So recently a friend and I had quite a discussion stemming from the film Zeitgeist. This is a transcript of that conversation word for word. Anything altered is indicated with [ ] and does not alter the substance of the conversation.
I will name us A & B.
A: I watched Zeitgeist.
B: Just now?
A: Ya
B: So I don't have to pay taxes anymore.
A: Lol!!
B: What did you think about the 911 stuff?
A: I'm sure some of it is valid. I do believe "they" knew to a certain extent. The controlled explosion is pretty convincing though.
B: With a controlled explosion there is a sound and flash before the building collapses.
A: I don't remember the details. I just remember it was fascinating.
B: I looked up the debunking of that because I thought the same thing.
A: Yeah, unfortunately conspiracy theories usually doom themselves by taking it too far. I do believe our government knew, but I think it was more incompetence than malice. HOWEVER, Cheney got A LOT of what he wanted because of 911. A part of me still thinks there was something more sinister behind it. Kind of like 'Scandal!!' Lol
B: So you were convinced of the controlled explosions of the world trade center buildings but never really did any research into whether the theory that our government blew up these buildings was credible?
A: I wasn't convinced. I said it was convincing. There is a difference. We will never know how much they knew. I don't put anything past human capability. I don't think it needs "research" because I have come to terms with the fact that there are a range of possibilities. The better thing to do would be critically think and analyze without delving into the nuances of conspiracy theories. It's a distraction and makes the conversation less credible. Unfortunately, the further in detail you go, you're likely going to get farther from the truth. I am convinced much of our government knew ahead of time, but it was dismissed either due to lack of intel or the ones with the intel held back crucial info on purpose or by incompetence. Going further down the rabbit hole, I believe, with less certainty, there were only a few who knew beyond the "threat warning" and quite possibly had a direct hand in it.
B: There's a big difference between incompetence and on purpose
A: Either is a possibility. I would rather believe people are dumb instead of evil, but if I had to choose one, I would say it was on purpose. Too many people benefited from it for it to have been an mistake.
B: The movie Zeitgeist has a message that is not invalid but is lost underneath unequivocal dishonesty. The distortions and lies in the movie cross the line between philosophical advocacy and unethical propaganda. Same problems I have with the pit bull debate. Some one who you believe to be on your side is doing more harm than good because he is so obviously and easily dismissed.
A: Yes. Unfortunately that is the way of our society. In order for any message to be heard it has to be...extreme. We have to then filter out the small portions that are worth it. The problem lies in that people who communicate these "messages" are trying to reach/convince as many people as possible. And THAT is the problem. I believe that Socrates and Hobbes were not too far off in that the population as a whole are not thinkers or philosophers and decisions should not be left up to the masses.
Do you realize I could be held without any protection from the constitution just for saying that? Yay Patriot Act!
B: I'm surprised you think the controlled explosion was convincing. It would take a long time maybe a month to equip one tower with enough explosives to being it down all the while avoiding one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet. We are talking about knocking down walls over a prolonged amount of time with heavy security and cameras unable to detect anything. Or all being complicit. Then when a plane hits the tower somehow these explosives do not go off. It actually makes little to no sense if you think about it or look into it for a few minutes.
A: I think it's all possible. Just because at first it may seem improbable, it is only because you think from a rational perspective that is molded by your life experiences. If there is one thing I have learned it's that just because you think something is not in the realm of YOUR perspective, it doesn't mean that the reality is what you deem rational. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that humans, particularly powerful humans, are capable of anything. I'm not saying I think that's what happened. I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised. I don't know what happened, I just know that a lot of people died and rich people got a WHOLE LOT richer and power has been more concentrated than ever. Is it possible that these people who benefited just seized an opportunity and the whole attack was "organic" so to speak? Yes. Do I in my heart of hearts think that's the case? No. Rich and powerful people have the resources to bring to fruition all their evil desires. The evil that runs through humans is like no other species on this planet. It's intense and gross and when you have the resources, you can make anything happen...including elaborate plans to start wars.
B: I came to my conclusion on whether the towers were intentionally blown up based on looking into both sides and deciding what made sense. I was perfectly willing to believe whatever the evidence said. My perspective on that one issue was arrived at by looking at facts. Evolution and climate change can't be 100% proven either but that doesn't make the opposite or every competing plausibility equally valid. The evidence is also overwhelming that it was a policy decision to go to Iraq. I think Cheney, Bush, and others should be tried for war crimes and be in prison. Thousands of Americans died and Iraq was torn apart due to their lies, propaganda, and fear mongering. But that doesn't give the filmmaker the right to bypass facts. It makes a more interesting movie I guess. Although even he has said he has moved past his 911 theories. I wonder why he hasn't taken the time to revise and edit his mistakes when the movie itself went through several revisions and doing so wouldn't be very time consuming or difficult.
A: I don't get it. You seem disappointed that I didn't follow up the film the way you did. One minute you're saying it would only take a few minutes to realize it's not probable, the next you're saying you did research and read 2 sides to come to your conclusion. In my opinion, it's a waste of time to fiddle through conspiracy theories. It's nevertheless fascinating to see/watch what someone else's opinion is, but for me personally I don't find it necessary to delve into it. That's not even the part of the film I find intriguing! The Jesus is the sun part and the production/industrial revolution/Walmart vs Woolworth part are the ones that were candy to me.
B: Yes I guess I am disappointed you didn't follow up more in the same way people who repeat what they hear on Fox news don't delve deeper. I like to know the source and the agenda and don't like being lied to. I thought the movie was interesting too but they really overplayed the sun and son analogy but the bible wasn't written in English so that's another tidbit of info you might find interesting if you delve deeper.
A: There's a difference if you don't have any kind of emotional investment in the topic. I don't care about attempting to find the truth about 911 because I know I never will...no one will. I personally don't find it important. Why would I delve into a subject that I know is going to lead no where? I don't go around claiming 911 towers were blown up.
I know the bible wasn't written in English. That IS a topic I did delve into. Further, if there's one thing I know about interpreting language is that sometimes there is no equivalent word. I run into that when trying to tell [my partner] what the [show] really said instead of the incorrect, but similar, subtitle.
B: Nobody can ever know the truth about anything but I still think the pursuit of it is worth while. I had a curiosity about whether the towers were blown up purposely after seeing the movie so I'm stuck on that. I am also interested in other aspect on the film. Seeing that the film was made by an art student in New York I'm curious if this was some kind of art project to see how gullible people are or he actually is serious. Since the film uses the same fox news type propaganda it makes more sense to explore his themes elsewhere. For example in the film he says the funding for 911 came from an official in Pakistan. this is found in one source. an Indian newspaper that could likely have a political motive. So then he crosses Bin Laden off the list. This absurd simple logic is catchy. Dianetics was real popular too. If it were a fictional movie I wouldn't care but when you try to influence masses of people with extremism in the same way Cheney and Bush did with the fear mongering I find it morally reprehensible. People can make points without resorting to extremism. Gore make an Inconvenient Truth.
A: Okay so YOU wanted to delve into that particular aspect, I do not. Just as I'm sure you have not "researched" all the other topics [in] the film. If I watch the news and they do a story about Bigfoot, I'm not going to run out and "research" it. I don't know in advance that they're going to do a story about Bigfoot. To me THAT would be gullible. You seem preoccupied with thinking that it's everyone else who are the gullible and irresponsible ones and being okay with lumping me into that category with your not so subtle digs just because YOU don't filter through things without more "proof." I never take things as 100%, even NPR, Al Jazeera, or WSJ, etc. I manage and filter in a way that I deem efficient. To me the 911 bit is like a Bigfoot story, not worth "researching."
B: When I asked you about the 911 part of the movie you said the controlled explosion was convincing to you. It's convincing or is about as likely as Big Foot?
A: But I'm not going to hold it against you if you want to [research]. I'm okay with people liking to discuss in circles, it's just not MY preference. I think you're hung up [on] your anger toward the "news" in general and everyone's willingness to accept it. SCOTUS has already ruled that the news does not have to be truthful...not that they would be even if the ruling had been different; however, if the news doesn't have to be truthful why would films?
It's obviously convincing because you sought to verify it.
It was convincing. Was I convinced? No! I already have my beliefs on that topic and I don't need to attempt to find out more.
B: I guess I don't understand how you think it was convincing and equate it to Big Foot. So you are saying it is convincing in the movie but utterly absurd in real life? If so I guess we agree. It is convincing in the movie and utterly UNconvincing as a plausible scenario in reality. I am not understanding the film maker's intention to try to put forth a convincing scenario of something when the facts obviously point to a different explanation.
Anyway I love you and think you're very intelligent. My comments are solely based on the movie and my opinions about it. No offence intended.
A: Offense taken was minimal and short-lived. My intent was not to cause you anxiety or any negativity.
B: I don't feel any :) I find it interesting to look at the media and why people believe what they do. In a book called Thinking Fast and Slow there is an interesting experiment done by a Nobel prize winning psychologist. He has the subject count basketball passes made by a group in black shorts among a larger group. This requires intense concentration. In the middle of this a man in a gorilla suit spends 8 seconds running through the middle of it all. Not only did a great number of the test subjects miss this but almost all of them were very adamant it never happened.
Do I get a response to my last text on the topic? I thought we might be getting close to an understanding...
A: You wiped me out. I have no response.
THE END.
