Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

[Nostradamus]

NinjaPuppy after the Warren Commission came out a number of independent groups including CBS News did investigations. The results of the CBS News study was shown on 60 Minutes. One of the tests they did was to ask a number of Texas police sharpshooters to shoot at a vehicle. The vehicle was a car on a track that moved with the same speed as the vehicle Kennedy was in. The sharpshooters shot from an elevated position to replicate the height, distance, and angle to the car. Amazingly everyone repeated the shootings: hit, miss, and hit. This laid to rest some claims of the day: inaccurate weapon, could not be fired fast enough. Yes, there have been independent studies and their results were made available and scarily the results matched the WC.

[NinjaPuppy]

[Scepcop]

Not much time, but a few points.

First, thanks Ninjapuppy for watching the films I recommend. Whether you agree with them or not, at least you enjoyed them and do not regret watching them Nothing is perfect or flawless, but it doesn't have to be to have value, some lesson, meaningful content or inspiration in them. I'm sure you agree.

ProfWag:

A few points. Look, no film or book on controversial and hotly contested subjects is flawless and free of errors. That includes your sources too. Popular Mechanics made a number of errors for example. And you know the guy who wrote "Case Closed" defending the official story of the JFK assassination, Gerald Posner? Some of the generals he claimed to have interviewed came out and said they never even met Mr. Posner! A flat out lie! But of course, you skeptics for some reason never direct your skepticism at those debunking conspiracies. Even when they lie, you don't have a problem with it. I wonder why that is. It's like you have a blind spot toward one side only. That's not skepticism.

The problem is who to believe. Your sources and mine will not agree on many facts. The thing is, when it's their word against another's, you tend to choose to believe the side that defends the establishment. Isn't that right?

The reality is that you and I are spectators. There are many disputed facts that we can't check. It's merely a matter of who we choose to believe. For that, we have to make a judgment call and decide which side makes more sense, which side is more credible, which side has more experts, etc. Agreed?

Both sides can name facts, evidence and experts who agree with them, but some facts we simply don't have the power, resources or time to try to verify or get to the bottom of.

For example, what Zeitgeist claims about the Federal Reserve is very different than what the Fed's charter says. And what ex-CIA whistleblowers say is very different from what the CIA website says about itself. So who you going to believe? Both sides can claim the other is wrong or lying. But how do you know who's telling the truth? You don't. People lie, governments lie too. There is no logical reason to automatically assume that official sources are always correct. They have lied more times than you know. But for some reason, you can't understand that and you have a strong bias toward them. Deep down, you probably trust official sources more than those who expose them.

Jesse Ventura is very honest, as you can see, whether he's right or wrong. Do you think he would make up a story when he said that the CIA had infiltrated his Minnesota government in key positions and he was made aware of it, which goes against what the CIA charter said?

Zeitgeist is not flawless. No one claims that. But if it's right about the main things, is generally in the "ball park" and contains many inspirational messages and is very progressive thinking, then it's worth a look. Even the Bible has parts that are of value and contain wisdom. No institution, person or organization or film is flawless. Besides, even if Zeitgeist was fiction, the way it's presented is a masterpiece. It flows and captivates you, and does very well at holding your attention. It was made to be exciting and easy to understand, it is not boring or flat and dry.

And of course, the spiritual messages at the end apply to everyone, regardless of whether you believe the conspiracies or not. It is true that our materialistic capitalistic culture divides people, encourages greed and self-interest, etc. It fragments people's souls. When I'm in America, I feel more fragmented and disconnected inside, than I do in any other country. And many of my friends agree. Some of the spiritual lessons may be beyond some, but if you really understand them, they are very beautiful... beyond words.

Not everyone can understand such messages of course or see the beauty in them that I do. People have different levels of insight. It also depends on what resonates with you.

Nostradamus:

Um, yeah I heard about that. But I also heard that many tests were done to replicate Oswald's feat, and they all failed. I can cite these studies if you want. Again, it's a case of my sources against yours. Of course, you are going to side with anti-conspiracy sources, cause you do have a bias toward them. Please be honest and admit that. No one is 100 percent objective here. Biases exist in all of us.

Did you also know that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in the late 1970's that JFK was "probably killed by a conspiracy"? But of course, there are certain upper levels of government that no one can touch, not even the Supreme Court. Up to a certain level, there is no messing of power.

Or do you skeptics honestly believe that there are no conspiracies and no evidence exists for them? And that the only things that are true are on CNN?

I look forward to reading more of your reviews Ninjapuppy. And thanks for being willing to examine evidence and arguments. Wait til you see "Zeitgeist Addendum". That one blew me away and gave me a mental/intellectual/spiritual "orgasm"

[NinjaPuppy]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[NinjaPuppy]

Exactly. Many years ago I was asked who I intended to vote for in an upcoming presidential election and I responded, "when they give me a candidate worth voting for, I'll let you know. Since then, I haven't really been able to say that any of the chosen few have been any better. It's the same ol', same ol' every four years. But that's just my opinion.

I must admit that our current President is quite a refresing change of pace from the string of geezers generally paraded around the polls.

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

[WhiteTiger]

I believe what profwag was referring to is that the US is a constitutional republic, was never intended to be and never has been a democracy. You know, as in "and to the republic for which it stands"



Tiger

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[WhiteTiger]

There is a logical flaw in the argument above. The key term here is "box beam column". These are rectangular hollow structures, hence no visible placement exterior to the columns is needed whatsoever.

Thermite reaction is indeed chaotic in it's spread through the reactive mass, however the super heated iron liberated segregates extremely rapidly into a homogeneous pool at the bottom of the containment while the aluminum oxides form a slag roof which serves to retain the majority of liberated heat energy in the lower Fe pool.

No super sophisticated device is required to breech the walls of the box beam columns from within, simply a conical or pyramidal shaped refractory floor under the charge which will force the Fe pool to rest against the inside of the column walls as it forms. Igniting the charge from that lowest perimeter point will greatly enhance the effect of such a charge on the walls of the columns. If strip or string ignition is used at that lowest point the reaction will progress up through the mass of the charge, so that from the initial formation of liberated Fe it is in optimal placement for effect on the beam structure.

Notice that there is needed only a simple flooring containment to maximise the effect, and the strength of that flooring is the only immediate limit on the weight of charge which can be placed above the refractory, none of which is visible from outside the column.

If we're going to argue technicalities, lets try to keep it accurate and logical.



Tiger