Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

Funny Paul and Sid so championed the movie that they claimed destroyed the BBC documentary and by extension the “official” explanation for 9/11 but when pressed to cite specific parts of the film the normally vocal pair fall silent. Most curious!.....

A cursory reading of this short thread demonstrates that Paul and Sid had little or no interest in involving Len Colby in the discussion, despite Len's several attempts to interject. Len always makes it abundantly clear that he relishes his role of arbiter as to what is off-topic, what constitutes name-calling, and what sources are credible and which are not, and in this case, what direction the thread should take - another endless back & forth.

Paul and Sid appear to be immune from Len's goading, and refuse to let him set the agenda of the discussion.

If the Shayler film so “destroys” the BBC film and is as good as they claim it is they should be able to how and why, who asks them is irrelevant.

“Len always makes it abundantly clear that he relishes his role of arbiter as to…what direction the thread should take - another endless back & forth.”

It’s only natural that if people make a claim on a thread that they be asked to defend it.

“Len always makes it abundantly clear that he relishes his role of arbiter as to what is off-topic, what constitutes name-calling, and what sources are credible and which are not”

Yes I express my opinions on these matters, why do you have a problem with that? I don’t claim to be an arbiter anymore that anybody else.

Call me a neutral third party.

Let’s try to be honest now, you are far from neutral you are sympathetic if not outright supportive “inside job” theories and you don’t hide your hostility for “yours truly”.

Is this a tact(sic) admission on their parts that nothing in the movie really debunks the BBC?

It think the answer to that question can be found in the only mention of Len's name in this thread I could find:

I’m not the subject of the thread, there is no reason for my name to be mentioned. Thanks for pointing out my spelling error.

[Michael Hogan]

It’s only natural that if people make a claim on a thread that they be asked to defend it.

You just don't get it. They ignored you throughout the whole thread, despite your frequent interjections. Obviously, neither Sid nor Paul displayed any interest in responding to your repeated attempts to provoke them.

Yes I express my opinions on these matters, why do you have a problem with that? I don’t claim to be an arbiter anymore that(sic) anybody else.

Of course you don't claim that distinction. Still, the fact remains you do it consistently. Do you have a problem with me saying so?

Let’s try to be honest now, you are far from neutral you are sympathetic if not outright supportive (of?) “inside job” theories and you don’t hide your hostility for “yours truly”.

Where's your sense of humor? I put that in there just to evoke the silly response above. Regardless of what you think, I don't have any hostility for you. I just like to mention some of your peccadilloes and see your predictable responses. You seldom disappoint.

I’m not the subject of the thread, there is no reason for my name to be mentioned. Thanks for pointing out my spelling error.

I knew you would appreciate it. You're welcome. You interjected yourself into the discussion repeatedly and they ignored you. You were the first in this thread to adopt sarcasm, calling Paul and Sid "champions" of a point of view. You weren't even accurate. Still, they ignored you. I think it's funny. You kept badgering them for an answer to your question. Still they ignored you. That was the point of my post, and despite how you try to spin it, my point stands.

[Len Colby]

It’s only natural that if people make a claim on a thread that they be asked to defend it.

You just don't get it. They ignored you throughout the whole thread, despite your frequent interjections. Obviously, neither Sid nor Paul displayed any interest in responding to your repeated attempts to provoke them.

Yes I express my opinions on these matters, why do you have a problem with that? I don’t claim to be an arbiter anymore that(sic) anybody else.

Of course you don't claim that distinction. Still, the fact remains you do it consistently. Do you have a problem with me saying so?

Let’s try to be honest now, you are far from neutral you are sympathetic if not outright supportive (of?) “inside job” theories and you don’t hide your hostility for “yours truly”.

Where's your sense of humor? I put that in there just to evoke the silly response above. Regardless of what you think, I don't have any hostility for you. I just like to mention some of your peccadilloes and see your predictable responses. You seldom disappoint.

I’m not the subject of the thread, there is no reason for my name to be mentioned. Thanks for pointing out my spelling error.

I knew you would appreciate it. You're welcome. You interjected yourself into the discussion repeatedly and they ignored you. You were the first in this thread to adopt sarcasm, calling Paul and Sid "champions" of a point of view. You weren't even accurate. Still, they ignored you. I think it's funny. You kept badgering them for an answer to your question. Still they ignored you. That was the point of my post, and despite how you try to spin it, my point stands.

Mike,

I really have no interest in wasting my time getting into an idiotic back and forth with you over a subject (me and my posting style) that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, especially with someone who cops to being disingenuous. There are a few points however I prefer not to let slide by.

“your repeated attempts to provoke them”

There is nothing wrong with asking people to defend their claims it certainly isn’t provocation.

“They ignored you throughout the whole thread,”

You’re just plain wrong on this. I didn’t really get involved in this thread till post # 12 by then Paul and |Sid had already sung the praises of the film, a few hours later Paul replied to me in post #13, in post #14 Sid responded to Paul’s reply and threw in a cheap shot at me. I asked Paul and Sid to elaborate but they fell silent.

As to me being “the first in this thread to adopt sarcasm” and my use of “champion” being inaccurate I suggest you reread the thread and perhaps consult a dictionary.

[Michael Hogan]

Mike,

I really have no interest in wasting my time getting into an idiotic back and forth with you.....

You've already proven that to be false.

..... over a subject (me and my posting style) that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, especially with someone who cops to being disingenuous.

It's not your style - it's your content. Which is often disingenuous. Look it up in the dictionary.

There is nothing wrong with asking people to defend their claims it certainly isn’t provocation.

It certainly was. You're in denial.

You’re just plain wrong on this. I didn’t really get involved in this thread till post # 12....

You were never "really" involved. Your taunts were ignored. Must have been a different Len Colby on post #2.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=108240

.....a few hours later Paul replied to me in post #13, in post #14 Sid responded to Paul’s reply and threw in a cheap shot at me. I asked Paul and Sid to elaborate but they fell silent.

Paul included your taunting post, but it was Sid he was replying to, not you. Hence Sid's reply to Paul that you reference in above quote. They ignored you Len. Why do you have such difficulty admitting that?

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt"

Bertrand Russell

Maybe you do have a sense of humor, after all.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Len Colby]

I should have gone with my first instinct and COMPLETELY avoided “wasting my time getting into an idiotic back and forth with you”. If you actually want to discuss the topic of this thread I’ll reply.

[Michael Hogan]

I should have gone with my first instinct and COMPLETELY avoided “wasting my time getting into an idiotic back and forth with you”. If you actually want to discuss the topic of this thread I’ll reply.

I'll pass on that. Below are five reasons.

"Thirded"? Are you counting yourself twice Paul?

Yawn I watched the first 30 minutes or so. Its the same crap as other “Truther” “documentaries” misconceptions, distortions, misinformation (no Arab names on the manifests) documents selectively quoted out of context, intellectual dishonesty etc etc. If any of its “champions” want to highlight any specific points it made, along with an indication of where they appeared in the video I’ll reply.

Funny Paul and Sid so championed the movie that they claimed destroyed the BBC documentary and by extension the “official” explanation for 9/11 but when pressed to cite specific parts of the film the normally vocal pair fall silent. Most curious! Is this a tact admission on their parts that nothing in the movie really debunks the BBC?

I imagine Sid is the kind of guy who could sit enthralled through the umpteenth installment of some crappy horror film franchise and despite having seen all the previous versions still think he’s seeing something new.

For those of us without either the time or the patience to watch an 80 minute video can you tell us the ‘highlights’?

....Let’s try to be honest now, you are far from neutral you are sympathetic if not outright supportive “inside job” theories and you don’t hide your hostility for “yours truly”.

[Len Colby]

I’m done playing your silly game.

[Duane Daman]

This brilliant documentary exposes the lies of mainsteam teachings, from religious doctrines and dogma , to the truth about the attacks on September 11, 2001 , to the real shadow government that controlls everything , to the coming of the New World Order . ( too bad they left out the Apollo scam )

If you want to skip the religious part ( some people dont want to have all of their myths blown away ) then run the task bar up one hour to get to the part where it shows how Dick Cheney and the neo cons masterminded the FALSE FLAG OPERATION of 9/11 , and then blamed muslim extremists ...This movie will change the way you see everything .

Let the disinformation artist games begin ! ( Lamson, Burton , Colby , West , etc. ... this means you !! .. LOL )

Click here to watch the show .

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Michael Hogan]

.......This movie will change the way you see everything .

Duane, please. By itself, this movie isn't likely to change many minds. First of all, currently there is no way (short of actually reading the books) to corroborate all of the movie's claims with the source material. The makers acknowledge this shortcoming:

"The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current

Source page on this site lists the sources used/referenced. Soon, an interactive transcript will be

online with detailed footnotes and links."

The maker(s) of the movie warn against using the internet to research their claims. They make it clear that one must take the time to read the sources (books) provided:

"That being said, it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find

out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized."

Statement:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm

Sources:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

Edited July 18, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Duane Daman]

"Duane, please. By itself, this movie isn't likely to change many minds"

You're right Mike , it won't ... But usually the type of minds that can't be changed are the ones that are either dim witted , disinterested , or completely closed ... and even though some very closed minded people post their unnecessary and negative comments here , that doesn't mean that everyone who chooses to watch this film will be uneffected by it .

A lot of the information in this movie , I already knew , as I have read several of the source books listed ... but for those who don't have the time to read all of the books mentioned as referrences , this is a great way to discover certains truths without having to spend so much time doing the research involved .

Truth is realized ... It just takes some people longer than others , to realize it .

[Len Colby]

Duane can you summarize the main points/evidence the film presented concerning 9/11? I am especially interested in points not already dealt with ad infinium in other “Truther” “documentaries”.

As for it’s sources it draws on Loose Change which even many people in the truth movement reject as poorly researched, VonKliest who most ‘truthers’ think is a crackpot, D.R. Griffen who been shown to be consistently wrong and William Rodriguez who I have shown to be a xxxx.

[Duane Daman]

Colby ... I have no idea what type of disinformation you have spread across the internet concerning the attacks on 9/11 and I don't care ... but I have no doubt that your position supports the official government's version of the events that day , which of course is a pack of LIES .

If you want to understand the main points /evidence that Zeitgeist presents , then I suggest you watch the movie ...and also learn about some of the other evidence in the source list , which includes many more sources than the documentary 'Loose Change' , which you appear to have an objection to .

[Len Colby]

A rude answer by Duane to a reasonable question, what a surprise! Watching the movie would take about and hour. You could summarize for every one it in a few minutes. My experience is that the various "truther" movies all repeat the same misinformation.

I never suggested that the movie only drew on "Loose Change" I mentioned three other sources in my post.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Len Colby

[Duane Daman]

Not a rude answer , just an honest one ... I have no idea what information about 9/11 you have read about or posted about or disscussed here or elsewhere .... So if you want to know if this movie has anything new to offer , you will need to view it .

BTW , when it comes to being rude , you are in a class all of your own , along with Lamson of course .

Edited July 19, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Peter Hill]

Zeitgeist - The Movie synopsis of an excellent 9/11 doc

Part I. Deconstructing the old terror. The first 35 minutes establishes Christian religion as a parody of ancient astrology. Thus the basis for the Dark Ages was false. A criminally tragic parody -- entertainment -- as the received basis of Western violence. Tough to imagine, but true, as the historical record shows.

Part II. Deconstructing the new terror. The second 35 minutes develops 9/11 Truth. Overcoming mythology again. Merciless, surgical deconstruction of the official mythology shrouding 9/11. Beautiful work!

Theme: Don't you believe your life should count for something?

Seamless thread-tie back to JFK. The monster was the same then as it is now. Shouldn't we be better students of history?

Part III. The final 45 minutes identifies the source behind the terror: the money masters. Capitalism is interest. Money becomes the new religion, the new tyranny. Not Death and Taxes -- Debt and Taxes. The rise of the Fed. The Great Depression was the Great Robbery. War profiteering catalyzed by false flag operations complete the manipulation. Perpetual manipulation: Lusitania, Pearl Harbor (old), Gulf of Tonkin. (You know the rest.)

Explosive: British special operators masquerading as Arabs in Iraq arrested by Iraqi police then broken out of jail by British tanks.

Like the Vietnam war, the Iraq war is meant to be "lost." The middle east is being destroyed by feeding both sides of sectarian violence, which, in turn, is fueled by the original manipulation -- religion?

Like war, the education system has also been engineered to fail. "You had better wake up and understand that there are people who are guiding your life, and you don't even know it."

"One bank. One army. One center of power."

That's what they want. But what do you want?

Theme: No amount of tyranny can overcome the human spirit. It can only destroy itself. The way out of the madness globally is to evolve personally. You have the power. You always did. The power not to be fooled by the illusion of life itself. The ride.

Bottom line: Zeitgeist puts 9/11 in deep context. Builds on some of the best work out there, and goes further. Strongest work to date on 9/11, and doesn't stop with a false sense of powerlessness in the shadow of the so-called ruling elites. The only thing missing is a link to the Disclosure Project, but he ends on the same theme anyway -- that consciousness is a singularity, that a world at war with itself cannot survive.

Props to whoever produced this; only a mountain of work accomplished could yield such an excellent result.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Peter Hill