I'll believe it when you can provide me a viable source for this statement. Wood and coal are both slow and efficient burners. Paper burns quickly with poor heat transfer and is a very inefficient fuel.

 

 

 

Yes, I do know that wood and coal are better burners. I cannot provide a source because I cannot find any on the internet. It was written in my grade 10 history text book, which I gave back to the teacher 2 years ago, so obviously I don't have it now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is though, that after WWI Germany was in a depression of its own even before the great depression cause by the stock market crash in. The government at the time was stupid, and thought "We have not enough money, therefore we should create more money" and thats what they did. The problem though is that just putting physical money into the economy doesn't work, therefore people were getting enormous amounts of bills, and they were worth almost nothing. People had barely enough money to fuel theirs homes to heat, yet they had all this paper lying around.

I'd like to see you try defending Bush and counter all the evidence in that video, impossible.

 

 

 

Watch this:

 

 

 

The buildings collapsed from the top down. Controlled demolitions target the base of a building, and not the top.

 

 

 

There. All the "evidence" in the world that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy can be completely debunked by that statement.

 

 

 

what can we do?!

 

 

 

If by that you mean "What can we do to stop terrible internet conspiracy videos that intentionally present misleading evidence that leads to widespread off-base speculations that sort of, a little bit, slightly, almost interconnect with each other?" then the answer is simply to know that the internet is hardly a gathering place for scholars.

I'd like to see you try defending Bush and counter all the evidence in that video, impossible.

 

 

 

Watch this:

 

 

 

The buildings collapsed from the top down. Controlled demolitions target the base of a building, and not the top.

 

 

 

There. All the "evidence" in the world that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy can be completely debunked by that statement.

 

 

 

what can we do?!

 

 

 

If by that you mean "What can we do to stop terrible internet conspiracy videos that intentionally present misleading evidence that leads to widespread off-base speculations that sort of, a little bit, slightly, almost interconnect with each other?" then the answer is simply to know that the internet is hardly a gathering place for scholars.

 

 

 

Yes but do you think they would really want to make it look like a controlled demolition? Or would they want to make it look as if it collapsed from the top down?

 

 

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, just playing devils advocate.

That pretty much seemed like little more than a brainwashing video created because of some annoying anarchist's agenda. Worth the two hours, but merely to laugh at it (well, Part 2 and 3 anyways). I'm still laughing at how ludicrous this stuff is.

 

 

 

I mean, the flashy colors? The voices used, and how they were presented? The way images were presented? It's just some stupid brainwashing "anti-government, anti-establisment" crud -.- .

 

 

 

I can literally see the director of this video saying "rise against authority, even if I made half this stuff up! Anarchy for the win! George W. Bush jumped in on all of this stuff after being in office for only a year! We are so joining up with Mexico, because that makes total sense! The Rockefellers and religion will kill us all! This video isn't manipulative in any way, shape, or form, because they're the ones being manipulative! (V)UAHAHAHAH!! *cough*."

 

 

 

Sure, we need to think about things a little more, but what was discussed in that video was just going a little too far.

 

 

 

Though, I have to admit it was interesting to learn about the religious stuff, which seemed for the most part true (as I don't know the sources of the information). Especially the fact that Jesus is really...

 

 

 

cheaper to use money as instead of wood for fire.

Surely thats not true. Paper is terrible as a fuel.

 

 

 

I know, but since Germany was feeling the depression, and they had all this money, it really was cheaper to burn money.

I'll believe it when you can provide me a viable source for this statement. Wood and coal are both slow and efficient burners. Paper burns quickly with poor heat transfer and is a very inefficient fuel.

 

 

 

It was used for burning, perhaps you didn't know but hyperinflation was so bad that it would literally cost a wheelbarrow FULL of money to buy a loaf of bread. Look at this picture for example;

 

 

 

 

 

 

Children playing with money because it's value was so worthless.

 

 

 

Oh, and we we have a nice picture of a woman feeding notes into a fire;

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the caption:

 

 

 

Inflation 1923-24: A German woman feeding a stove with currency notes, which burn longer than the amount of firewood they can buy.

some of this is plausable, but some of it (mainly the 9\11 stuff) is just BS i bet that if i actully cared if and spent the time looking into it, i could probaly dis-prove him on stuff, what i wanna see is his proof, where are his refrences on his sources, for all i know he could have made it all up, i wanna see some creditable third party sources, not just him.

some of this is plausable, but some of it (mainly the 9\11 stuff) is just BS i bet that if i actully cared if and spent the time looking into it, i could probaly dis-prove him on stuff, what i wanna see is his proof, where are his refrences on his sources, for all i know he could have made it all up, i wanna see some creditable third party sources, not just him.

 

 

 

If you actually search the website, there is a sources list.

 

 

 

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

some of this is plausable, but some of it (mainly the 9\11 stuff) is just BS i bet that if i actully cared if and spent the time looking into it, i could probaly dis-prove him on stuff, what i wanna see is his proof, where are his refrences on his sources, for all i know he could have made it all up, i wanna see some creditable third party sources, not just him.

 

 

 

If you actually search the website, there is a sources list.

 

 

 

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

 

 

 

o well, thanks for pointing that, but still, i really dont believe him to part 2, just really really out there

 

 

 

Also theres a booming economy in books and DVDs about this. Dont give in to the hype and dont give your money to these frauds. There is NO 9/11 conspiracy, theres are NO aliens in Roswell, JFK was NOT assasinated by the CIA, The Queen did NOT kill Diana, Titanic hit an iceberg... yadda yadda.

 

 

 

Proof though?

 

 

 

I personally wouldn't give any money, but as stated before, thinking will stop it even if it is true, so why not get people thinking and making ideas anyways. It's good for us.

proof of what?

 

 

 

These conspiracy theories are getting annoying, loose change being the worst, It made my ears bleed, I never knew that a human being can be so [developmentally delayed]ed.

Yes but do you think they would really want to make it look like a controlled demolition? Or would they want to make it look as if it collapsed from the top down?

 

 

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, just playing devils advocate.

 

 

 

Don't blame you, but Loose Change and all the other masterpieces out there claim to have "eyewitness reports" of explosions coming from the bowels of the building where demolition charges are usually planted, so they're in effect claiming that they tried to make it look like a controlled demolition, which of course, is a hilarious notion. :wink: :lol:

[hide]

I'd like to see you try defending Bush and counter all the evidence in that video, impossible.

 

 

 

Watch this:

 

 

 

The buildings collapsed from the top down. Controlled demolitions target the base of a building, and not the top.

 

 

 

There. All the "evidence" in the world that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy can be completely debunked by that statement.

 

 

 

what can we do?!

 

 

 

If by that you mean "What can we do to stop terrible internet conspiracy videos that intentionally present misleading evidence that leads to widespread off-base speculations that sort of, a little bit, slightly, almost interconnect with each other?" then the answer is simply to know that the internet is hardly a gathering place for scholars.

[/hide]

 

Of course, let's all believe what the government tells us, especially if it's in their own interest, very clever.

 

Yes but do you think they would really want to make it look like a controlled demolition? Or would they want to make it look as if it collapsed from the top down?

 

 

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, just playing devils advocate.

 

 

 

Not to be mean, but are you actually saying that since it doesn't look like a planned demolition it is probable (or at least plausible) that it is? :-s

Of course, let's all believe what the government tells us, especially if it's in their own interest, very clever.

As opposed to the conspiracy theorists who get rich by selling books and DVD's. A conspiracy theory is a publishers dream, there's more money in spreading BS than there is in the truth.

Of course, let's all believe what the government tells us, especially if it's in their own interest, very clever.

 

 

 

The funny thing is that YOUR government hasn't made one attempt to refute any of the claims; the claims are so moronic that they refute themselves, and all you need to recognize that is the ability to think beyond the horde mentality that causes normally rational people to believe in what internet hoaxes claim (of course, "rational" is a generaliztion).

Of course, let's all believe what the government tells us, especially if it's in their own interest, very clever.

As opposed to the conspiracy theorists who get rich by selling books and DVD's. A conspiracy theory is a publishers dream, there's more money in spreading BS than there is in the truth.

 

 

 

That makes no sense, because the IF it was an inside job the people who carried it out would benefit from it as well. So, you're saying "lets not believe person A because they get rich from it conspiracy books, lets beleive person B who got rich from the disaster".

 

Yes but do you think they would really want to make it look like a controlled demolition? Or would they want to make it look as if it collapsed from the top down?

 

 

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, just playing devils advocate.

 

 

 

Not to be mean, but are you actually saying that since it doesn't look like a planned demolition it is probable (or at least plausible) that it is? :-s

 

 

 

I don't claim to have answers either way because I haven't studied it enough. As I said, I was just playing devils advocate.

Of course, let's all believe what the government tells us, especially if it's in their own interest, very clever.

As opposed to the conspiracy theorists who get rich by selling books and DVD's. A conspiracy theory is a publishers dream, there's more money in spreading BS than there is in the truth.

 

 

 

That makes no sense, because the IF it was an inside job the people who carried it out would benefit from it as well. So, you're saying "lets not believe person A because they get rich from it conspiracy books, lets beleive person B who got rich from the disaster".

Its a FACT that the conspiracy theorists are getting rich from the theories. Its pure speculation that people benefited on purpose by 9/11 etc.

Oh not another one of these. Most of it was complete BS, especially the flaws in the religion part. Seriously this guy who made it is probably lapping up all this money he's probably earning and loving the fact that heaps of people are actually believe these conspiracies.