"Zeitgeist"...The Biggest WTF I've Had in a Long Time

[ajzepp]

Wasn't sure I wanted to start a new thread on this, but then I remembered the PPP forum and figured this would be a great place to talk about it.

 

Pete, of TBD fame, posted in the 9/11 thread we currently have on Off the Wall and mentioned this film called "Zeitgeist". He didn't go into it much, but he mentioned it was available for viewing online for free. Well, since I was already in "conspiracy mode" with all this 9/11 stuff, I went ahead and found the site so that I could give this program a look. Well, I can't remember ever watching (or reading, etc) anything that shook my foundation on so many fronts. The 9/11 stuff was only part of it. I'm talking everything from Christianity, to income taxes, to the World Wars, to our borders and sovereignty, and on and on and on.

 

I just finished watching it about ten minutes before I began this post, and I'm sitting here feeling a huge WTF in my stomach. It almost made me feel as if life as I know it is a total farce...like I'm in the damn Matrix or something. Have any of you guys seen this? I've seen conspiracy type stuff before, but I've never been left feeling quite like this.

 

Here's the link in case anyone wants to watch it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#

[LeviF]

Wasn't sure I wanted to start a new thread on this, but then I remembered the PPP forum and figured this would be a great place to talk about it.

 

Pete, of TBD fame, posted in the 9/11 thread we currently have on Off the Wall and mentioned this film called "Zeitgeist". He didn't go into it much, but he mentioned it was available for viewing online for free. Well, since I was already in "conspiracy mode" with all this 9/11 stuff, I went ahead and found the site so that I could give this program a look. Well, I can't remember ever watching (or reading, etc) anything that shook my foundation on so many fronts. The 9/11 stuff was only part of it. I'm talking everything from Christianity, to income taxes, to the World Wars, to our borders and sovereignty, and on and on and on.

 

I just finished watching it about ten minutes before I began this post, and I'm sitting here feeling a huge WTF in my stomach. It almost made me feel as if life as I know it is a total farce...like I'm in the damn Matrix or something. Have any of you guys seen this? I've seen conspiracy type stuff before, but I've never been left feeling quite like this.

 

Here's the link in case anyone wants to watch it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#

Honestly, don't let it rock you too much.

 

They make some valid points in that movie, but for the most part they cherry-pick facts. If you have specific questions about it, feel free to ask.

[ajzepp]

Honestly, don't let it rock you too much.

 

They make some valid points in that movie, but for the most part they cherry-pick facts. If you have specific questions about it, feel free to ask.

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin lol....I think what scared me the most was the parallels they drew among WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and 9/11. Specifically, the idea that the U-boat attack on the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, and 9/11 were each either "false flag" events or in some way manufactured and carried out for the purpose of creating social cohesion and motivation for going into war. My family is full of veterans from every one of these conflicts, and to think that money, profit, and manipulation were at the heart of all of them is unfathomable to me.

[DC Tom]

Specifically, the idea that the U-boat attack on the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, and 9/11 were each either "false flag" events or in some way manufactured and carried out for the purpose of creating social cohesion and motivation for going into war.

 

That right there is completely retarded. I won't speak for Tonkin, but the others weren't isolated incidents out of the blue that suddenly crystallized opinion. Rather, they were notable points in a continuing long-term trend of escalation. For example, such an interpretation of Pearl Harbor as a "false flag" quite simply ignores the path to that through the oil embargo against Japan, the invasion of French Indochina, the USS Panay incident, the Marco Polo bridge and the entire "China Incident", all the way back to the Washington Naval treaties, the League of Nations designation of the German Pacific possessions as Japanese protectorates, and back further to the Port Arthur and the Tsushima Straits.

 

Money and profit are always the motivations for wars, though. At least, for the people that start them.

[Magox]

Money and profit are always the motivations for wars, though. At least, for the people that start them.

I'm going to go off topic here, Al Qaeda went to war with the U.S, was the war motivated by idealogical differences or for profit? That is of course if you consider this "war".

[LeviF]

I'm going to go off topic here, Al Qaeda went to war with the U.S, was the war motivated by idealogical differences or for profit? That is of course if you consider this "war".

I guess that depends on how you define "profit." Their motivation is that they would "profit" from the United States getting the hell out of "their" countries.

[LeviF]

That right there is completely retarded. I won't speak for Tonkin, but the others weren't isolated incidents out of the blue that suddenly crystallized opinion. Rather, they were notable points in a continuing long-term trend of escalation. For example, such an interpretation of Pearl Harbor as a "false flag" quite simply ignores the path to that through the oil embargo against Japan, the invasion of French Indochina, the USS Panay incident, the Marco Polo bridge and the entire "China Incident", all the way back to the Washington Naval treaties, the League of Nations designation of the German Pacific possessions as Japanese protectorates, and back further to the Port Arthur and the Tsushima Straits.

 

Money and profit are always the motivations for wars, though. At least, for the people that start them.

Pearl Harbor was the one I was going to talk about. Like I said, they ignore some facts and cherry-pick others. Not exactly an objective movie.

[DC Tom]

I'm going to go off topic here, Al Qaeda went to war with the U.S, was the war motivated by idealogical differences or for profit? That is of course if you consider this "war".

 

They basically want to restore the Caliphite and create one big-ass Islamic Republic from Morocco to Pakistan, and we stand in their way. Yeah, I'd say they're fighting for "profit".

[ajzepp]

That right there is completely retarded. I won't speak for Tonkin, but the others weren't isolated incidents out of the blue that suddenly crystallized opinion. Rather, they were notable points in a continuing long-term trend of escalation. For example, such an interpretation of Pearl Harbor as a "false flag" quite simply ignores the path to that through the oil embargo against Japan, the invasion of French Indochina, the USS Panay incident, the Marco Polo bridge and the entire "China Incident", all the way back to the Washington Naval treaties, the League of Nations designation of the German Pacific possessions as Japanese protectorates, and back further to the Port Arthur and the Tsushima Straits.

 

Money and profit are always the motivations for wars, though. At least, for the people that start them.

 

 

Wow, I should have paid better attention in high school lol

 

With regard to your last comment, the impression the film gave was that it's not the motives of the combatants, but the motives of some group of international bankers who pull strings and move people and governments around like chess pieces in order to maximize their own gains. I don't recall who it was attributed to (it's way past my bed time lol), but there was some quote along the lines of, "when one controls the wealth, it matters not who makes the laws"....something like that. They discuss how the "big plan" is to continue the dumbing down of society, to keep our minds consumed with entertainment and distraction, so that we're not asking too many questions or thinking too much about things. Now I've heard this sentiment many times before, but I guess this is the first time I'm sort of seeing the bigger picture....at least in the way it's being presented to me, not necessarily the way it actually is.

[RkFast]

That right there is completely retarded. I won't speak for Tonkin, but the others weren't isolated incidents out of the blue that suddenly crystallized opinion. Rather, they were notable points in a continuing long-term trend of escalation. For example, such an interpretation of Pearl Harbor as a "false flag" quite simply ignores the path to that through the oil embargo against Japan, the invasion of French Indochina, the USS Panay incident, the Marco Polo bridge and the entire "China Incident", all the way back to the Washington Naval treaties, the League of Nations designation of the German Pacific possessions as Japanese protectorates, and back further to the Port Arthur and the Tsushima Straits.

 

Money and profit are always the motivations for wars, though. At least, for the people that start them.

 

You can even say that with 9/11, right? That was just the final tipping point in a LONG escalation.

[DC Tom]

You can even say that with 9/11, right? That was just the final tipping point in a LONG escalation.

 

I HAVE been saying it with 9/11.

 

Part of the reason bull **** like "Zeitgeist" looks so reasonable is that it's from a strictly limited perspective. What are watershed moments to us may not be to the other guy. Pearl Harbor was more or less a sideshow to the Japanese, intended to cover the flank of their moves into the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Dutch East Indies. Their real watershed moment was the surrender of Singapore.

 

And I should add that the Lusitania is a particularly stupid example to use, considering it was the Zimmerman Telegram that prompted US entry into World War 1.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I HAVE been saying it with 9/11.

 

Part of the reason bull **** like "Zeitgeist" looks so reasonable is that it's from a strictly limited perspective. What are watershed moments to us may not be to the other guy. Pearl Harbor was more or less a sideshow to the Japanese, intended to cover the flank of their moves into the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Dutch East Indies. Their real watershed moment was the surrender of Singapore.

 

And I should add that the Lusitania is a particularly stupid example to use, considering it was the Zimmerman Telegram that prompted US entry into World War 1.

 

Not to mention provocations in Mexico.

 

I would mention to anyone posting here not to debate history with Tom. I thought I had a grasp, but he's the man.

[KD in CA]

You can even say that with 9/11, right? That was just the final tipping point in a LONG escalation.

 

I've never understood why people are so mystified by 9-11. It was hardly a high tech attack. Terrorists had already targeted WTC once, had taken increasingly bolder steps throughout the 90s (attacking a US warship, blowing up embassies, hello?), and had for decades targeted airliners as a means of carrying out terrorist actions.

 

Was it really that difficult of a plan to think up? Hey, hijack a plane but instead of ransom, we'll get a few of the crazies we've brainwashed to crash them into high profile buildings! Hijacking a plane wasn't that hard pre-9/11 (probably still isn't), nor is learning how to fly one if you aren't worried about taking off or landing.

 

My theory is that 9-11 shook people to the core -- it demonstrated that we don't live in the safe world that most people thought we did. And rather than deal with that stark reality, some people choose to believe it was all controlled by some big government secret. Easier pill to swallow.

[DC Tom]

I've never understood why people are so mystified by 9-11. It was hardly a high tech attack. Terrorists had already targeted WTC once, had taken increasingly bolder steps throughout the 90s (attacking a US warship, blowing up embassies, hello?), and had for decades targeted airliners as a means of carrying out terrorist actions.

 

Was it really that difficult of a plan to think up? Hey, hijack a plane but instead of ransom, we'll get a few of the crazies we've brainwashed to crash them into high profile buildings! Hijacking a plane wasn't that hard pre-9/11 (probably still isn't), nor is learning how to fly one if you aren't worried about taking off or landing.

 

My theory is that 9-11 shook people to the core -- it demonstrated that we don't live in the safe world that most people thought we did. And rather than deal with that stark reality, some people choose to believe it was all controlled by some big government secret. Easier pill to swallow.

 

I think it's less not dealing with the stark reality of a dangerous world than it is not dealing with the stark reality of not everything in the world having a rationale behind it that we can understand, or that a system (any system) is imperfect and usually loosely controlled. I think most of the people who want to believe a conspiracy theory want to because they desperately need to believe that someone is on top of things, if even in a negative fashion. Conspiracy theories are less about explaining the "what" and "how" than they are about explaining the "why" to people who just can't accept that **** just sometimes happens.

[ajzepp]

I've never understood why people are so mystified by 9-11. It was hardly a high tech attack. Terrorists had already targeted WTC once, had taken increasingly bolder steps throughout the 90s (attacking a US warship, blowing up embassies, hello?), and had for decades targeted airliners as a means of carrying out terrorist actions.

 

Was it really that difficult of a plan to think up? Hey, hijack a plane but instead of ransom, we'll get a few of the crazies we've brainwashed to crash them into high profile buildings! Hijacking a plane wasn't that hard pre-9/11 (probably still isn't), nor is learning how to fly one if you aren't worried about taking off or landing.

 

My theory is that 9-11 shook people to the core -- it demonstrated that we don't live in the safe world that most people thought we did. And rather than deal with that stark reality, some people choose to believe it was all controlled by some big government secret. Easier pill to swallow.

 

 

That's typically the way I feel about it, too. It's just that things keep popping up that make me go wtf. For example, NORAD supposedly has a response time of ten mins to intercept (not necessarily engage, but intercept) any flight that does not adhere to its flight path or exhibits some other abnormality. Apparently on the morning of 9/11, NORAD was conducting a training drill that had it's fighters preoccupied in an exercise that was very similar to the events of the real attack. Not only was it odd that the exercise was so similar, but it was taking place at the exact same time that the planes were hitting the towers. So (apparently) the response time of the fighters to intercept went from 10 mins to over 80 mins, when it was too late to do anything.

 

What really turned my wtf into a WTF! was when they said that the terrorist attacks in the London subway several years ago went down in the same way....they were conducting some sort of exercise that involved a pretend attack that mimicked the REAL attack that was taking place at the SAME TIME. How exactly is this possible? Maybe it is entirely coincidence, but it's certainly enough to give one pause, and it's hard to just dismiss this sort of thing when there is example after example. I'm just having a hard time reconciling this new info....it's a bit of overload.

[ajzepp]

Not to mention provocations in Mexico.

 

I would mention to anyone posting here not to debate history with Tom. I thought I had a grasp, but he's the man.

 

 

There are a lot of things I enjoy debating, with Tom or anyone else, but this is all nothing but an education for me. One of the things I've always loved about this board is that a lot of people know a lot of stuff about a lot of things....everyone has an opinion....and the conversations are typically very interesting and entertaining. I've always enjoyed seeing what Tom and others have to say here, and I'll always feel that way.

[DC Tom]

That's typically the way I feel about it, too. It's just that things keep popping up that make me go wtf. For example, NORAD supposedly has a response time of ten mins to intercept (not necessarily engage, but intercept) any flight that does not adhere to its flight path or exhibits some other abnormality. Apparently on the morning of 9/11, NORAD was conducting a training drill that had it's fighters preoccupied in an exercise that was very similar to the events of the real attack. Not only was it odd that the exercise was so similar, but it was taking place at the exact same time that the planes were hitting the towers. So (apparently) the response time of the fighters to intercept went from 10 mins to over 80 mins, when it was too late to do anything.

 

One thing people overlook in all that is just how complex the different permutations, and how constrained the system, can actually be. Even if NORAD has a ten minute time-to-intercept (which I doubt, but I don't know. NORAD didn't keep standing patrols in the air over the US at the time, though), your still talking about an outward-facing system that has to be fed information by regional ATC centers, where those ATC centers can't necessarily track and identify a threat on their own (ATC tracking is predicated on transponder responses from aircraft, not reflections of radar).

 

There's a lot of places in that "OODA loop" (for lack of a better term - look it up) for things to go wonky.

[KD in CA]

I think most of the people who want to believe a conspiracy theory want to because they desperately need to believe that someone is on top of things, if even in a negative fashion.

Yup. And probably even better if negative, cause than you can feel better about yourself by blaming incompetent leaders.

 

That's typically the way I feel about it, too. It's just that things keep popping up that make me go wtf. For example, NORAD supposedly has a response time of ten mins to intercept (not necessarily engage, but intercept) any flight that does not adhere to its flight path or exhibits some other abnormality. Apparently on the morning of 9/11, NORAD was conducting a training drill that had it's fighters preoccupied in an exercise that was very similar to the events of the real attack. Not only was it odd that the exercise was so similar, but it was taking place at the exact same time that the planes were hitting the towers. So (apparently) the response time of the fighters to intercept went from 10 mins to over 80 mins, when it was too late to do anything.

I can't see how NORAD could have possibly had a ten minute time to intercept policy; in fact I can't see how they could have one now. The US covers 3.8 million sq miles; we simply don't have that many aircraft. And to be even close to that kind of intercept time, you would need combat ready aircraft on the runway with fully dressed crews sitting in the Go-room at every AFB in the country. We simply don't do that since an invasion of the homeland is not considered a realistic possibility.

 

What really turned my wtf into a WTF! was when they said that the terrorist attacks in the London subway several years ago went down in the same way....they were conducting some sort of exercise that involved a pretend attack that mimicked the REAL attack that was taking place at the SAME TIME. How exactly is this possible? Maybe it is entirely coincidence, but it's certainly enough to give one pause, and it's hard to just dismiss this sort of thing when there is example after example. I'm just having a hard time reconciling this new info....it's a bit of overload.

Remember there was a lot of intelligence that preceded and predicting both of those attacks. From stuff I've read, US Intelligence had been on pins and needles around the millennium New Year (when the guy with the LAX plot was caught at the Canadian boarder), and in the summer of 2001. They didn't know where it was coming from but they knew something was coming.

 

...your still talking about an outward-facing system that has to be fed information by regional ATC centers, where those ATC centers can't necessarily track and identify a threat on their own (ATC tracking is predicated on transponder responses from aircraft, not reflections of radar).

Good point about the system relying on a network of information from private and public sources. Listening to those ATC tapes from that day really highlighted how much time it takes to get the right info to the right people.

[DC Tom]

I can't see how NORAD could have possibly had a ten minute time to intercept policy; in fact I can't see how they could have one now. The US covers 3.8 million sq miles; we simply don't have that many aircraft. And to be even close to that kind of intercept time, you would need combat ready aircraft on the runway with fully dressed crews sitting in the Go-room at every AFB in the country. We simply don't do that since an invasion of the homeland is not considered a realistic possibility.

 

I suspect that's a misunderstanding of a NORAD policy to have an intercept "wheels-up" within ten minutes of request.

 

Good point about the system relying on a network of information from private and public sources. Listening to those ATC tapes from that day really highlighted how much time it takes to get the right info to the right people.

 

People always underestimate the simple role of friction (of any kind, including bureaucratic) in everyday systems. Large, complex systems - which describes most of our government - simply can't be that reactive when an unplanned event happens.

[DC Tom]

Wow, I should have paid better attention in high school lol

 

With regard to your last comment, the impression the film gave was that it's not the motives of the combatants, but the motives of some group of international bankers who pull strings and move people and governments around like chess pieces in order to maximize their own gains. I don't recall who it was attributed to (it's way past my bed time lol), but there was some quote along the lines of, "when one controls the wealth, it matters not who makes the laws"....something like that. They discuss how the "big plan" is to continue the dumbing down of society, to keep our minds consumed with entertainment and distraction, so that we're not asking too many questions or thinking too much about things. Now I've heard this sentiment many times before, but I guess this is the first time I'm sort of seeing the bigger picture....at least in the way it's being presented to me, not necessarily the way it actually is.

 

That would, of course, be predicated on a coherent long-term plan created by those exact same people who almost brought down the financial system two years ago by lending money to people with a demonstrated history of not paying back loans.

 

Not buying it. There's just too many events in history that are demonstrably random and unplanned to think that suddenly in the past 150 years a group of people (the Elders of Zion, or the Bilderbergers, or Illuminati, or Freemasons, or Lizard People) suddenly figured out how to exert such fine control over world events that they could mimic that randomness. And while I have no doubt that American society is being dumbed down, I don't think anyone's planned it - rather, it's society's choice.