

Jesus fuck, this is sad of me.

Tae

Post #78 – your first post
Post #79 – Chilli taking the piss
Post #82 – Fleur smacks up your bullshit
Post #84 – bizarre analogy with weird description of an unconscious woman who's been raped
Post #86 – Chilli sauce being a bit shirty towards you
Post #87 – Fleur smash!
Post #94 – The motherload: you say Fleur is being illogical, then she uses “low tactics”, manipulation, lies. Repeatedly
Then you say she either has a messiah complex, is ignorant, or is lying.
Then this “Well honey, do YOU understand simple real life physics that even children can understand?”
Then this: “I’m surprised at your low level of maturity”
Oh, then this: “You seem like the kind of person who believes that all muslims are violent.”
And this: “I really don’t have any respect for you as a person”
Post #97 – Chilli calls you a jackass. Then makes some excellent points.
Post #98 – You tell chilli that he “misunderstands you, man” and proceed to go an entire post without insulting him.
Post #99 – I tell you you're sexist (which you ignore)
Post #the rest – Fleur continues to smack shit up like a badass.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Sep 30 2013 21:07
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Dude, I was dismissive and made fun of you from the get-go! (See post #79)

If anything, Fleur was a lot more respectful in actually taking the time to explain shit to you.

This forum in general is dismissive and rude to a lot of people. Anyway, libcom snobbery aside, my take on this topic? I think it completely possible the US state let these attacks happen and or had an actual hand in the attacks themselves.The Middle East in general is on capitals agenda as of late. After the fall of "communism" what are all the intelligence agencies to do? Who's going to stop capital from fully placing it's meat hooks into various regions of the middle east? How will they get the population to support this agenda? They say themselves that a "peal harbor like attack" would be necessary, this was in PNAC publication if I'm not mistaken. I also remember reading "The Grand Chessboard" years ago where were Brzezinski was being pretty honest about their agenda in the Middle East and Africa. Market expansion and US hegemony.

The thing with conspiracy theories is it leaves people with too much speculation and no real hardcore tangible evidence. People end up latching onto unprovable and sometimes silly theories. The "evidence" in the case of 9/11 is shaky, at best extremely circumstantial but this is why only theories are possible. There's no real hardcore evidence. I've actually read a book from David Griffin and watched a few documentaries so I'm familiar with the arguments. The "stand down order" Cheney gave which Norman Manneta overheard, the out of the ordinary training programs the air force had that morning, the cell phone calls from planes, the attackers passport being found in the rubble of the building, the lack of video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon, the failure of the Pentagons anti aircraft missiles, the oddity that was building 7 and on and on. There are some strange things about that day. It's not like the "conspiracy theorists" are seeing things that aren't there. Especially the way the buildings fell. All 3 did indeed look like controlled demolitions.

I think focusing on it and trying to "prove" the state would let something like this happen and or actually plan it is a waste of time. In the same way I think JFK was probably killed by the CIA- what difference does it make? I'm already aware the state is shifty, immoral and murderous. Especially the military and intelligence agencies. They're out of control but this is what's necessary in order for capitalism to function. Deception, coercion, duplicity, murder, war etc. There's all sorts of things going on "behind stage" that most people aren't aware of. Even various government agencies don't know what other government agencies are doing at times. This is capitalism and I'm of the opinion capital and the state could care less if a few thousand Americans are killed and some buildings are destroyed, especially if it's a spring board to maintaining capitalism as a system and further establishing western hegemony.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 01:58

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

I think those videos are far more in depth than that Zeitgeist film and are aimed at "debunkers". The likelihood of anyone sincerely watching 5 hours of video and doing a piece by piece critique of the information is quite nil though.That's a lot of time to devote to 9/11 so it would take some serious interest. I've watched various random parts of the three videos, maybe a hour or so. They bring up some compelling points. My mind isn't made up either way though.It could've been terrorists, it could've been the state. Who knows? Not me.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 02:00

Every time a post of mine is voted down, which at this point is every post, it simply makes me want to be even more disliked on this site. What's the purpose of the down button anyhow? I wonder how many people you've managed to scare off with that silly contraption. I even jumped on the bandwagon and began downing my own posts. That'll show me!

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:34

safsafg

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 1 2013 03:00

so as every part of your theory is proved false you retreat into smaller and smaller gaps that haven't yet been disproved. Ultimately this means you theory is unfalsifiable and is equivalent to believing in some random deity or claiming fictional character is real. There is always a little space where this can be fit into the world by some one who wants to believe enough, it doesn't make if probable or useful.

Just get over the fact that you're government is not the all powerfully that it claimed to be, and if it actually had done the attacks on September 11 2001 that wouldn't make the top 10 of bad shit its done, i doubt it'd even make the top 100, it wouldn't even be the worst shit they where involved with on a September 11th

Seriously stop being such an American centric arsehole obsessing over one tiny detail of history and learn a bit about the world.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 1 2013 03:43

factvalue:

I have some responses and clarifications for you, however they're really long and it's nearly midnight and I'm not going to try typing them up tonight. I'll see what I can do tomorrow, for now they're staying in my ever filling up notebook.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 08:00
TAEHSAEN wrote:
Hey Mike, I'm really grateful that you've stepped in. I absolutely respect your opinion to the full extent and I'm really glad you spoke out (even though you said you don't want to pick a side).

I will definitely give those videos a watch over the weekends and I'm bookmarking that page smile

@everyone else, I hope you see what I meant all this time. Even though Fleur "debunked" some isolated events, he can never be able to dismiss the whole. As @factvalue pointed out, there were lots of problems with Fleur's "scientific" reasoning which I was not capable enough to answer. But I did try my best to remain honest and say what I know. At the end of the day, you can't really learn about 9/11 watching two people debate on online forums. It takes time, patience and commitment.

I hope all of you realize which side here is trying their best to be honest here. There are some people out there who will try to win arguments at any cost, even if it means giving out misinformation and misleading people who are genuinely trying to learn.

I am certainly not trying to force anyone here to believe my side of the story here. But being a human being who cares about others, I think its vital that all of you form complete and unbiased opinions regarding 9/11 because I believe THIS EVENT will turn out to be a monumental turning point in history.

I thank you all once again for reading and please do take the time to watch the video.

I'm not sure it's a worth while debate. I just had an interest years back when 9/11 was "fresh" or constantly being brought up. Fixating on it, especially as a political tactic, is a rather cumbersome proposal- this wasn't "Zeitgeists" only problem though. The free market banking conspiracy is rather lame, a totally backwards critique of capitalism and the "resource based economy" they advocate is essentially technocracy which isn't communism. Marx explained why workers themselves must have direct control over societies resources, production and distribution as whichever class controls these things controls society. The "Venus Project" and or the system Peter Jospeh advocates doesn't take this into account and would place "specialists" in control of resources, labor and distribution in so continuing hierarchical society which isn't communism. Not to mention there's absolutely ZERO talk of how capitalism is to end. I know the Venus Project people think they can build communes and make it all happen. It's utopian idealism, the sort of thing Marx scoffed at. The conspiracy theories as a political tactic fall into the realm of (philosophical) idealism as well. I find them entertaining at times and as I said I think it possible the US state let this happen or perhaps even had a hand in it but I really have no idea either way, and this after actually reading a lot on the subject. What I wouldn't do, even if I was convinced the US state did it, is use that information as a political tactic to end capitalism or "wake people up" to the nature of the state. Not without real hardcore tangible evidence.There's plenty of things we can actually prove that show how "evil" the state is.

Anyhow, I think part of why they're being rude to you is that's the culture that sprung up in reaction to the 9/11 truth movement. Ridicule is used a lot. Even further some of your comments (I just read the thread) were sexist but in lieu of name calling and ridicule I think people should've explained why what you said was sexist and what sort of impact things like that have have on women. It's much easier to just say "fuck you douche bag" or whatever. This isn't a problem just on this forum although the snark can get heavy on this site , the communist "community" in general has little patience with such things and more times than not employes scorn, ridicule and other backwards tactics to fight racism/sexism/homophobia in cases where it's not really a capital offense. Calling a woman "honey" is meant to place them on an inferior level based solely on their gender. Like when white people call black people "boy". You don't seem to be a total idiot frothing at the mouth racist/sexist/homophobe so I'm sure you're aware now and won't go around calling women "honey" with the intent to marginalize.

Back to 9/11. What do you think would happen if there was some actual evidence, real material undeniable proof that the US government facilitated 9/11? People would rage, maybe some riots would take place, a scape goat or scape goats within the government would be hung out to dry and most Americans would probably just take an even more right wing anti government stance. Nothing would really change systemically. It would probably play right into the hands of capital having everyone running around in fear of the government spewing right wing free market nonsense with a militia twist. Some new right wing free market political party would probably get voted in and we'd all be even more screwed by capital than we already are. If 9/11 was an "inside job" and it could be proven I find it extremely unlikely Americans would all of the sudden start advocating communism so what value would that information hold? What value does the current speculation and circumstantial evidence hold? None really. For me, at this point, it's entertainment. I read a 20 page article the other month on a conspiracy theory that laid out a theory saying John F Kennedy Jr's plane was sabotaged and thus he was assassinated. I was entertained but there is no real value in the information. Even if it could be proven what impact would it have?

The goal of communists is to expose the conflict between labor and capital and to analyze/explain the role of the state in legitimizing/maintaining the overall capitalist system. Outside of communists saying "see, the state will even kill it's own citizens to ensure the expanding profits capitalism needs" I see no real value in whether or not the state facilitated 9/11. The state kills people all the time and en mass, all of it is done to keep capitalism going. The real issue here is getting people to see that they're being subjugated by a hierarchical system which places a ruling class in almost complete control of society. The real issue is to get people to see that this class isn't necessary and is actually leeching off of humanity like a tick.

EDIT:

I think the Peter Joseph guy is trying to explain the system to people but he himself has a sort of self taught non communist/materialist critique of the system that really falls short in many many ways and ends up giving his fans (or whatever they are) the wrong world view and the wrong sort of "consciousness" if you will. And he's so pompous about it, totally convinced he has things figured out. The guy is a good speaker, I'll give him that. He could probably be a good salesman. He's almost trying to give a Marxist critique, using terms like "anarchy of the market" and he recently tried to give his version of historical materialism, explaining the history of modes of production and the rise of capitalism but it was laughable.

I noticed the impact the Zeitgeist Movement had at Occupy Oakland where all sorts of people were walking around saying things like "we just need a resource based economy" and " the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished" or the "price system is the problem". Basically a lot of well meaning people with the wrong ideas.