>> Part One:

I never once said that Christianity didn't take from other religions, in fact I've mentioned else where on the site that it both Judaism and Christianity take heavily from Zoroasterism, as well as the Babylonian religion, which is almost certainly where the idea of angels and so forth come from. My analysis of Zeitgeist wasn't to talk about anything other than whether or not what Zeitgeist was saying was true or false, which is made perfectly clear on my site. Nice work, buddy.

>> Part Two, 9/11

Please tell me how anyone mentioning a "New Pearl Harbor" proves 9/11 was an inside job. How does it prove followers of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri didn't fly planes into buidlings? Oh wait, it doesn't. If PNAC was such a powerful organization as to be able to pull off 9/11 with thousands of operatives (which it would have taken), why did it fall apart and end up just a web site and a guy responding to voice mails? Where's the process of transformation you mention? It was a neo-conservative thinktank, and if you read about neo-conservatism, they did believe fear helped keep society in check, but it proves dick.

>> Part Three

Yes, the constitution gave congress the power to mint coins, but guess what, the Federal Reserve exists outside congress for that very reason. So please tell me how it's unconstitutional. The only people who claim it's unconstitutional, are the types of people who think any laws beyond the constitution are somehow unconstitutional, except for those enacted by congress. Ironically, of course, they always fail to recognize that the Federal Reserve Act was approved by a majority of Congress and passed, which follows their own rule requirements for what is "constitutional" -- usually they reconcile this by lying and claiming that only a few people actually voted on it, while in reality congress was in session and nearly every single person was there.

You do a great job at contradicting yourself, on the one hand you essentially claim Congress is printing money (doing something other than minting coins) and therefore it's unconstitutional, but then you say the "private" Federal Reserve is doing it. So, which is it? Is it Congress or the Federal Reserve? Before you respond, if you say that Congress is doing it via the Federal Reserve, you're also then claiming that the Federal Reserve isn't the private monster you conspiracy theorists claim it is.

Plus the claim that it comes out of "thin air" shows you know nothing at all about Keynesian economics, but I didn't have to really guess that, as your other "research" makes it pretty clear you automatically believe anything against the status quo, even if there's no proof what so ever. So, just admit it, you care more about rejecting the system and idealizing a time that never existed, rather than finding the truth. Imagine that, I was able to explain my own positions without linking to Yahoo Answers, conspiracy sites with no sources, or something I'm surprised you didn't do, YouTube videos. I can think for myself, obviously you let other people do your thinking for you.

Nice sources: Yahoo Answers; a conspiracy site which provides zero sources for their claims; and a blog post that talks about The Creature from Jekyll Island. You're quite the scholar.

This email is rife with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And you need a lesson on why not all sources are equal, or in the case of your whodidit.org source, why you have the inability to tell good information from bad information. This is something frequently discussed on my site.

Well, first of all, I changed it to 99.999%, does that make you feel better? No matter what, I am 100% sure though, that you will still spread your PNAC garbage, despite the fact that in this email you completely ignored how you were unable to provide a single shred of evidence they were talking about 9/11.

If I told you my cousin is St. Claus, would you blindly trust me? You know there is absolutely no way for me to automatically believe you or verify what you say. I've heard "my cousin/brother/sister/mother/father/etc worked in/at/on WTC/HAARP/Chemtrail Planes" time and time again: proof? Nothing other than their word of course. I'm sure you have proof, of course, they were told this.

You're doing what's called "confirmation bias." The sound of an explosion doesn't equal explosives. For example, some of the very few explosions heard were almost certainly the massive gas tanks inside the buildings, especially WTC7 exploding due to the fire. That doesn't mean that they were rigged with explosive -- explosives of course which you can't ever proof exist, because they don't.

Actually, any physics major would tell me that the official NIST report is accurate and that people who watch YouTube videos aren't more qualified than actual scientists. I love how conspiracy theorists use things like "any [insert here] can tell you that [whatever] looks like [this]."

I'm sure you have proof of explosives, you know blasting caps, residue, sounds of explosives going off (as the buildings fell), etc. I'll be waiting with bells on for that.

It was not at free fall speed, Jesus, it's like you're just parroting crap from 2005. Everything you've said has been completely debunked for at least 5 years now.

Cheney was not conducting anything at NORAD, especially not an attempted attack on WTC; that's not true. If it is true, I'm sure you can provide a primary source. There is no coincidence because it didn't happen.

No he didn't, I'm sure you're going to provide me with the falsely attributed quote. Thomas Jefferson was skeptical of all banking in general, and he was skeptical of why an agrarian economy would need a central bank -- plus Jefferson was also a slave owner, I guess you think that's a good idea too since he was apparently infallible. Guess what, that was 236 years ago, the country and economy is vastly different now. What worked for economies based largely on farming would collapse under economies based largely on industry. That's because farming stays largely static in size and yield, expanding slowly, while industry can double easily in 5 years, or half in the same amount of time. Gold backed currency could not expand fast enough for that. There isn't enough gold on the entire planet to represent the value of property in the US alone -- so it won't work anymore.

What spotlight is that exactly? Did you email me in order to share in my spotlight? Apparently.

I'm still waiting on proof that PNAC has anything to do with 9/11, or of course you to admit you were wrong -- like I said, I bet you'll just keep repeating it.