Canada's biggest national newpaper publishes hit piece

The Globe and Mail

Conspiracy theorists yelling in the echo chamber
August 17, 2007

The problem with deriding conspiracy theories is that it really does leave a columnist feeling like he's just playing his part in the International Bankers' plan for one-world government.

Yet the topic asserts itself this week, despite a years-long attempt to ignore it. A two-hour movie, slickly produced and wrapped in an air of appealing mystery, has been making the rounds, propelled by recommendations from bloggers whose eyes were opened and lives changed. The reputable A-list websites are starting to acknowledge it. People in the offline world have asked me about it.

The thing is called Zeitgeist and can be found via Google. It's an online video set against a black backdrop, with no clue as to its creators' identities. It assembles archival footage, animations and breathless narration into a kind of primer on conspiracies.

The movie comes in three parts. The first makes the case that Jesus is a mythological figure built from parts of earlier mythological figures. Christianity, say the filmmakers, is a concoction, just a form of social control.

So far, nothing ground-breaking. But now the movie jumps to 9/11, and things really get moving. The middle segment steps us through the orthodoxy of 9/11 conspiracy thinking. The twin towers weren't destroyed by jetliners; they were intentionally demolished with explosives. Something fishy happened to Flight 93, which the banker-controlled media will tell you crashed in Pennsylvania.

The Air Force, we're told, deliberately failed to intercept any of the planes. Meanwhile, the Pentagon wasn't hit by an airliner, but by something more like a missile. All of this leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, staged by elements of the U.S. government to provide a pretext for invading Iraq and curtailing civil liberties.

To what end? Warming to its topic, the film shimmers into its third act. It seems that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. money-printing organ, is in fact the implement of a small cabal of International Bankers (the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed) who stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves.
They arranged for the Lusitania to be torpedoed, dragging the U.S. into the First World War. They manipulated FDR into essentially staging Pearl Harbour, starting the Second World War. (That was the start of the Second World War, right?) Ditto Vietnam, ditto 9/11.

Their ultimate goal? A one-world government whose citizens all carry implanted microchip IDs. And all the while, the hidden powers are using the consolidated mass media, the church, and the educational establishment to create a complacent zeitgeist - a spirit of the times - that leaves us dumb as sheep.

The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular. (In 2006, one poll suggested that a full third of Americans thought their government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.) It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.

The funny thing about this stuff is that it's all been thoroughly debunked for years. Everyone from Scientific American to Popular Mechanics have produced reports puncturing the central claims of the 9/11 theory, and when you look gullible next to Popular Mechanics, you know you're in trouble.

Evidently, debunking isn't the issue. You can't argue aliens with someone who has an "I want to believe" poster on his or her office wall. Nor can you cite the findings of the professional, journalistic and academic consensus to someone who has decided that having credibility means being under the sway of shadowy forces. To that line of thinking, an expert who is rejected by his peers - say, for lunatic conspiracy thinking - gains credibility just for being ostracized.

What troubles me the most is that, for all the talk of skepticism, conspiracy counterculture is really an anti-intellectual, populist movement - much like Intelligent Design. For all their absurdity, conspiracy theorists try to drag everything back to the level of common sense.

Just look at the video evidence, they say! Did the collapsing buildings on 9/11 look like they were being demolished? Then they must have been demolished. Did the 757 that hit the Pentagon's blast-proof walls fail to make a plane-shaped hole? Then it must have been something else. Are there unexplained quirks in the official story? Then it must be the work of a higher power.

That's the thing: Conspiracy theorists want to see a guiding force, a malevolent design, behind events. The notion that calamity might be the unintended consequence of subtler causes doesn't hold the same appeal. Evil, whatever its other uses, drives a great narrative. Complexity, not so much.

The Internet bred the 9/11 conspiracy movement, and thanks to films like Zeitgeist, it's alive and well. Now riddle me this: I look at what's happening, and I see people using the Internet to gain widespread currency by rejecting social institutions in favour of an amateur-accessible common-sense approach.

I see people who are highly selective about facts, and who are ready to write off opposing views as the bile of powers that be. I see them using the Web's echo-chamber to create a place where they're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Does this sound familiar? If I told you that I look around the Internet, and am troubled to see this pattern everywhere, would you accuse me of seeing a conspiracy?

It may be a hit, piece, but pieces of it are "not wrong"

Personally, I was very under-impressed with Zeitgeist. Scholars and historians have known for ages that Christianity is a repackaging of ancient "sun god" themes. That is a completely separate issue from whether a person called "Joshua"("Jesus" is a Greek translation) was crucified for sedition in ancient Judea.

Those of us who've studied history and religions are less impressed with facile rehashings. Especially quasi anonymous facile rehashings. And why again does this need to be connected to 9/11 Truth? Is someone trying to alienate Christians?

That right there puts me right off. Anonymous film maker "helping" us? Please. Unfortunately this film deserves to be panned, based just on that.

I wish you'd have added your own thoughts, R Rod...I might be a little less harsh. But that Shayler shite is still fresh in my mind. I'll hold off on voting for now... ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


is actually correct on all counts and that they are doing is showing how gullible people are to believe pure BS that can be easily proven wrong (IE: Christianity/Religion).
That blends right into 9/11 truth perfectly because that is exactly what is happening, you have Reich wingers and or otherwise just totally misinformed populace that has "faith" in the Mainstream media & or the Government so they flatly refuse to accept factual reality & the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
Exact same thing religious people do.
The information presented in part 1 is correct according to Archaeological fact.

Christianity and 9/11,. . Faith vs Truth.

I seems to me that the expose of Christianity as thinly vailed pagan sun worship mythology was ment as an appatiser to the larger 9/11 and global banking control schemes. I realize there are many people in the 9/11 truth movement that identify themselves as 'belivers' of the irrational Christian mythology,
Sorry to 'alienate' you, however that belief system is faith based and has no bassis in rational thought. 9/11 truth is based on reality,. It seems to me the filmmaker was attempting to seperate faith from reallty, as in faith in the "good government protecting us" vs a group of greedy sociopaths rising to power. I can see how this condemnation of peoples faith based assumptions if harmfull to their egos,. and thus receives violent condemnation,. egos are very protective,. however all religions are based on faith and therefor myth, rational arguments simply do not apply. Personally I have abandoned all faith based systems,. in favore of rational reasond thought and observable fact. This is what is needed in 9/11 truth, the abandonment of faith and assumptions, simple follow the FACTS.

Carlin sums it up for me;

Assuming much?

"Sorry to 'alienate' you, however that belief system is faith based and has no bassis in rational thought. "

I'm PAGAN, luv, not Christian. >:( Spiritual beliefs do not mutually preclude rational thought, as David Ray Griffin can demonstrate. That is only true for fanatics--which, admittedly, the militant Christian types are.

What I was saying here is there is nothing to be gained by alienating Christian 9/11activists. Or potential 9/11 activists.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

They alienate themselves

People that show rational thought combined with "spiritual belief" use basically the same mind game as serial killers do. It's called "Compartmentalization".

The truth is the truth, facts are facts and Zeitgeist part 1,2,3 is exactly that, denying the facts about religion be it Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Judaism etc is exactly the same as denying the facts about 9/11 and the Federal Reserve.

Okay, that was waaaaaay overstating the case>:(

"People that show rational thought combined with "spiritual belief" use basically the same mind game as serial killers do. It's called "Compartmentalization"."

First: spirituality(personal belief) and religion(organizations based on a belief system, but prone to authoritarian problems) are not the same thing, though many people do both.

Second: people who believe in "whatever" are not "compartmentalizing". Belief is a personal subjective experience--you know, like being in love? Not a problem, until you try to say it's something else--like, logic..or reason. Many relationship problems stem directly from "thinking with your heart", or "feeling with you head".

Nothing wrong with thinking or feeling long long as you don't confuse their purpose.

Nothing wrong with believing you're connected with the universe in a spiritual way(that is based on your personal subject feelings, not what some idiot wrote in a book ages ago), as long as you don't confuse it with your objective experiences and responsibilities.

I would remind you I have gotten "you back" on the issue of religious irresponsibility in the past. Do me the basic curtesy of not implying I'm a potential serial killer. If that's an overstatement...well now you know what it feels like.

I'm leaving this thread now.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

You obviously don't understand

I'm not calling you a serial killer, but the fact remains that the same psychological phenomena that afflicts serial killers also afflicts others.

Some fundamentalist loon that actually believes the Earth to be 6000 years old, that man walked with Dinosaurs, that his little invisible friend talks to him etc. can through "compartmentalization" walk out into society and manage to not be seen as the crazy lunatic he/she is.


The first section of Zeitgest demonstrates how religion has been and continues to be a tool to manage and manipulate people. Management by religion is effective because people incorporate religion into their belief system.

According to Dr. Robert Park, author of Voodoo Science, modern man was unable to deal with the scientific problems of the modern world by relying on his belief system. In order to approach and solve problems scientifically, critical thinking had to be developed.

A major component in any false flag operation is the creation of a myth. Creators of the myth rely on people to use their belief system to accept the myth as being true. The quickest path to the truth of 9/11 requires putting our belief system aside and using critical thinking, instead.


Just watched Zeitgeist. This film is, to put it bluntly, fantastic.

Comparing Christianity to 9/11 philosophically is a real mind opener.

A couple notes however.

Most of the myths mentioned about Christianity are from the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke.

These chapters are fictional, but that does not mean everything else in the New Testament is.

Mark chapter 1 corresponds to Matthew and Luke chapter 3, the first two chapters of Matthew/Luke being later additions.

Christianity, like the U.S. Constitution, can be a force for good or a force for evil.

The Neocons are using the Constitution as a force for evil right now.

A man who used Christianity as a force for GOOD was ORIGEN ADAMANTIUS who is often called the geatest , most brilliant, and most prolific Christian theologion of all time.


A man who used Christianity as a force for EVIL was AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO.

Augustine and Origen Contrasted

Zeitgeist Reveiw by Ivor Tossell

Dear Mr. Tosell If Zeitgeist is propaganda, I dare say, so is your review. it suggests the fear evident in media folks afraid for their jobs. Why are you afraid to put any actual research into the mix?
How can any serious journalist ignore the fact, that on 9-11, for the very first time in history, 3 steel framed buildings collapsed at free fall speed, due to fire. The third one wasn't even hit by a plane.
With a minimal amount of research you would know the Popular Mechanics debunking was not based on science and easily discredited. Why don't you site the findings of accredited scholars
such as Dr. Steven E. Jones a former physics professor from BYU, whose 9-11 research and peer reviewed publications are readily available. And then, question his motives.
I am really troubled by your assertion that the use of common sense is somehow ABSURD! Perhaps if you brought yourself down to a common sense level you would realize the official story is nothing but a conspiracy theory in itself, and a weak one at that, based on disinformation, fabrications and lies. This is what breeds conspiracy theories. The TRUTH is irrefutable. The internet is just the tool bringing the common sense to the everyday
people, much to the dislike of the powers that be.
You sir, are ignorant and misinfomed and sadly representative of a forth estate, guilty of not doing the job, not asking the tough questions,not digging for the truth on behalf of the people you serve. This sort of journalism is as dead as the print newspaper it appears in. Do better.


A negative article, but it's very poorly written and seen by a relatively large circulation. It will increase the viewership of the movie in question. I remember very well the smiling contempt I showed for the first person who tried to tell me about the darker questions surrounding 9/11. I feel terrible guilt now, because I was unwilling to deal with the evidence valuable time was wasted. I often feel pathos towards journalists who write such pieces on us, for time marches on and slowly, they are exposed to the evidence more and more as those in their lives confront them with the truth, which stands on its own merit. Who can say what Ivor Tossell will be thinking and feeling about his own hand in all this several years from now. He seems to be an innocent victim of his own a priori assumptions and cognitive dissonance aided by Hearst propaganda. He's a Griffin book away from having his paradigm shifted, assuming he cares to read one.

One thing is for sure, the air of contempt being shown to bloggers and their influence is increasing undeniably. Watch this drooling aristocrat seethe with rage...

I can assure you that I am neither in the pay of a corporation nor a government for my writing. People comment on the issues for the sake of the act itself, which to me gives them more objectivity than Mr. Tossell, or anyone else being paid to do the same.

I lost two friends because

I lost two friends because they tried to tell me that something was rotten in denmark back in 2002. I still feel like a tool for how I reacted.

If you are reading this Agnus, I am sorry.

im on the other side of that

im on the other side of that one, some of my friends think im insane for my 9/11 activism and dont really talk to me anymore. one of them even made some crack about how im suffering from PTSD. while that may be true to some extent it doesnt mean im not right :-)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Oh, the irony

"one of them even made some crack about how im suffering from PTSD. "

Oddly, PTSD is what most accurately describes this lot who just can't see WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition no matter how many times they see the clip-- they're still working through their shock and anger.

You've been a target of "projection", mate! ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Conspiracy theorists yelling in the echo chamber

I sent the editor the following.

First of all, since when is Popular Mechanics a more credible source of info on 9/11 than any of the architects and engineers or the scholars or the pilots for 9/11 Truth? All their claims have already been successfully debunked logically and scientifically by David Ray Griffin. You conveniently lump all critics of the official version into the "conspiracy theory" mold without apparently looking into any of their works. There are many very credible scholars and intellects with very legitimate questions. You neglect to mention the total symmetrical collapse of Building 7 of the WTC complex at 5:20 on 9/11 or the testimonies of the first responders and other eye witnesses regarding explosions in the towers.
Feel free to ridicule me as an anti-intellectual counter culture conspiracy theorist if you choose but before you do, have a good look at the evidence regarding the collapse of WTC7 and give me a logical explanation that doesn't involve controlled demolition. If you can produce such an explanation I will forget all the other inconsistencies and unanswered questions and proclaim the case closed.
Otherwise I would suggest that the comparison of 9/11 to Hitler's Reichstag fire may just have some credence and an honest investigative media would serve their readers best by actually investigating all aspects of the most horrendous crime in our lifetimes.
Thank You.
Arnie Hyma
Bowmanville On.


Dear Mr. Tossell;

I read your article 'Conspiracy theorists yelling in the echo chamber' about the Internet movie 'Zeitgeist'.

Your article confuses me. I am trying to figure out if you really believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and was raised from the dead.

You argue that science does not back up so-called "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, and that's bad that people believe these theories.

But you never denounce the resurrection theories. Are you arguing that science supports these views, or are you arguing that believing these wacky theories is harmless, unlike the "dangerous" 9/11 theories?

What do you think is more probable; that Jesus rose from the dead, or that WTC 7 fell by itself because it had a few office fires? If I declare that I have "religious" views about 9/11, will that make it OK?

Please advise.


Rolf Lindgren
Middleton, Wisconsin


Thank you. I had a good laugh.

Why would this be voted down?

I said his letter was brilliant. It was clever, which is why I laughed.

Either someone didn't read it carefully to get the cheek....

Or, you know, the other reason...(registered t__s)

Probably the first reason, but you never know. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


[above, I posted my email to Ivor Tossell, and below are his and my responses. A more advanced version of this type of debate can be found at:

Not So Fast, Speedy Gonzalez!]

Hello Ivor;

Thank you for your email. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this issue.

Please allow me to respond to a couple things you said.

"And I'm equally sure that you can provide a point by point rebuttal drawn from another source."

response - I do not get into point by point rebuttals regarding 9/11.

"(Bearing in mind that just because something looks like a demolition doesn't mean it is one.)"

response - this is the crux of the issue; can WTC 7's collpase look like a controlled demolition, but not BE a controlled demolition? The thought occurred to me as well about a year ago, when I first heard about these alternative 9/11 theories.

WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition because an examination of the collapse videos shows that it has several scientific characteristics of controlled demolition.

These include;

almost free-fall speed

sudden onset of collapse

almost straight down into own footprint

total global destruction of building rather than partial collapse

[a summary can be found at]

There can be no doubt that controlled demolition IS a scientific explanation of the WTC 7 collapse. Is there ANOTHER scientific explanation?

Many people, myself included, resist the controlled demolition hypothesis, but this resistance is for NON scientific reasons.

For example, some people ask, who put the bombs there? Why weren't they caught? How come nobody talked? I am not going to get into these issues at this time because they do not relate to scientific issues, but to POLITICAL issues. When you do science, you need to get the scientific facts first, and let the political chips fall later.

Three official bodies have been granted the authority to investigate the collapse of WTC 7.

FEMA - FEMA was unable to explain it.

The 9/11 Commission - The 9/11 Commission did not mention the collapse of WTC 7 in their final report, which I find suspicious.

NIST - NIST has been unable to explain it, but claim they will in the future.

Now various experts have been consulted for TV shows, magazine articles, etc. which claim to explain why WTC 7 fell. But if these experts have explained it, why have they not passed this information on to FEMA, NIST or the 9/11 Commission? My answer is they have not explained it.

In fact, I have read the most recent NIST reports and press releases regarding WTC 7, and these reports do not explain anything.

Here are some things which need to be explained:

1) How did gravity throw multi-ton steel beams 355 feet through the air, horizontally, into WTC 7?

2) How did these beams cause the observed fires in WTC 7? [if you read the NIST report, there is no relationship between the debris damage to WTC 7, and the place and times of the fires]

3) How do office fires, not even visible at the time of collapse, cause a giant steel-framed building to fall down just like a controlled demolition?

4) Why is WTC 7 the only steel building in history to collapse from fire?

I've looked everywhere for a scientific, non-explosives explanation of the WTC 7 collapse, and have not found one. My common sense tells me that there isn't one. Since WTC 7 fell at nearly free-fall speed, that means all the steel in the building suddenly lost almost all of its resistance in an instant. How that could happen without pre-placed explosives is incomprehensible.



PS - here are some neat WTC 7 tidbits (you may not have heard of):

Watch WTC 7 fall down - This is an Orange

WTC 7 Fire Alarm turned off at 6:47 A.M. on 9/11

Explosive WTC 7 Eyewitness Testimony

WTC 7 Eyewitness Testimony Analysis id=67

Map of WTC building locations

Webseven wrote:

Hi Rolf -

Well, you've seen testimony from individuals who you consider to be credible with regards to the WTC7 collapse. For my part, I've seen arguments from sources I find credible explaining that WTC suffered from damage from debris combined with a prolonged fire fuelled by fires from the emergency command station diesel fuel in the basement, until the weakened structure collapsed. (Bearing in mind that just because something looks like a demolition doesn't mean it is one.)

Now, I'm quite sure you've heard all this before. And I'm equally sure that you can provide a point by point rebuttal drawn from another source. We can each point to our own web pages and say, "look, it's the truth!"

The truth is, I don't know from structural engineering. What I do know is what kinds of sources I trust, what kinds of sources I don't trust, and the principles on which I find more elaborate conspiracy theories unlikely.

I believe that arguing over details that few of us have a real grasp on or experience of is a red herring for other questions, like whether you believe that, barring a handful of dissenters, the overwhelming bulk of the media and professional establishment can all keep up the same lie?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Lindgren []
Sent: Sat 8/18/2007 7:30 PM
To: Webseven

Dear Ivor;

Is there a point in debunking the 9/11 Commission to a true believer in the official conspiracy theory?

My answer is yes.

Most people who believe the unofficial 9/11 conspiracy theory, started out believing the official conspiracy theory. These people changed their mind based on appeals to evidence.

Virually all, if not all, the people who believe the official conspiracy theory started out believing the official conspiracy theory from the beginning.

[this same phenomenon occurred in the 1600s when Galileo made appeals to evidence that the earth moved. The believers in Copernicus all started out believing the earth was fixed.]

Your argument stands on it's head regarding WTC 7.

The collapse of WTC 7 has all the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition. The NIST scientists do not have a scientific explanation regarding WTC 7.

Based on science, WTC 7 is a no-brainer.

But we are supposed to to believe, based on faith or political views, that WTC 7 is not a controlled demolition?



Webseven wrote:

Dear Rolf,

What I think is that there's just as little point debunking the 9/11 mythology to a true believer in the conspiracy theory as there is debunking Christ to a Christian. Either way, it's an article of faith...


seems to me that Mr Tossell

is the only one spewing "faith" as their proof, where as you listed nothing but Scientific evidence.

Then in the usual manner that the "faithful" respond they blame you for doing what in fact THEY are.


Does Tossell ever reveal himself with these answers!

He's got nothing. Nothing at all. These people piss me off. Even when confronted with the fact that FEMA and NIST could not explain the collapse of Building 7 with any degree of certainty, they have the nerve to say, "Well, you have your sources and I have mine." Really? What sources are those?

Ultimately, his position is about him, not the evidence. He doesn't believe the media establishment could keep quiet on such a lie. In other words, the skeptics' version of 9/11 impugns him as a reporter and member of the media establishment, and he doesn't like that. Remarkable (and evasive) answer.

Wonder what this guy'll do when his newspaper folds

My favorite quote:

"The Internet bred the 9/11 conspiracy movement, and thanks to films like Zeitgeist, it's alive and well. Now riddle me this: I look at what's happening, and I see people using the Internet to gain widespread currency by rejecting social institutions in favour of an amateur-accessible common-sense approach."


"The gatekeeping MSM is withering and being replaced by new media that allow the people to quickly, cheaply, and easily deliver unfiltered information to one another. We of the privileged communications elite are losing control over the thinking of the masses. Sheesh, I'll probably have to find another line of work in a few years."

How many times...

do we have to see the same talking points trotted out, to attack the same weak arguments....

The press always attack the weakest links: no-plane at the pentagon, flight 93 was shot down, etc.

No hit pieces on Press for Truth. They always go after the more amateur productions.

"Conspiracy theorists want to see a guiding force, a malevolent design, behind events." Gee, that's funny, because that sounds like what Bush does with his "al Qaeda did this, and al Qaeda did that."

By the way, who the hell is Ivor Tossell, anyway? Like, is his opinion supposed to matter? And why did he get tapped for this useless editorial? Slow day at the office?

If there was a "plane at the Pentagon" is certainly wasn't AA-77


Popular Mechanics Gullibility

"when you look gullible next to Popular Mechanics, you know you're in trouble."

Mission Accomplished... whoever wrote this article looks gullible for believing Popular Mechanics.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Initiating dialoge

The only argument presented against 9/11 is the fascist principle that "authority" must always be right, eg Popular Mechanics and Scientific American. Some of our basic arguments were published, though with a negative twist. This is a far cry from 9/12/2001 when I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness. Buiilding 7 was conveniently omitted from the discussion,though.

Hitpieces like these are a sign of the walls coming down.

From what I've observed

From what I've observed "Zeitgeist" has about the support of one third of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, it's a highly divisive film, Alex Jones has called it “Rat Poison”. Why does this clown Ivor Tossell not cite 911: Press for Truth? Why? Why can’t Press for Truth be spread as virulently as "Zeitgeist"? And who is even spreading "Zeitgeist"?

Sadly those messed up on Religion

will think that. I for one have spread Zeitgeist and will continue to do so because everything in it is correct.
It shows how seemingly intelligent people can fall for something so incredibly ridiculous and do so out of FEAR & BRAINWASHING.

Zeitgeist's take on Christianity was not necessary

If Zeitgeist was really honestly concerned about 911 truth it would not have contained an upfront confrontation with Christianity. It had to be intended to be divisive for a reason. I think Alex Jones is right about it being "Rat Poison". The two subjects are completely separate and should not have been brought together. It almost sounds like another Holocaust denier attempt to smear the movement.

I agree with Jenny that Zeitgeist seems like an attempt to alienate Christians from 911 Truth.

It is interesting that Ivor Tossell cites Zeitgeist instead of the many other 911 films which aren't controversial in the 911 Truth movement.

I e-mailed him and asked him if he had seen 911 Mysteries, read Dr. Steven Jones' paper, read any of the firefighter's Oral Histories and wondered why no explosive residue testing was done on the steel from the Towers. I also asked him if he had an explanation for the collapse of Bldg. 7.

I agree with you Tony, concerning Zeitgeist.

I agree with you Tony, concerning Zeitgeist. The subjects, 9/11 truth and any claims concerning the validity of Christianity or any other religion, are separate. The film has pointlessly and damagingly brought these issues together. It’s destructive and not constructive to have done so.

9/11 truth, the truth about the bogus war on terror, false flag terror is prevented from reaching the largest audience through very clever and purposeful disinformation tactics.

I personally didn't look at 9/11 for 4 years because of the NPT, then there is Space Beams, the relentless MSM bashing of truth activists as 'moonbats' & ‘conspiracy nuts’ etc. Now Zeitgeist, which will only alienate more people, because 9/11 truth activists are now said to bashing Christianity.

In regards to this article, the editor needs to be urged (hopefully by 911Blogger readers) to accept a refutation/counter argument from either Professor David Ray Griffin (Christian theologian). However, as the article was published in Canada, award winning journalist, author and fellow Canadian Barry Zwicker may be more appropriate.

Christianity is irrelevant to 9/11 Truth

Whatever Zeitgeist says about Christianity, it is irrelevant to 9/11 Truth. Truthers should be used to the tactic employed by this editorialist: pile on so many ancillary issues that 9/11 gets lost in the mix. We've seen this tactic elsewhere. Usually they mention Elvis, UFOs, and the X-Files in the same breath as 9/11 Truth. It's guilt by association (though, let us note and remember, THERE IS NO ASSOCIATION).

I think the best tactic for us is NOT to invoke JFK, UFOs, NWO, or any other issue that may be legitimate in its own right but does not have any bearing on the truth about 9/11. Either the 9/11 Report contains lies, or it doesn't. Either the commissioners had conflicts of interest, or they didn't. Either 2/3 of NYC residents want a new investigation, or they don't.

Maybe Christianity is a derivative religion based on pagan predecessors. I don't care when I'm talking about 9/11.

That's the problem with Zeitgeist. It not only asks people to see things about 9/11 that they have trouble seeing, it also asks them to believe a host of tangential and controversial ideas.

Spot on

Stay on topic. Unless you can make a tangible, non-speculative point that supports 9/11 Truth directly.

Example: the war in Iraq was possible to sell because of 9/11--supports our assertions of flag flag events, how they are used and demonstrates why they are a bad thing. So supporting anti-war sentiment helps 9/11 Truth.

Chemtrails, UFOS, etc...not so much.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


"I agree with Jenny that Zeitgeist seems like an attempt to alienate Christians from 911 Truth."

This analysis is totally wrong.

People who watch Zeitgeist will not be evangelical Christians. The people watching like the movie, and there are LOTS of them. From the Google numbers, it looks like this movie will challenge Loose Change as the greatest Internet movie in history, to date.

Zeitgeist is opening totally new markets for 9/11 Truth. It is not really a 9/11 Truth movie primarily, as it only has 35 mintues out of 2 hours on 9/11.

People are interested in Christianity. A huge proportion of Christians these days are "liberal" type Christians who don't really believe all the miracles in the Bible anymore, but value some of the traditional morals of Christianity.

Debunking Christian miracles has been going on since the scientific revlolution& the Enlightenment. And now modern scholars are debunking the Bible based on analysis of the texts.

Go into Barnes & Noble, and go into the theology sections. There are HUNDREDs of books being published by scholars all over the world looking for the HISTORICAL JESUS. These books used to be controversial, but really aren't anymore. Time magazine runs stories like these on their front covers ferquently.

Please google "Jesus Seminar". You'll see.

I haven't seen Zeitgeist but

I haven't seen Zeitgeist but this review is obviously just another predictable hit piece against the 9/11 Truth Movement. And Zeitgeist itself sounds like a work of propaganda designed to alienate religious people from the movement. But religious people and spiritually minded people ought to feel right at home in our movement. After all, one of our chief spokesmen is David Ray Griffin, himself a Christian theologian. Nothing wrong with that.

The reviewer engages in the same old shopworn sophistry that other writers of hit pieces utilize: sweeping pronouncements about one or two central claims of the Movement, coupled with sarcasm and ridicule. For example, he writes that the video evidence of controlled demolition, which is part of a very analytical ARGUMENT, based on science (e.g., Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis), exemplifies our tendency to believe that our senses can never lie to us. Yet as someone who has read numerous books and literally hundreds of web articles on 9/11, I have yet to fine ONE instance of someone who claims that "because it looks like demolition, it MUST be demolition." What I find are people who argue that the video evidence is compelling, especially when coupled with what we know about the fires, the rapidity of the collapses, and the strength of structural steel.

Zeitgeist had to include

Zeitgeist had to include Christianity and religion in general because the whole point is the use of mythology to control the masses. If it offends you to have religion exposed as mythology then defend your position with some evidence. Oh, right, there is none, just belief.

Religion is the opiate of the masses, and Zeitgeist makes the point that we can't get free of the controls of organized mythology, whether from the government or the Vatican, until we see those myths as myths.

I found the movie uplifting in the end. The overall message seemed to be that we have to eventually reconnect with the natural world and the power and value witin each of us. The time is only Now and the power is only Love. What's wrong with that?

BTW, I was raised as a Roman Catholic. By 15, while attending a Catholic High School in Brooklyn, and trying my best to believe, I just couldn't take all the contradictions and bigotry (and accepted yet horrific Old Testament violence) in the teachings, dogma and the Bible. I left all religion and never looked back. I was released.

The Internet bred the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

That is correct. Perhaps if the German people had the net back in the thirties Hitler never would have risen to power. The internet is the one thing the NWO boys failed to take into account when they brought us 9/11. It was a fatal blunder. I have always maintained the internet will be their undoing. It sure looks like I was right. This "hit piece" is just another feeble attempt at damage control. The truth about 9/11 is self-evident.

Zeitgeist is either disinfo

Zeitgeist is either disinfo or about the stupidest thing out there.

As people have already said, it completely alienates a large percentage of this population. Is that an accident? I doubt it, but whatever the case, it's bad news. Remember the first time I saw it and immediately thought, Oh crap, wait till the media picks up on this and can associate it with the "Christianity-is-bogus" thing...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Makes you angry.

I agree with someone that posted earlier, spend your time spreading "safe" movies like 911 Mysteries, Press for Truth, etc

Here's an exchange I had with the editor regarding the article:

-----Original Message-----
From: (me)
Sent: Sat 8/18/2007 3:43 AM
To: Webseven
Subject: Your article regarding 9/11 conspiracies

I must respectfully disagree with your commentary regarding "conspiracies" (a word which has gained negative connotations for the people who believe that our governments are NOT working in our best interests), and I will be brief:

1. 9/11 could not have taken place without the coordination of many failures on the part of the US government and its branches that day. I say coordination very strongly because without the lack of response by the military, without the bizarre behavior of Bush that day, and many other strange occurrences, it would not have been likely that this rag-tag group of arabs would have been able to tie their own shoes, much less disable such a superpower so easily and strike 75% of their intended targets. We are not as gullible as that (despite your criticisms of those of us who refuse to be lied to anymore).

2. The truth about the Federal Reserve and it's ominous auspices has been around for a very long time; it has been a hidden history of this country (as so many countries have their history hidden from there own people - never for reasons which would benefit the people, I'm afraid). That we are inching closer and closer to this one-world government is a fact, and your denouncing the talk of it as "conspiracy theory" can only lead me to believe that you are a disinformation artist, a purveyor of newspeak, whose intent is to dispel the "rumors" so that people will go about milling with their lives, and fall asleep again. Not a chance.

3. I must repeat myself: conspiracies are around, and they occur every single day, on all different kinds of scales. You people will continue to try to "debunk" our theories with rags like Popular Mechanics (part of Hearst's "yellow" journalism - so reliable a source) when in fact, it is PM that is full of holes and contradictions.

We want the truth, and we know we are not getting it from this bunch. Neither are we getting the truth we want from the likes of publications such as yours.

Shame on you.


Webseven wrote:

I keep hearing the same arguments over and over, and they're still not making sense to me. Why is it so hard to believe that low-tech warfare struck the US when a band of low-tech insurgents have tied down the entire US Army in Iraq for years? Or the Soviet army in Afghanistan before it? The power of asymmetrical warfare has plenty of precendent.

Also, what would my motivations be as a purveyor of newspeak, etc, etc? Why would I draw attention to a conspiracy theory movie, thus ensureing hundreds of new viewers for it, if I wanted to suppress the truth? Why would I ruin my own weekend with piles of abuse from people I don't know?

Would be interested to hear your perspective...

Thanks for your response. It's not that it couldn't be possible to infiltrate the US system and perhaps catch a weakness or two within it in order to cause mass chaos and destruction. But not all - how are these low-tech insurgents, as you call them, able to keep the US Airforce, for example, away from them for reportedly the entire time they are airborne? Officials knew almost immediately what was occurring, yet pilots were sent off in different directions, at slower speeds than usual, in what appears to be a concerted effort not to reach these targets in time to stop them...the US population would have understood the sacrifice of the passengers (who were killed anyway) but would have applauded the military and the government for saving the country from the horror it was to witness that day. Yet they didn't.

Now, this fact alone doesn't prove anything, but coupled with all the other anomalies and strange events taking place that day, the scientific anomalies, the behavior of the government (especially Bush and his protectors), the fact that the Patriot Act was ready and waiting in the wings, the fact that the war in Afghanistan was ready to go on 9/10, and that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion long before 9/11, well, I could go on...all of this screams for open discussion. And, since the "investigations" so far have yielded very very little in the form of answers, nor accountability for those who may or may not have dropped the ball before and since that day as it relates to our security, it opens the door to people like me (joined by millions around the world) who don't believe anything that this government says about anything, but especially about 9/11.

I understand that you wish to conflate the debacle in Iraq with 9/11 and our "incompetence". Well, an army is only as good as it is prepared to be, I suppose. And they knew way in advance before the invasion that it would not be a cakewalk. In fact, the first thing they were told to secure were the oil fields. (Mainstream news.) They had no interest in securing the country nor bringing freedom. The fact that these insurgents have been able to hold on against us for so long is not a reflection of the soldiers, but of their command, which is lacking in its concern for their wellbeing, and certainly for the innocent Iraqis that their invasion has killed, injured or displaced. This war is a money game, that we are quickly losing.

Now, I tried to be as civil as possible, and if I have insulted you, I apologize. Having said that, I must tell you that, in your review of Zeitgeist, your tone is demeaning and condescending. And yes, you will probably ensure a lot more viewers than it might have had otherwise, yet some of those viewers will watch it with preset notions, instead of with open minds. The whole point of a film like this one and so many others before it is not to convince or recruit (as we are accused of all the time), but to open discussion. Where will the discussion lead? Well, an open forum of ideas is always a good thing; and people will have varying points of view about this and any other subject you bring forth. Where is the harm in that? The harm I see is the lumping together of people (in the US, my home country) who have finally awakened to the reality that has been slowly creeping up on us, and refuse to be lied to anymore. We want others (even yourself) to do the research we have done, and draw your own conclusions, even if they disagree with ours. But mostly, we want a new, independent investigation in the events of 911. We do not believe that it happened as we are told it did, and we know (and even perhaps you know) there are plenty of folks out there who act as apologists for this administration - why is it so hard to believe that they wouldn't be able to secure the same for their "explanations" of this horrible event?

I am certain that you have gotten a great deal of angry emails regarding your piece. I am sorry for that, but perhaps you should read some of the works done by people like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and other scientists and engineering professionals. Broaden your horizons and see if you really really think that we're all wrong about 9/11. Zeitgiest is a just a movie made by some young person on the internet, but, IMO, is meant to make you think, and open your mind to want more information. Simply, that is how I began to learn about all of this.

When I said you wish to engage in newspeak, what I meant was that you are following the lead of so many others before you: setting the tone for the discussion based upon opinion and even perhaps emotion, and that label of "conspiracy". Conspiracies happen each and every day. Who has made sure that the use of the word when dealing OUTSIDE of the legal system, is synonymous with crazy, tin-foil hats, and lunatics? The media, of course. With a little help from the US government.

RE: editors article ....stella pena

Thank you so much for taking the time to skillfully address the editor...much appreciated!

took the red pill......still down the rabbit hole

Love it or hate it, Zeitgeist is getting 40- 50,000 views per da

Love it or hate it, Zeitgeist is getting 40- 50,000 views per day.

For that reason I love it.

Some hate Loose Change 2 E for its imperfection but it has brought millions worldwide to the realization that 911 was an inside job.

For that reason I love it.

We should celebrate all moves in the right direction.

The religion portion of Zeitgeist shows deception to control and how far back and how widespread, which is the overall theme of the film

Dear Ivor, In your article

Dear Ivor,

In your article you wrote:

"The funny thing about this stuff is that it's all been thoroughly debunked for years."

This statement either accidentally ignores large categories of 9/11 Truth questioning or is ignorant of them in a purpseful fashion. You don't need to buy into ideas of phantom planes or controlled demolitions to be skeptical of the official story of 9/11. You need look no further than money trails leading back to Pakistan (that were never investigated by the U.S. government whatsoever) to realize that something's rotten in Denmark (not literally, those folks are fine people).

But you don't seem interested in covering that aspect in your story, do you? It's easy to write inflamatory pieces about who believe wild sci-fi-esque stories with flimsy evidence and make it seem like you're smart and on the correct side of the story. You should know as you just published one such remarkable piece. But that's like teasing a child, or beating a mentally disabled person at chess, and it is not only easy but cheap and shameful.

If you're interested in doing some actual investigatory reporting I'd be glad to read it. The article in question, however, will currently line the bottom of my bird cage.

Perhaps if the so called comprehensive and unbiased 9/11 Commission didn't do such a vague, half-assed job on their report these people wouldn't have so many holes in the story to stitch together with alternate theories. The fact that WTC7 isn't mentioned once in that report is mind bogglingly insane and is akin to a report of the Kennedy Assassination lacking any mention of the Lincoln Continental that drove him down through Dealy Plaza that day.

Zeitgeist folly

I knew that it was only a matter of time before the trash that is Zeitgeist blew up into a legitimate criticism of the 911 Truth movement. Anyone who has spent any time in scholarly level studies of religious, and specifically Christian, history, realizes that Part 1 of that movie is pure fantasy. Anyone who can search Wikipedia will be able to refute the many errors proposed by the film. I find it highly ironic that the first voice to appear in Part 2 of the film is that of David Ray Griffin, a seasoned Christian theologian, who would, in an instant, dispel the nonsense presented in Part 1.

The problem with Zeitgeist is that Part 1 demonstrates that its creators do not know how to do history, or how to engage in critical historiographical study. Speculation and imagination, not to mention manipulation of data, replace careful historical research, resulting in a pot of indefensible tomfoolery. And if their presentation of religious history cannot be trusted, then there is simply no way that anything else that they have to say can be trusted. After all, 911 truth is nothing if not an exercise in historiography. Even if you happen to believe that Christianity and all religion is mythological, or irrational (a point which I would certainly dispute, though I leave that for another forum), we cannot permit shoddy scholarship as shown in Zeitgeist to stand alongside legitimate concerns regarding the events of 9/11.

If the 9/11 Truth movement is going to mature into a credible voice that is able to compel the masses into questioning their fundamental presuppositions about their governments, movies like Zeitgeist need to be resoundingly repudiated as detrimental to the cause.

Varying opinions of what just happened!

"Part 1 of that movie is pure fantasy. Anyone who can search Wikipedia will be able to refute the many errors proposed by the film."

ok, where is a better forum for this debate? because you can't just say crap like that and not defend it. What was fantastical in part one of Zeitgeist? enlighten us,. . or where you just reacting from gut-ego deffensive 101? Yeah a lot of people just plain don't buy the whole religion thing,. me is one! not just your christ idol,. the jewish,. 'we are gods chosen people' load -o- crap,. the muslem 'kill the non belivers' line stinks as well,. . all of you people of faith have no rational arguments because you beileive in fairytailes,. the invisible man in the sky,. ? Sure, there may be some unified consiouseness that gives rise to all of existance,. but it aint no god talked about in the religions that PEOPLE MADE UP!!! If you, or I; ever get to an elevated level of consiousness where we see the face of god, im sure this debate will seem quaint. Till then, what was fantasy? What errors? It was film. you know,. . moving images with sounds attached,. you expect it to BE reality,. it is art,. an interpetation, an opinion,. well there it is ,. the reason humanity just cant' make reality work,. we all have varying opinions of what we just experianced,. god help us.


JPH. Your spelling leaves a little to be desired but you have made 2 very insightful points that get to the very foundation of the whole reality/belief concept.
"Sure, there may be some unified consiouseness that gives rise to all of existance,"
"the reason humanity just cant' make reality work,. we all have varying opinions of what we just experianced,."
It's OK, philosophy trumps spelling:)

The problems of historiographical method

First of all, let me address the comments of Nunyabiz who (twice) claims that Part 1 is backed up by archaeological fact. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that confirmed archaeological evidence reveals that there are parallels between the ancient deities and Jesus, then that is one thing. There is justifiable basis for making this claim (even though Zeitgeist dramatically overstates some of this evidence, in several cases to the point of contradicting the available evidence). However, if you are claiming that this evidence proves that the portrait of Jesus presented in the biblical documents is derived by copying other ancient mythologies, and that there are no other plausible sources for these features, then some caution is definitely warranted. Any archaeologist or historian worth his/her salt studiously avoids making claims that anything is proven, regardless of the level of scholarly rigor that they have exercised or the quality of the evidence that they have been able to generate. This latter stance is tantamount to little more than intellectual bigotry, and serves only to expose the archaeologist's or historian's bias.

As for the comments of jph_wacheski, my concern here is with historiographical method. I am not going to try to prove that the picture of Jesus presented in the biblical documents is historically accurate, especially given what I have just stated above. What I will say, though, is that the Zeitgeist Part 1 presentation lacks evidence of the use of valid historical method. It is important to emphasize that correlation does not necessarily imply causation or continuity. It is simply intellectually fallacious to imply that since there are characteristic parallels between Jesus, and say, Horus, that the story of Jesus is dependent upon and derived from the story of Horus. Any anthropologist of religion will tell you that there are frequently common or similar beliefs shared by different cultural groups who have no historical evidence of prior contact. The fact that such cultures share similar beliefs may suggest something about human "spiritual ontology" or about some form of universal epistemology, but it does not prove adaptive borrowing of ideas from one religious system to another.

In order to establish Zeitgeist's thesis, they need to do more than simply suggest that there are similarities between Jesus and other ancient deities. They need to demonstrate the mechanism of transmission of these ideas; that is, how did the Egyptian mythologies become incorporated into the Jewish or Hellenistic cultural mindset of the first century, which is the cultural milieu out of which Christianity arose? What documentation can you provide that demonstrates that these ideas were salient and sufficiently common to have been broadly accepted by the masses hungry for a new religion? (And it is quite doubtful that the masses were indeed desirous of a new religion, which makes the historical emergence of Christianity all the more problematic for Zeitgeist adherents.) What motivation may the writers of the New Testament have had to try to incorporate pagan concepts into their portrait of Jesus? My research into the foundational Christian documents is strongly suggestive that the theological and cultural basis for the New Testament is much more deeply rooted in the Jewish religious culture than in the Hellenistic culture of the first century, though the latter certainly leaves an unmistakable imprint upon those writings. However, documentary evidence of the influence of other religious or philosophical systems is virtually non-existent. Jewish religion, no matter how syncretistic it may have become within some sects, remained fiercely monotheistic in all of its expressions. How does one explain the readiness of these fiercely monotheistic Jews to embrace a savior who was modeled upon the the deities of the pagan polytheistic religions of those cultures perceived to be the historic enemies of the Jewish peoples? Anyone who chose to propose such ideas in that context would have been quickly run out of town, and probably conveniently disposed of. Until proponents of the ideas foisted upon us by Zeitgeist begin to wrestle with these issues, we simply have to take them with a grain of salt.

I have responded with some detail because the viability of 9/11 Truth demands that we exercise extreme diligence in our use of historiographical method. Zeitgeist is a prime example of how not to do it. Unfortunately, it is only one of many examples. I have seen too many times, someone finding a little piece of information, and immediately jumping up and down saying "This proves is. They did it!" We need to exercise all of our critical faculties to resist such temptations. We need to carefully examine all pieces of evidence. We need to be prepared to engage with all the data, especially when it appears to contradict some part of our working theory. We need to be prepared to abandon our preconceived ideas if they fail to explain all the data. Sometimes it will hurt, but exposing the truth demands it.

Then prove to me

with ANY viable and contemporary evidence that this Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.
You cant, because there is NOTHING what so ever. The Jesus story is exactly the same as Horus, or Hercules, Apollo etc. The Character of Jesus is "allegorical", the majority of the NT is just an Astrological drama written in the old pagan passion play style.
Jesus = The SUN
Mary = Virgo
John the Baptist = Aquarius
The 2 Fishermen = Pisces
and so on.
There are over 200 "similarities" between Horus Vs Jesus some of those are absolutely Identical.
I could go on & on with some extremely long diatribe here proving you dead wrong and showing exactly how the character of Jesus is simply an allegory and not historical but number one you will refuse to accept it anyway and number 2 its likely all that time would be totally wasted because of this moderated censorship so I have no intentions of doing so here.

As I have stated in other post I will give anyone $1000 for each and every shred of contemporary evidence that any such person as Jesus of Nazareth existed. I have looked long and hard for such evidence for over 30 years and have found zero. Jesus exist only in the mind of those that swallow the Christian dogma, but in reality he is no more real than Santa Clause or Hercules.

Zeitgeist does a good job of showing how ridiculous religion is, how it is a total lie believed by billions, a complete hoax that so many believe so deeply that they would actually kill to defend.
The poor deluded people we all face everyday that have been duped by this administration and that top 1% of the power elite with the help of the mainstream media are exactly the same as those duped by religion. They will defend this delusion to the death, there are at least 30% of the US population that can not be swayed no matter how much solid irrefutable evidence you put in front of them they are unreachable, they are minions in the Church of Bush.

I'll pass on the $1000

So "the Jesus story is exactly the same as Horus, or Hercules or Apollo, etc." is it? Logically, then, the stories of Horus, Hercules, and Apollo are also identical in all respects. Absurd. Absolutist statements like this are functionally equivalent to the most extreme of statements that come from those religious fundamentalists that you so vociferously disdain. It merely points out that your belief system is just as narrow as those who uncritically swallow the Christian dogma.

You can keep your $1000 (not that you would ever part with it in the first place, no matter what evidence was presented to you). Until you are prepared to take seriously the issue of historical method, and agree to a means of evaluating the veracity and validity of historical documents, then I'm afraid that very little can be achieved in an online debate with you.

when I say exactly the same

I am referring that they are allegorical tales of fancy not REALITY. You misunderstand as usual.
I have proven it to myself and many others well beyond any reasonable doubt, I have researched this for over 30 years.
I have zero doubts, and I know there is no way you can present any evidence for the existence of any Jesus because none exist.

You may keep believing in your fairy tales all you wish, I will stick to factual reality.

Actually Part 1

is dead on and is backed up by archaeological fact (I have researched religion especially Christianity for over 30 years) You are clearly religious thus sadly you are incapable of accepting this fact.
Same reason those that refuse to accept 9/11 truth do so....Fear, Brainwashing, Cognitive Dissonance. Which is exactly why Zeitgeist uses part 1 to show this phenomena.

There is a subtle difference

I think there is a difference between religous belief and whether or not one can accept the fact that criminals in their government could have pulled off 911 with the evidence which can be shown refuting the official narrative of 911.

To attack the 911 perpetrators lie about 911 by attacking people's hope that there is an afterlife seems like a real hard sell, the long way around, and possibly one that can't even be made.

What one chooses to believe about an afterlife can not be proven one way or another, it is pure faith, and anyone who doesn't realize that is foolish. However, the narrative of the 911 attacks can be shown to be full of holes and inconsistencies and motives for it can be shown to reside in this country.

Zeitgeist is going way out on a limb that is entirely unnecessary and will in fact cause people to reject it as many have a need to yearn for an afterlife, who otherwise could accept that there are in fact criminals within their own government.

After afterlife is proven, then they can work on proving this 1

I certainly agree that attacking people's religion or lack thereof is generally an extremely bad idea -- except of course when it is for some reason really necessary. Otherwise such attacking is usually simply a sign of sophomoric over-exuberance in an "I-know-everything" kid (of any chronological age.)

I would disagree, though, with your statement that "What one chooses to believe about an afterlife can not be proven one way or another, it is pure faith----" Actually exactly such-like research by many serious eminently qualified scientists is a booming area of science, and has been for several decades. (life-after-death, telepathy, power of prayer/meditation to cause physical change, clairvoyance, etc., etc.) So the science isn't in yet on whether "an afterlife can not be proven one way or another."

Obviiously of course your main point stands: Only mad dogs and -- well, mad dogs -- could believe in the OCT fairytale.

The quote below from THE MIRACLE DETECTIVE is for folks here who keep stating categorically that spiritual/religious experiences and events do not exist.

To those who remain unbelievers after having read the site it is from: don't MAKE me copy&paste the whole site and present it right here on this stage!


....The voices of several seers can be heard on the tape next, asking, "Dear Madonna! Are You glad that the people are here?" A moment later they called, "She is smiling. She is glad."
"Dear Madonna!: they asked next. "How many days will You stay with us?"
"As long as you wish," was the Madonna's answer, the seers reported a moment later.
"Will You leave a sign?" one of the seers asked next.
"I will come again tomorrow," was the Virgin's only answer, according to the children, who began to repeat more or less the same questions they had asked the day before: "What wish do You have for us here?" ("That you have a solid faith and that you maintain confidence.") "What do You expect of the people who have come in spite of the brambles and the heat?" ("Let the people believe firmly and not fear anything.")
"Will we be able to endure all this?" one of the seers asked. "Many people persecute us because we 'see,''" explained another.
"You will be able to endure, my angels," the Madonna answered, according to the children. "Do not fear. You will be able to endure everything. You must believe and have confidence in Me."
The seers then made a startling request. Motioning to Dr. Glamuzina, they asked, "Could this lady touch You?"
" There have always been unfaithful Judases," the Madonna answered. "Let her come." While the breathless crowd watched, Vicka helped the young doctor place her hand on the Madonna's long veil. "She is touching Her," the seers began shouting a moment later, then, "She left! She left!"
Dr. Glamuzina reacted visibly, wearing an expression that thrilled some but frightened others: She had seemed to experience a sort of electrical shock, those closest to her said. The doctor herself described what she felt as "a shudder." She stood awestruck for a moment, then turned and began to stagger back down the hill. At the base of Podbrdo, Dr. Glamuzina told the waiting police she would have nothing further to do with their investigation, then refused to say another word about what she had experienced....

9/11 Truth Ends War

We Are Entitled to Miracles

Emailed to 2500 opinion-shapers weekly
Please post and forward as appropriate

T H E * S I L E N C E * O F * T H E * B I R D S

Excerpts from
An Investigation of Holy Visions (2004, 450 pages)
by Randall Sullivan, investigative reporter;
contributing editor to Rolling Stone

....The physician who spoke to me most personally, however, was Dr. Marco Margnelli, a neurophysiologist who came to Yugoslavia during the summer of 1988 convinced that previous charts of the seers' brain functions during their visions had been faulty. A specialist in altered states of consciousness and an avowed atheist, Dr. Margnelli arrived in Medjugorje, he admitted, looking for "any evidence that would contradict it or expose it as a fake." The doctor conducted an array of medical tests on the visionaries, but seemed almost uninterested in the results by the time he returned home and granted an interview in which he described the seers' visions as "a genuine state of ecstasy."

"As a scientist, I can only declare that the children really pass into another state of consciousness -- a condition that one can also reach through meditation techniques, such as auto-training, though not as profoundly," Dr. Margnelli explained. He would not presume to describe this state the seers entered, "but we were certainly in the presence of an extraordinary phenomenon. Whether we are dealing with an authentic apparition or something else we cannot explain and I cannot say. It is a question I prefer not to put to myself."

Only a moment later, though, Margnelli added a statement that would startle his colleagues: "Since returning from Yugoslavia, I have been thinking about it continually and I confess, I also ask myself NONSCIENTIFIC questions, such as what the meaning of the whole thing can be." Dr. Margnelli then described a series of events to which he had been witness, from the "synchronous movements" of the visionaries to the apparently miraculous healing of a woman with leukemia. What had affected him most deeply were the birds: during the late afternoon, they would gather in the trees outside the rectory where the seers shared their apparitions, chirping and cooing and calling by the hundreds, at times deafeningly loud, until they suddenly and simultaneously all go silent as soon as the apparition begins. This "absolute silence of the birds" haunted him, the doctor admitted.

A few months after returning to Milan, Dr. Margnelli became a practicing Catholic.


Bush Taps Preachers for Martial Law Support

Submitted by "GeorgeWashington" on
Created 2007-08-16 10:34
[ GW's comment: We need to Do Justice to counter those who would use Hitler's tactic of citing Romans 13 to force martial law down people's throats. ]...

Prison Planet and Shreveport, Louisiana's KSLA news have the goods.

A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to "quell dissent" and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation....

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared....

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."...

The report entertains the scenario of martial law as depicted in the movie The Siege and states that "quelling dissent would be critical."...

[ Screenshot from the KSLA 12 news article that accompanies the video report ( ]

So there you have it - Homeland Security are working with local police departments and religious leaders to prepare for the declaration of martial law and in particular developing techniques they will employ during the crisis to "quell dissent."...

Source URL:


We Thought We Were Free: 9/11 Was Our Reichstag Fire

Was September eleven 2001 our generation's Reichstag Fire? Read Thom Hartmann's intro to and excerpts from THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FREE, and see.



Striking at The Bush Crime Family's Weakest Link

Washington state's own federal representative (1st district) JAY INSLEE very recently, along with a group of fellow former prosecutors in the House, introduced a resolution to begin investigations for IMPEACHMENT of Gonzo GONZALES. A good place to start, we think. Whether they can keep it going or not, it is moving in a good direction, and puts anti-impeachment Reps on the spot while facing their constituencies during this recess.


Rev. Rich Lang's Bold Call for Action on 9/11/07
By Reprehensor
Created 2007-08-05 07:50

....The empire has promoted our trance largely through the mechanism of stealing our voice, distorting our voice, controlling our voice, and then silencing our voice through shutting us out of the Corporate run media. So I say we should take our public assembly straight to them. It is in the graveyard of our media outlets, where once there was life, but now only death and distortion. I call upon us to gather in groups of tens, of hundreds, of thousands, and on Tuesday September 11th , the 6th anniversary, I call upon us to engage in several direct actions at each of the major Corporate media outlets: Seattle PI, King 5, KOMO, FOX etc etc etc …these direct actions will be public exorcisms acknowledging the name of the demon: the growing tyranny that has been inflicted upon our land....

On Tuesday September 11th I call upon "we the people" to gather in a series of direct actions to perform public actions exorcizing the fear of tyranny from out of the citizenry. I call upon us to make a noise and find our voice....

* Reverend Lang is Pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle.

Source URL:


Spread the word about the
G E N E R A L 911 S T R I K E


Get Up Off Your Meditation Cushion and Fight for 9/11 Truth
By GeorgeWashington
Created 2007-07-30 16:03

If you are a spiritual or religious person, please excuse the title ... it is meant to be catchy, but is not -- as you'll see below -- meant to denigrate prayer or meditation....

Source URL:



Put Your Name in the Congressional Record in Support of Impeachment

Rep. Dennis Kucinich wants to put the name of everyone who supports Dick Cheney's impeachment in the Congressional Record!

The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress. It is published daily when Congress is in session and is fully searchable.

Every day that Congress is in session, Rep. Kucinich will submit 5 single-spaced pages of names with states, which is the daily limit under House rules. To be included, all you need to do is submit this petition.

If you follow the link provided you'll find a form requesting your name, address, AND A BRIEF PERSONAL COMMENT. Here is YOUR opportunity to put your name on record throughout history as not only supporting
impeachment but, for example, expressing the woeful inadequacy of the investigation of 9/11.

I'd recommend keeping it short, to the point, CIVIL and accurate (that is, not speculative).

Source URL:


P R A Y F O R 9/11 T R U T H


CINDY SHEEHAN: Twin Towers' Collapse Looked Like Controlled Demolition
Created 2007-05-31 18:01



click over to

"Squandering money has never been so much fun":



Published on
Loose Change Press Release: Stop Threatening Free Speech, Release Date for Final Cut....

Source URL:


to 9/11 Truth:


Would 9 Military Officers Lie in The Tillman Coverup?
Would an Attorney General Lie about Political Firings?
Would a President Lie about WMD?
Would a Bear Go to The Bathroom in The Designated Wilderness Area?



Get Radio Active

U.S. Being Awakened from Media-induced Coma by AIR
AMERICA RADIO: Find your station HERE:


To be removed from or to subscribe to this free
Enewsletter list please email with
REMOVE or SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
And if you don't like our news go make some of your

Founder 2002: Johannieson & Friends
Editor: Myra M. Jackson

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have illegaly read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.

If you're going to post this long...

You may as well blog it, luv.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

zeit geist/rat poison

Dont get me wrong..I love AlexJones 's steamy passionate comitment but he is just as CONDITIONED as you and me......the whole point of confronting distortions and mis - information is really looking at it square in the face ....yes ALEX thast means your born again conditioning.......Zeitgeist honesty probes into the alogorical/symbolic tapestry of pre-christian myths and opens it wide.....BRAVO.....even with all my catholic/christian indoctrinations and conditionings ( i was an altar boy>>>lol...and also "spoke in tounges")..its not easy to fully swallow ..........if you really want the truth u have to fully let go and disolve all of your pre programmed dis-information that lives and circulates in the sub-concious mind bad to u really want to know the TRUTH is the question we all should ask.......

The 911 movement is a strong movement and is getting stronger.....people smell a rat and are finally waking up...thank u internet!....The 911 movement is divided as well........alot of "truthers" are being hatched out of Alex's websites.....and are bible swallowing born again Christians who are fervently waiting for the rapture and for Jesus to float outta the sky........ to the later i ask of you...........dont just stop at 911....question reality or should i say the illusion of it...............these are questions that require alot of pondering and self introspection.....(a very uncomfortable task)....not so easy in this accelerated modern crazed world.......

Zeit geist KICKED ASS!...even if it does push my pre-conditioned buttons......isnt that where real growth can start

took the red pill......still down the rabbit hole

Atheism can be as fanatical as any other religion

Simply because you had an apparently unhealthy relationship with Christians/Christianity and were fortunate enough to grow out of it, does not mean that those who have a meaningful and positive relationship should heed your "truth." about religion. Some antireligion people can be as fanatically antireligious, as religious people can be fanatically religious. Fortunately the fanatics in both camps are probably in the minority.

9/11 Truth Ends War

except that the

"fanatically anti-religious" have truth & factual reality on their side not faith in mythology.

Basically the same as trying to compare Young Earth Creationist lunatics Vs 99.8% of the Scientific Community and claiming they are both the same because they are "fanatical in what they believe"
When in reality what you have are on one side (YEC) Delusional Psychotics without a shred of evidence Vs the Scientific Community with overwhelming mountains of empirical evidence to support their case.
This is also the same scenario with the Reich wing nuts that ignorantly believe the Official Conspiracy Theory Vs 9/11 Truth.

The 2 sides are NOT the same.


Dont get me wrong..I love AlexJones 's steamy passionate comitment but he is just as CONDITIONED as you and me......the whole point of confronting distortions and mis - information is really looking at it square in the face ....yes ALEX thast means your born again conditioning.......Zeitgeist honesty probes into the alogorical/symbolic tapestry of pre-christian myths and opens it wide.....BRAVO.....even with all my catholic/christian indoctrinations and conditionings ( i was an altar boy>>>lol...and also "spoke in tounges")..its not easy to fully swallow ..........if you really want the truth u have to fully let go and disolve all of your pre programmed dis-information that lives and circulates in the sub-concious mind bad to u really want to know the TRUTH is the question we all should ask.......

The 911 movement is a strong movement and is getting stronger.....people smell a rat and are finally waking up...thank u internet!....The 911 movement is divided as well........alot of "truthers" are being hatched out of Alex's websites.....and are bible swallowing born again Christians who are fervently waiting for the rapture and for Jesus to float outta the sky........ to the later i ask of you...........dont just stop at 911....question reality or should i say the illusion of it...............these are questions that require alot of pondering and self introspection.....(a very uncomfortable task)....not so easy in this accelerated modern crazed world.......

Zeit geist KICKED ASS!...even if it does push my pre-conditioned buttons......isnt that where real growth can start

took the red pill......still down the rabbit holetook the red pill......still down the rabbit hole

I agree that Alex Jones does

I agree that Alex Jones does important work but that throw-back apocalyptic/Revelations/satanist bullshit really is discrediting.

No section for reader comments

As is becoming the norm for hit pieces. But, as they say...any publicity is good publicity.

My response

Just the Facts

Mr. Tossell,

I read your conspiracy theory article regarding the Zeitgeist film series. I felt the need to respond.

1. The first makes the case that Jesus is a mythological figure built from parts of earlier mythological figures. Christianity, say the filmmakers, is a concoction, just a form of social control.

Since Christianity is based on faith and there is NO evidence to verify any of the claims made in the Bible, I would say that believing in God, his son Jesus, or any of the bible's verses, would be a myth or a conspiracy theory if there ever was one!!!

2. The funny thing about this stuff is that it's all been thoroughly debunked for years. Everyone from Scientific American to Popular Mechanics have produced reports puncturing the central claims of the 9/11 theory, and when you look gullible next to Popular Mechanics, you know you're in trouble.

The 9/11 Popular Mechanics article was prepared in part by senior researcher Benjamin Chertoff who is the cousin of Michael Chertoff - Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I think most readers would consider his involvement as a conflict of interest. The article has been thoroughly debunked by David Ray Griffin. I would recommend that you read his book because supporting Popular mechanics makes you look "gullible".

3. That's the thing: Conspiracy theorists want to see a guiding force, a malevolent design, behind events. The notion that calamity might be the unintended consequence of subtler causes doesn't hold the same appeal. Evil, whatever its other uses, drives a great narrative. Complexity, not so much.

The above quote more closely refers to the official US government story citing that allegedly former CIA asset Osama Bin laden and 19 of his associates (working on their own) managed to outsmart nearly every US government agency in order to accomplish their goals on 9/11. The official story is much more of a conspiracy theory than what the majority of the 9/11 truth movement believes.

4. I see people who are highly selective about facts, and who are ready to write off opposing views as the bile of powers that be. I see them using the Web's echo-chamber to create a place where they're right, and everyone else is wrong.

What about the highly selective "facts" that have been claimed in the the official story. Why are they credible? This is a government that has been caught lying and attempting to cover up their illegal activities for the entire Bush term. Why would anyone accept the administration's explanation for what happened on 9/11 (as a fact) when they have proven again, and again, to lack credibility when it comes to telling the truth.

I'm not sure what I believe about the US government's participation in the crimes committed on 9/11. I do know that neither the official story nor the 9/11 Commission Report hold up under scrutiny. I believe that the nearly 3000 citizens that were murdered on that day deserve a thorough and impartial investigation. I'm grateful to the numerous researchers whom have placed their personal and professional lives in jeopardy in an attempt to get at the truth.

Waiting for response.

Brilliant response JTF. I hope Mr Tossell has the cojones to respond to all the feed back he has received on this article. From what I have read the overwhelming majority has been articulate, polite and intelligent, including the readers comments here.
It's tempting to believe that 9/11 Truth is mainstream when these types of responses come from READERS of Canada's conservative voice of the business establishment. Obviously Canadians are better informed than they/we show.

Did you look at the video link with Tossell's piece?

I sense that is his version of a response to criticism. He interviews the proprietors of a Toronto bookstore devoted to "conspiracy theory". Even they recommend looking at 9/11 theories.

The poll
(scroll down halfway, poll's on the right-hand side)

If you haven't voted yet, do so now.


come on people cant let these wingnuts think they are in the majority.