View Full Version : Fahrenheit 911
koolking1
06-25-2004, 03:18 PM
Pretty decent movie
but he's preaching to the choir, hope it works though but the alternative seems dismal to me. Call me Mr
Optimism!!!
a.k.a.
06-26-2004, 04:36 PM
Pretty decent movie
but he's preaching to the choir
I must be in the choir, because I think it rocks.
I laughed, cried,
cheered, cursed and left the theater feeling like I’d really gotten my money's worth. (No small compliment given
today’s ticket prices.)
Of course I would never recommend this to anybody that honestly believes W is doing a
good job for national security. I imagine anybody coming at it from that perspective would experience this film as a
relentless barrage of lies and slander, viciously aimed at a man that is only doing his best under the worst of
circumstances.
But if you’re even the least bit skeptical about the views being broadcast on the major news
networks, this film will give you something to think about. At the very least, you will see the faces of those who
profit most and those who suffer most from Bush’s policies. Hopefully this will motivate people to ask
“Why?”.
All politics aside. I think it was an excellent piece of film-making. Moore crammed a lot of
information and opinions into a relatively short time frame, and (unlike his previous films) he did it in an easy to
follow and systematic manner. There were many evocative moments, expertly captured, and an artful balance of
seemingly incongruent emotions. Very tight editing, quick paced, and extremely provocative.
It’s a shame that
only 800 some theaters are showing it. (I also feel the R rating was undeserved: two minutes of rock lyrics that
would have earned a Parental Advisory on CD and images of war that are no worst than the stuff being broadcast on
every major news outlet outside of the US.)
Holmes
06-26-2004, 04:53 PM
Pretty decent
movie but he's preaching to the choir.
Precisely.
I think it was an excellent piece of
film-making.
Yup.
metroman
06-26-2004, 04:59 PM
Nice review AKA!
I
guess its not objective analysis like I had said on another thread but I wouldn't go so far as to say its
propaganda as I've heard numerous times from major media outlets. The embeded journalists were as close as you
could get to organised government propaganda while the so called "major combat" portion of this war was taking
place. I'm chomping at the bit to see this movie...
Whitehall
06-28-2004, 10:22 PM
I read
a review of F-9/11 in the local alternative weekly. As a liberal, trendy tabloid, it was laudatory, of course, but
largely on political common ground.
The author did quote Pauline Kael, the renowed movie critic and author
of "I Lost it at the Movies" in her review of an earlier Moore movie, "Roger and Me". She admitted that she had
some laughs at Roger Smith, the then CEO of General Motors and target of the film.
"But the film I saw was
shallow and facetious, a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing."
That's the way I felt too about "Roger and Me" and why I'll not see F-9/11.
metroman
06-29-2004, 12:22 PM
I just thought I'd throw this
into the mix...I agree with Icke in that it doesn't go far enough in exposing the multitude of holes that the
"Official Stroy" has in it...Where is the exposure of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) paper drafted by
the neocons and their stated need to have a "New Pearl Harbor" to initiate their imperialist agenda?
FAHREN-HYPE 9/11
MOORE MOVIE BIGGER ON PROMOTION
THAN CUTTING EDGE CONTENT
By David Icke
I've just watched the Michael Moore documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, on its first day of public screening in the
United States.
First of all it is great to see that information kept from the people, basic as it is in this
documentary, is being made available to counter some of the massive bias in the mainstream media. To Americans who
know nothing about the political and media manipulation it will be a revelation, but those who have done a modicum
of research will find little here to increase their awareness.
The documentary misses an enormous
opportunity to reveal the true scale of the conspiracy behind 9/11 and current events. It reveals that Bush is a
lazy, incompetent fool; that the bombing of Iraq caused horrific civilian casualties; that US troops are being
killed and maimed to defend an invasion justified by a Big Lie; that the parents of those civilians and troops
suffer unspeakable emotional trauma from losing their loved ones; that Bush was scammed into power at the last
election; that the Bush family has serious connections to the Bin Laden family and the Saudi royals; and that the
corporate cartels make fortunes both from supplying the weapons to destroy cities and infrastructure and then by
're-building' the devastated countries and seizing control of their resources, like oil.
All this
information needed to be included, of course, but it is widely available either by scanning a vast stream of
Internet sites or often even through some parts of the mainstream media. In the case of Bush being a lazy,
incompetent fool, you only need your eyes and a few brain cells.
I have seen BBC documentaries about the
government/media slanting of the invasion of Iraq and the way the U.S. authorities are targeting the poor and
jobless to join the military that tell the same story that Moore does.
Yes, it is good that Americans are
getting a chance to see such material, but to justify the colossal hype this documentary has received it surely
should have gone much further and produced background that would never be found in any mainstream media source.
After all, it cannot be claimed that such information is not available to Michael Moore.
Most disappointing
was the way he accepts and perpetutates the official 9/11 story that it was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden via 19
Arab terrorists, mostly Saudis, who learned to fly jumbo jets at one engine, two-seater, flying schools. This is
blatantly ludicrous and the information to expose such nonsense can, once again, be found at a long list of 9/11
websites and books.
In fact, I sent a copy of Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster to
Michael Moore some 18 months or so ago when he was speaking in London. Some of the most basic information in the
book and on the Internet is included in the film, but the most important background to 9/11 is not even
mentioned.
As with Bowling for Columbine, Moore picks an easy and obvious target while often massively
missing the point. Getting rid of Bush is not going to change anything except the rhetoric and the presentation. The
agenda will continue whichever of them should win. Where was the fact that both Bush and Kerry are initiates of the
same elite and Skull and Bones Society, for example, which both refuse to talk about?
Any suggestion that
Iraq was about more than just oil and money or that there is a conspiracy behind world events is not even mentioned,
except for one contributor who tells us that there is no conspiracy to control the world. It is all just about
money, he said.
Where was the story of the Project for the New American Century and its document that sets
out the very agenda for global conquest involving Iraq, Iran, North Korea and China, etc., which the Bush
administration has been slavishly following since it came to power under the control of the very people behind the
PNAC? Where was the fact that the document said a year before 9/11 that its agenda would be slow to unfold 'absent
some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor' and that after the 'new Pearl Harbor' of 9/11
those horrific attacks have been used to rapidly advance the PNAC agenda?
These were among many such glaring
omissions.
I am delighted the movie is out there, disappointing as I found the depth of research, but the
danger is that people will think they now know the information that has been kept from them and therefore fail to
realise that Moore has about 2% of the real background to global events and control. Or that they will focus
themselves on targeting and removing Bush when he is just a puppet and Kerry would be another.
Outside the
theatre where I watched the documentary there were activists seeking to use it to attract support for anti-Bush
campaigns and to register to vote when the system is so rigged that voting is a quaint irrelevance.
Michael
Moore could have used his high public profile and film-making resources to show people the far more fundamental
background to global control, the emerging global fascist state, and the real road to freedom.
Instead,
unless people realise this is only part - and a small part - of the story behind global events this movie will lead
them into another cul-de-sac.
Fahrenheit 9/11 could have been a fantastic contribution to human understanding
of the forces that manipulate the global population. Instead, I thought it was far too timid, limited and
one-dimensional.
It is worth seeing if you know nothing of the world beyond the official story, but what an
opportunity lost.
metroman
06-29-2004, 12:27 PM
Welcome back Whitehall! Your
presence was sorely missed! :)
Holmes
06-29-2004, 12:50 PM
So what course of action would Mr.
Icke have us take in November?
metroman
06-29-2004, 01:39 PM
So what course of
action would Mr. Icke have us take in November?
Vote for Sponge Bob Square
Pants...:)
Seriously dont vote...If nobody votes it a stands as a referendum that the current system is
completely broken & bankrupt. I love it when MTV & these other outlets try to instill a sense amongst the
population (especially the young)that to "vote" is fulfilling some kind of prideful civic duty and that we should
feel proud as Americans to have this glorious privilege...
First off: The people vote for electors in the
Electoral College & they decide who is going to be the next head of state, not the people...& secondly the whole
thing is rigged which was evidenced the last time around in 2000.
To be honest I really dont know what
Icke's personal stand on Nov 2004 is, these are just my own feelings on the matter.
DrSmellThis
06-29-2004, 01:54 PM
Obviously there wasn't going
to be enough conspiracy theory in the film for Icke. He has killed whatever potential his own ideas might
have had for people by stubbornly attaching them to "lizards"! He should make his own film with all that.
Yet,
there really aren't enough "alternative" news items in the mainstream media. This is an obvious, huge
problem in our culture (not only ours). The amount of truly first-rate and crucial information about our current
government that we haven't been exposed to, and yet should be, seems truly vast to me -- way moreso than for any
other administration in my lifetime. My family in the midwest seemingly knows of no reason to be angry at our
government for anything, and they "watch the news" every night. Alternative information is a bit easier to come by
in the Pacific Northwest.
Farenheit seems an important film for and within the current world dialogue, and
apparently a well-made film, judging from the reviews so far. Staying in touch with the current national and
international dialogue should be enough of a benefit for those who see it. I'd think anyone who likes to stay open
minded would want to consider the alternative information it offers as well.
But I can understand that
conservatives have been tempted to prejudge it as "worthless propaganda and lies". I'm saddened that Moore has
mishandled some information in the past, as Whitehall points out; as this "Karma" is subtracting from the potential
impact of Farenheit.
Still, I'll be seeing the film soon.
koolking1
06-29-2004, 02:46 PM
It's definitely worth
seeing but for someone who does read the alternative news widely available on the internet, it will seem somewhat
lacking in many respects. We still need a viable 3rd party and it seems that once again I'll have no one to vote
for. I did vote in the Dem primary but that too was wasted. Perhaps to make a point, it might be a grand idea to
have a vote for "nobody running".
metroman
06-29-2004, 06:34 PM
Obviously
there wasn't going to be enough conspiracy theory in the film for Icke. He has killed whatever potential his
own ideas might have had for people by stubbornly attaching them to "lizards"! He should make his own film with all
that.
I love it when the Lizards get singled out for so much incredulity...Let me see: Jesus,
Mohammed, Jeovah, Buddah, Lizards...they're all equally plausible as far as I can see...
I liked some of
"Bowling for Columbine", Moore's gun control screed (I've been waiting to use that word)...Obviously the grilling
he gave Charleton Heston at the end was a bit overkill & I think it backfired on him...Overall I think all of Moores
flicks are meant as a "tounge in cheek" treatment of some very serious issues...I think he does this in attempt to
engage as broad an audience as possible, but he risks coming across as being condescending, so I think he does
alienate some...
Personally I'm against gun control...Hitler, Stalin & most dictators were & are in favor of
it because the last thing they want is an armed populace able to defend themselves...
Whitehall
06-29-2004, 06:57 PM
For
those of you who have seen or plan to see F-9/11, compare it to "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Reifenstahl. The
latter is probably the most renown (and notorious) propaganda film ever made.
Setting aside the issue of
subject personalities, "Triumph" is a more honest, better-made film!
Holmes
06-29-2004, 09:14 PM
"Triumph of the
Will" by Leni Reifenstahl.
Hard to beat. (Subject personalities aside.)
DrSmellThis
06-30-2004, 12:20 AM
I can't disagree, because I
haven't seen either film. ;)
einstein
06-30-2004, 03:27 PM
I saw Micheal Moore on the Tavis
Smiley show last night. It was nice to see an intelligent, humble liberal on TV. Much better than Al Franken,
whose main goal is to piss off conservatives rather than do anything productive. Moore also has the lastest PLayboy
interview, which I haven't read yet. I might after seeing him last night.
I LOVED the thing! Didn't tell me
anything I didn't know but... sure was good hearing it from Moore! Good thing we bought our tickets on line, BTW--
long lines, sold-out shows.
Don Tego
06-30-2004, 05:58 PM
Well here is a movie coming out
this summer on Moore. Interesting huh! http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/images/smilies/ls/rofl.gif
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com (http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/)
Well here is a movie
coming out this summer on Moore. Interesting huh!
http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/images/smilies/ls/rofl.gif
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com (http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/)
Yeah..
I think there's a book too.. "Michael Moore is a Dumb Fat White Guy".. somethinh like that.
Holmes
06-30-2004, 06:27 PM
Well here is a
movie coming out this summer on Moore. Interesting huh!
http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/images/smilies/ls/rofl.gif
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com (http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/)
Yeah,
the anti-Moore film festival. It had to happen.
These people should show their movies at one of those popular
Christian heavy metal festivals I've been hearing so much about.
manchorito
07-01-2004, 09:46 AM
MICHAEL MOORE IS A COMPULSIVE
LIAR. This is not hard evidence, but if you think about it, it's like whenever he doesn't get his way, he makes up
some lie to make those people look bad. This was said on the Howard Stern Show, just summarized:
Moore had a
contract for financial backing for the movie, and the Republicans put pressure on the guy to pull out, and he did.
But then Miramax (a Disney company) came in and financed the movie, but Disney later said they wouldn't distribute
it. Moore revealed for the first time that Disney has ties to the Saudi Royal family.
AMAZING! He works with
Disney and never tells anyone about their "connections" but now that they don't produce his movie, Disney all of a
sudden has a connection to the Saudi Royal family. It seems to me that all of Moore's enemies are friends with the
Saudi Royal family... geez Michael, if you're going to make up a lie (when doesn't he?) at least change them up a
little.
It said that he told Stern that he tried to reveal this before, but they were edited out. How
convinient, another stupid lie.
Holmes
07-01-2004, 11:14 AM
COMPULSIVE
LIAR....if you think about it, it's like whenever he doesn't get his way, he makes up some lie to make those
people look bad.
Sounds a lot like the current administration.
(Just add oil.)
Gossamer_2701
07-01-2004, 12:21 PM
Sounds a lot
like the current administration.
(Just add oil.)
Those damn lizards..... I guess ya just can't
trust anyone these days:think:
DrSmellThis
07-12-2004, 02:59 AM
Just saw the movie.
As far as I could tell, the point of the documentary was something like this:
We cracked a window and let in a
predator. It really happened.
George W. Bush is absolutely jacking off with the bodies, lives and freedoms of
the innocent; here and abroad. Indeed, our Earth is nothing more than fuel for Mr. Bush's gas-powered pocket pussy.
And his circle of jerks.
With every arrogant word, this predator's eyes betray, and scream soulless,
sinister bluster of historic proportion. It is all a joke in his viral mind.
There is Hitler; Mussolini;
Stalin.
Bush.
Good, gentle people of America, wake up. Wake up and be strong. In this situation
your political preference shouldn't matter. Your children, and the rest of the human race need you. Now.
Notwithstanding past criticisms, Moore seems essentially beyond reproach in this well documented,
sickening, and excellent film.
Please see it if you haven't!
metroman
07-12-2004, 03:56 PM
Just saw the
movie. As far as I could tell, the point of the documentary was something like this:
We cracked a window
and let in a predator. It really happened.
George W. Bush is absolutely jacking off with the bodies, lives
and freedoms of the innocent; here and abroad. Indeed, our Earth is nothing more than fuel for Mr. Bush's
gas-powered pocket pussy. And his circle of jerks.
With every arrogant word, this predator's eyes betray,
and scream soulless, sinister bluster of historic proportion. It is all a joke in his viral mind.
There is Hitler; Mussolini; Stalin.
Bush.
Good, gentle people of America, wake up. Wake up and
be strong. In this situation your political preference shouldn't matter. Your children, and the rest of the
human race need you. Now.
Notwithstanding past criticisms, Moore seems essentially beyond reproach in
this well documented, sickening, and excellent film.
Please see it if you haven't!
Very
succinct synopsis DST...I agree with your comments...
This is a good country full of good people who would be
appalled at what really goes on in our name within the international community...It's time for the good people of
this country to take it back!
Whitehall
07-13-2004, 12:38 PM
"There is Hitler; Mussolini;
Stalin.
Bush."
This is pure poppycock! The strategic problems facing the USA are real and dangerous.
We've sat on our thumbs for over a decade while the cash payments for our increasing addiction to Mid-East oil are
funding a group of people eager to kill and subjugate us all.
Worst, our increasing demand for energy and the
increasing competition from other rising societies will be making the crisis arising from oil's depletion that much
more painful. We are approaching a point of inflection in human history and Bush's active strategy is the best
idea out there for dealing with it.
I've never met a perfect political leader and never will. Bush is not
perfect but is our best hope.
Likening Bush to the great evil men of the 20th century shows a lack of
critical thinking and an adolescent emotionalism.
DST, I expected better from you.
DrSmellThis
07-13-2004, 01:48 PM
Well, I honestly felt a little
sad making that post, Whitehall, in part because I knew that would be your reaction, and I hate making extreme
statements due to the divisions they evoke. But I have to call it like I see it sometimes, and there is
currently a crisis; an emergency. I don't think it's lack of critical thinking, though it may well be "outside the
box" critical thinking. I don't like the quality of available information in conservative culture in recent years,
and I don't recommend anyone to fish from that news pond. I've tried to see Bush's side of it throughout (though
I don't trust his presentation that is it is really his own side of it), but Moore's film did help me put together
some things in my own mind that did get the emotions flowing. Rather than "adolescent", the emotions are an
approproate adult reaction to Bush sending so many people to their deaths for essentially narcissistic
reasons. Further, he just literally let Bin Laden go. He's not "trying", and is not concerned with anyone else's
best interest. He has ruined our relationships with the rest of the planet, most of which was our potential ally
(That was one 9/11 opportunity he blew big time.). I am a human being and have strong emotions about these kinds of
things. He is a corrupt, selfish, personality disordered man with a lot of power, not a mere Republican with
policy differences! (Incidentally, as a psychologist with a lot of experience working with the mentally ill, I can
see pathology clearly in his eyes, mannerisms and posture! Get a DSM-IV and look up Axis-II disorders.) He is
not a Colin Powell (who I'm suprised hasn't resigned) or Jack Kemp. The war was not just a mistake on Bush's
part. I made a mistake when I gave him the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't just the CIA's fault. They were
telling him what he essentially ordered them to. It was all deliberate from the beginning. I voted for Reagan for
"strategic threat" reasons, since Soviet nuke missiles were pointed "everywhere and it's neighbor"; but in this
case I cannot see where Bush represents hope in that regard, to put it mildly. Bush has been resoundingly
ineffective in fighting terrorism, due to his narrowness, small mindedness, lack of conscience, and narcissism.
Terrorism has unequivocally gotten worse. The Bushes, their businesses, their politics, and their interests have
long been funded by Saudis (e.g., the Bin Ladens), who own close to 7% of this country(!), mostly in energy (e.g,
the Bush family's oil companies) and communications investments (hence someone's Disney comments in the other
thread). Whose best interest does Bush hold? Energy is your field, and I very much respect that you have some good
information on it. I listen to your opinions. I do know we're too dependent on foreign oil, and that the
supply/demand situation is coming to a crisis. Our relationships with those who produce oil have not improved,
though. We do now have greater access to Afghani and Iraqi oil and natural gas, as we invaded those
countries and installed governments, but that is hardly success in the big picture, and the long-term picture, of
energy. But it also should not just be about energy and oil.
a.k.a.
07-13-2004, 03:30 PM
We've sat on our
thumbs for over a decade while the cash payments for our increasing addiction to Mid-East oil are funding a group of
people eager to kill and subjugate us all.
Worst, our increasing demand for energy and the increasing
competition from other rising societies will be making the crisis arising from oil's depletion that much more
painful. We are approaching a point of inflection in human history
At least you understand what it’s
all about. The industrialized world has been enjoying a technological boom since Rockefeler dug his first well.
Today practically everything that defines our standard of living (from food, to clothing, to shelter, to tourism and
entertainment) is dependent on cheap, plentiful oil. Someday, of course, it’ll all run out. Very soon (I’ve read
estimates ranging from 2 -10 years) demand is going to exceed supply (measured in terms of how quickly it can be
pumped out of the ground — not actual reserves).
What used to be a buyer’s market is destined to be a
sellers market. Naturally, the oil rich Arab nations can’t wait.
I’ll give the devil his due. At least Bush
HAS a comprehensive energy policy. Clinton never even bothered. He’s even thrown some money into research and some
tax credits for alternative technologies.
The first problem is that the whole package is premised on a
significant rise in US demand. You and I have already had the conservation debate (If I may sum it up, you believe a
significant reduction in current consumption rates is unrealistic, I believe current consumption rates are
unsustainable — and consequently unrealistic in the long run.), so I won’t beat a dead horse. Let’s just agree that
this aspect of the Bush plan does not in itself make him a Hitler. But, given the fact that there simply won’t be
enough to go around, this does imply a problematic attitude towards the rest of the world.
When military
strategists start talking about “Full Spectrum Dominance”, and when you dig through the DOD & Pentagon web sites to
figure out what this is about, you discover that this administration is fully determined to rule the planet. To have
its greedy little hands into every little pie. That’s one giant step closer to Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini.
“Fascism” comes from the Italian word “fascio” meaning “bundle”. The symbol for Mussolini’s party was a bundle of
sticks tied around a big axe. This was supposed to symbolize the nation’s most powerful industries tied together
around an all-powerful military. Look at how the Bush administration has welded energy interests to military
expansion and you’ll find another big similarity.
After WWII a bunch of old Nazis went to trial for
attacking their neighbors without provocation. Many of them denied that they were the aggressors, claiming that they
were making a pre-emptive strike against potential threats. Just like Bush did with Iraq.
Stalin instituted a
program whereby neighbors were encouraged to report suspicious individuals to the KGB. The Office of Homeland
Security has instituted a similar program.
Stalin invented the detention center (where political undesirables
can sit and rot with no hope of legal recourse), Hitler made it infamous. The Bush gang has given us Guantanamo and
the Iraqi internment camps.
Hitler and Mussolini dissolved the parliament. There was a recent vote on a House
bill (HR 4754) that sought to block a section of the Patriot Act that lets authorities get special court orders
requiring book dealers, libraries etc. to surrender records — such as book purchases and internet sites visited on a
library computer. Bush threatened to veto it. The initial vote was 220 for and 200 against. But GOP leaders kept the
vote open for 23 minutes beyond the customary 15 minute roll call while they persuaded 10 Republicans to toe the
party line and change their vote. Consequently the bill failed.
Do we really want to see what another four
years of this administration might bring?
DrSmellThis
07-18-2004, 04:12 PM
While I asserted that Fahrenheit 9/11 was meticulously documented, a few of you suggested it might be
largely untrue.
So for everyone who still wonders about the factuality of Moore's documentary, here is a list
of journalistic references, respective to the factual context of each major moment in the film; provided by the
filmmaker. A virtual narrative account of the film, it is a fascinating read in it's own right (though the actual
footage adds an immeasurable amount, of course).
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
metroman
07-18-2004, 05:25 PM
I'd heard that Fahrenheit 9/11
was well documented. I'm glad they did this...
Dubya is hopefully history in Nov...Baring some last minute
trickery like postponing the elections or bringing up Bin Laden from the White House Basement :)
I'd heard that
Fahrenheit 9/11 was well documented. I'm glad they did this...
Dubya is hopefully history in Nov...Baring
some last minute trickery like postponing the elections or bringing up Bin Laden from the White House Basement
:)
The Bin Laden theory is what I've been hearing.
DCW
Whitehall
07-18-2004, 11:36 PM
Where
would Kerry take us? Into the busom of the UN and the arms of the French? PLEEEZE!
Could Kerry deliver bin
Laden when Bush's command of the US military could not? (Frankly, OBL is more than likely some red splatter
someplace and will never be found.)
Would a Kerry energy policy be any better than Clinton/Gore's? At least
Clinton had surplus natural gas to push - that's all gone now. And please don't argue for "renewables" - what
some politicians (Kerry and other Democrats largely) are really offering is "something for nothing" - an ancient
ploy. As an energy specialist, the only way we've gotten any "renewables" is to make them a form of corporate
welfare.
Can we prevent future terrorism attacks with NO additional restraints on the most open society on
earth?
The answer is that Kerry only offers us wishful thinking and empty promises. We are faced with a
world-historical challenge and only Bush has a realistic strategic plan. We voters had best realize that this is
war and the fate of Western civilization depends on our decisions.
Watching a Michael Moore propaganda flick
is hardly responsible preparation for deciding November's choice.
Besides, the betting odds are better than
3:2 Bush.
Sacogoo
07-19-2004, 01:05 AM
<<We are faced with a
world-historical challenge and only Bush has a realistic strategic plan.>>
You're joking, right?
I
mean, seriously.
Bush the only guy with a "realistic" and "strategic" plan?
That's a joke.
Right?
And what's the plan? To go on an another 30 day vacation, get drunk as hell and bash his mellon on a
coffee table as he passes out while Satan's minions Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice rape the world so that
they can get fat ass year end multi-million dollar bonus checks once they get re-hired by oil companies and defense
contractors after they get ousted in 2004 or get thrown to the street due to term limits in 2008?
<<We voters
had best realize that this is war and the fate of Western civilization depends on our decisions.>>
What war?
That we illegally invaded two countries that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and pissed off every
single human being in the known universe that doesn't watch the Fox News Network means we're at war? If you can
constitute that we are at war (and Appointee Bush has already stated a year and a half ago that major "conflict" was
over, so we can't possibly be at war, can we?), then the only reason we are at war is because the Bush
administration started the frickin' war in the first place.
It ain't about political parties at this
point. It's about doing what's right.
Give me one single, solitary point where anything that this
administration has done has actually benefitted Americans other than corporate cronism and military
spending?
How's the environment?
How's the deficeit?
How's the economy?
How's the forclosure
rate on small businesses?
How's the education system? (NCLB)
How's the medical system?
How's your
personal freedom? (Patriot Act)
It's a freakin' scam and everybody knows it. I'm completely pissed, and
I'm a white, middle-class, honorably discharged US Army Infantryman, college grad, who typically votes
conservative.
Pissed.
Way pissed.
Now listening to: Rock Against Bush "Volume 1"
Whitehall
07-19-2004, 04:19 AM
Hey, Sacogoo, you can be just as
pissed as you want - I'm sure you're enjoying your self-indulgent emotionalism.
Obviously, my understanding
of the facts and issues differs considerably from yours.
But if you don't understand that a big bunch of
well-funded murders wants to make you bow to Mecca tive times a day - or kill you if you won't - then you're
blind, dangerously so. And it's not just al Queda.
If we pull back inside our borders, they will still come
at us. You can't win playing defense and you can not deter. The only route is take it to the enemy - that is,
change the Middle East.
We're in this foxhole together, remember?
As to the rest of your complaints,
the environment is OK, getting better - there is argument about some details. I'm good with closing all those old
coal plants, BTW, even if Bush thinks they are truly grandfathered under existing law. The economy is doing great -
not a phoney boom, but the start of a steady growth phase. Education - the Federal government should do less, not
more. I look to my local school board, not Washington. The deficit is truly bipartisan - don't you recognize
Keynesian stimulation?
So just what does Kerry offer? Sorry, but so far all I've heard is contradictory
mush from that guy.
DrSmellThis
07-19-2004, 06:45 AM
Way to take on all them pot smokin liberal commies, Whitehall!
EeeeHaaaw! Yep, we'd all be wearin head towels if it wasn't for Mister President Bush goin after Bin Laden with
all them troops. He's a manly Commander Chief! War hero if'n I remember correct! Much better than that little
girlie fly-boy wimp, Kerry! Just take over the whole damn middle east! Just in case. We got the guns, may as well
use 'em! Karma Schwarma! Get it? Hee Hee! Human Shuman! I love that trickle down economics too. You only have to
look at one statistic! Look how good our economy's doin! Oops, damn! That was one of them adylescent emotional
outbursts again. I just couldn't resist a little self-indulgent emotional outburst, with all the liberal wacky
tobbacy I've been smokin' (oops, shouldn't have said that on line, thanks to the Patriot Act. the Feds'll be
here any minute!), but I'm learnin' from those God fearin Republicans how to be more selfless. And hell, the
planet's going to be uninhabitable anyway, lets just have fun burnin up the rest of the oil. Give everybody a
Humvee! And don't go seein that well documented pack of lies 9/11 thing. Wouldn't want to interfere in all your
open minded info gatherin' your doin to study for the election! :rolleyes:
Whitehall
07-19-2004, 07:14 AM
Way to take on all them pot smokin liberal commies, Whitehall! EeeeHaaaw! Yep, we'd all be
wearin head towels if it wasn't for Mister President Bush goin after Bin Laden with all them troops. He's a manly
Commander Chief! War hero if'n I remember correct! Much better than that little girlie fly-boy wimp, Kerry! Just
take over the whole damn middle east! Just in case. We got the guns, may as well use 'em! Karma Schwarma! Get it?
Hee Hee! Human Shuman! I love that trickle down economics too. You only have to look at one statistic! Look how good
our economy's doin! Oops, damn! That was one of them adylescent emotional outbursts again. I just couldn't resist
a little self-indulgent emotional outburst, with all the liberal wacky tobbacy I've been smokin' (oops, shouldn't
have said that on line, the Feds'll be here any minute!), but I'm learnin' from those God fearin Republicans how
to be more selfless. And hell, the planet's going to be uninhabitable anyway, lets just have fun burnin up the rest
of the oil. Give everybody a Humvee! And don't go seein that well documented pack of lies 9/11 thing. Wouldn't
want to interfere in all your open minded info gatherin' your doin to study for the election!
:rolleyes:
Takes me back to some of my more spirited debates with FTR. At least she gave
good phone sex.
Gossamer_2701
07-19-2004, 10:05 AM
The answer is that
Kerry only offers us wishful thinking and empty promises. We are faced with a world-historical challenge and only
Bush has a realistic strategic plan. We voters had best realize that this is war and the fate of Western
civilization depends on our decisions
:rofl: OMG.... What a crock'o'shit!!!! Keep spewing that
cokehead's useless partylines....sad thing is that you actually believe that crap!!!:rofl:
Sacogoo
07-19-2004, 10:05 AM
But if you
don't understand that a big bunch of well-funded murders wants to make you bow to Mecca tive times a day - or kill
you if you won't - then you're blind, dangerously so. And it's not just al Queda.
Don't try to
use that McCarthyism BS to justify an illegal invasion of two countries that had nothing to do with the September 11
attacks. The hard sell of the Communism Domino Effect by the military industrial complex in the early 50's is what
got us into the Vietnam fiasco, but I guarantee you that this line of crap ain't gonna work this time. Bowing to
Mecca. That culture doesn't have the mentality, organization, or social structure to be anything more than a base
tribalistic society rather than the organized imperialistic world conquerers that the hard core neo-cons are
painting them to be.
Well funded murderers. Are you referring to the U.S. military? The Saudis? Because
the people who I see committing the murders, attacks, and crimes against humanity (such as illegally invading two
countries which had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks and killing ten of thousands of innocent civilians
in the process, or being the country of origin of the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks) are those
groups.
<<The only route is take it to the enemy - that is, change the Middle East.>>
Yeah, that's
terrific foreign policy. Let's manipulate and influence and change foreign countries just for the benefit of
American corporations and . Worked wonders for us in setting up the Central American Banana Republics, East Asia
(remember Vietnam at all? Korea to this day?), the Middle East (Shah of Iran anyone?). This type of foreign policy
of corporate imperialism has only created the type of resentment and hatred from foreign countries that we tried to
"change" that culminated in the September 11 attacks against the US. Nobody is bombing Canada or Finland, because
they are smart enough to keep their noses out of everybody elses business.
<<We're in this foxhole together,
remember?>>
If you are supporting an administration that committed illegal, pre-emptive invasions of
countries that had no involvement in the September 11 attacks we're not. If you are supporting an administration
who not only condones, but conducts torture, illegally detains people with no charges, and violates the Geneva
conventions we're not in the foxhole together. If you are supporting an administration that came to power without
a majority of the popular votes (and electoral to all you Hamiltonians out there as it has been shown repeatedly
that if the supreme court did not halt the recall, Gore would have won Florida and the electoral college - we
already know he won the popular vote) then we're not in the same foxhole together.
<<Education - the
Federal government should do less, not more. I look to my local school board, not Washington.>>
Too bad
Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation has basically removed any potential for your local school board to
regulate themselves, and will be the ruination of public education. (Even hardcore conservative states like Utah
are decrying this horrific piece of legislation.)
<<As to the rest of your complaints, the environment is OK,
getting better>>
Whoa ho! Better? That's rich! Bush has been labled as the worst environmental president
in history. Hell, he makes Regan and James Watt look like tree hugging squirrel lovers.
<<The economy is
doing great - not a phoney boom, but the start of a steady growth phase.>>
Bush's economy:
* I shattered
the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
* I set an economic record for most private
bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
* I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period.
* I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the US stock market. In my first
year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
<<So just
what does Kerry offer? Sorry, but so far all I've heard is contradictory mush from that guy.>>
Anybody but
Bush in '04. If he gets re-elected, I swear to the powers that be that I will pack up my daughter and move out of
the country. He isn't going to get one more tax dollar out of me so that he can fund and run his fascist regime of
illegal global corporate imperialism. The only appointment that the Bush/Cheney ticket deserves in '04 is ajoining
cells in the maximum security section at Leavenworth with 300 lb. rapists (with a penchant for anal sex) as
cellmates.
Now listening to: Pink Panthers Penthouse Party
koolking1
07-19-2004, 01:18 PM
you guys could do what I do
and that's whenever I'm discussing politics with anyone I now refer to Bush as "Appointee Bush" instead of
President.
DrSmellThis
07-19-2004, 01:31 PM
It's not clear who could've
"appointed" him, either. A Supreme Court can't. Maybe we should call him "spilled milk" and look to the future.
belgareth
07-19-2004, 01:36 PM
It's not
clear who could've "appointed" him, either. A Supreme Court can't. Maybe we should call him "spilled milk" and
look to the future.
A rational comment, Doc? I may have to delete it as being off topic. :)
DrSmellThis
07-19-2004, 01:47 PM
Yep, gonna have to go back to
all that "irrational" posting of exhaustive documentation. ;) I admit there have been some emotions in the thread,
but that is part and parcel of the subject of Bush, for some reason; hugely moreso, here and abroad, than any
president in any of our lifetimes -- even in the history of the US. Why??! :think:
belgareth
07-19-2004, 01:50 PM
OK, a rational comment about
politics in this thread.
metroman
07-19-2004, 04:31 PM
Don't try to use
that McCarthyism BS to justify an illegal invasion of two countries that had nothing to do with the September 11
attacks. The hard sell of the Communism Domino Effect by the military industrial complex in the early 50's is what
got us into the Vietnam fiasco, but I guarantee you that this line of crap ain't gonna work this time. Bowing to
Mecca. That culture doesn't have the mentality, organization, or social structure to be anything more than a base
tribalistic society rather than the organized imperialistic world conquerers that the hard core neo-cons are
painting them to be.
Well funded murderers. Are you referring to the U.S. military? The Saudis? Because
the people who I see committing the murders, attacks, and crimes against humanity (such as illegally invading two
countries which had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks and killing ten of thousands of innocent civilians
in the process, or being the country of origin of the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks) are those
groups.
<<The only route is take it to the enemy - that is, change the Middle East.>>
Yeah, that's
terrific foreign policy. Let's manipulate and influence and change foreign countries just for the benefit of
American corporations and . Worked wonders for us in setting up the Central American Banana Republics, East Asia
(remember Vietnam at all? Korea to this day?), the Middle East (Shah of Iran anyone?). This type of foreign policy
of corporate imperialism has only created the type of resentment and hatred from foreign countries that we tried to
"change" that culminated in the September 11 attacks against the US. Nobody is bombing Canada or Finland, because
they are smart enough to keep their noses out of everybody elses business.
<<We're in this foxhole together,
remember?>>
If you are supporting an administration that committed illegal, pre-emptive invasions of
countries that had no involvement in the September 11 attacks we're not. If you are supporting an administration
who not only condones, but conducts torture, illegally detains people with no charges, and violates the Geneva
conventions we're not in the foxhole together. If you are supporting an administration that came to power without
a majority of the popular votes (and electoral to all you Hamiltonians out there as it has been shown repeatedly
that if the supreme court did not halt the recall, Gore would have won Florida and the electoral college - we
already know he won the popular vote) then we're not in the same foxhole together.
<<Education - the
Federal government should do less, not more. I look to my local school board, not Washington.>>
Too bad
Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation has basically removed any potential for your local school board to
regulate themselves, and will be the ruination of public education. (Even hardcore conservative states like Utah
are decrying this horrific piece of legislation.)
<<As to the rest of your complaints, the environment is OK,
getting better>>
Whoa ho! Better? That's rich! Bush has been labled as the worst environmental president
in history. Hell, he makes Regan and James Watt look like tree hugging squirrel lovers.
<<The economy is
doing great - not a phoney boom, but the start of a steady growth phase.>>
Bush's economy:
* I shattered
the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
* I set an economic record for most private
bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
* I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period.
* I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the US stock market. In my first
year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
<<So just
what does Kerry offer? Sorry, but so far all I've heard is contradictory mush from that guy.>>
Anybody but
Bush in '04. If he gets re-elected, I swear to the powers that be that I will pack up my daughter and move out of
the country. He isn't going to get one more tax dollar out of me so that he can fund and run his fascist regime of
illegal global corporate imperialism. The only appointment that the Bush/Cheney ticket deserves in '04 is ajoining
cells in the maximum security section at Leavenworth with 300 lb. rapists (with a penchant for anal sex) as
cellmates.
Now listening to: Pink Panthers Penthouse Party
Nice post Sacogoo! I think you
covered all the bases on that one. Sen Robert Byrd on Meet the Press Sunday with Tim Russert says he's served
under 11 Presidents & Dubya is by far the most dangerous one...
DrSmellThis
08-03-2004, 02:07 PM
"I think
every American ought to see it." (Rolling Stone, 7/13)
"As far as I know, none of the facts in the movie have
been refuted. That is, I think the evidence in the movie is accurate." (Nova TV (Dutch), 7/14)
Holmes
08-14-2004, 12:42 PM
!WEWILLKILLMICHAELMOORE! (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/fc?d=tmpl&cf=fc&in=entertainment&cat=michael_moore)
DrSmellThis
08-15-2004, 01:01 AM
Interesting post. (and nice
pik! :))
Holmes
08-15-2004, 11:23 AM
Jagshemash, Pepsi Max!
Friendly1
08-16-2004, 10:59 PM
Hm. Okay. I'll make a
political statement and then jump out of this discussion.
The news media (who are generally agreed to have a
liberal bias by most conservatives) have had a field day with Mr. Moore, picking apart the inaccuracies of this
movie. For example, the claim that members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the United States
during the 4-day ban on air traffic has been shown repeatedly to be pure nonsense.
People like Moore, who take
facts and mix them with fiction in order to stir up pseudo-patriotic slurs, never tell the whole truth. You can find
them on both sides of the aisle (Moore is countering Rush Limbaugh's years and years of conservative tirades). The
film is propaganda, contains clearly-documented facts and falsehoods, and hopefully will have no effect on the
election.
Kerry just scares me. His body language is so fake and contrived. He doesn't speak with conviction.
Bush, at least, speaks with conviction. And for all his faults (and despite Moore's character assassinaton film),
he has never been shown to have lied about the reasons for his invasion of Iraq.
Many people in this country
wrongly believe we are in Iraq for the oil. At the height of its production, Iraq never provided more than 5% of our
imported oil. President Franklin Roosevelt committed the United States to long-term mutual defense obligations with
Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. He did so because the European powers were carving up oil mandates in the Middle East at
a rapid clip, and Roosevelt feared the United States would be left without vital resources in the event of another
major war.
So, the first Persian Gulf War was fought for two reasons: to put a stop to Saddam Hussein's
aggression (which would ultimately have led to another global-wide conflict, since his declared aim was to create a
new Arabic/Islamic empire); and to honor our then 50+ year old treaty with Saudi Arabia, which was under imminent
attack.
Former President Bush was wrongly portrayed as being concerned about Kuwaiti oil, because it really
didn't matter who controlled the oil. What mattered was how we honored our agreements and whether we were prepared
to stand idly by while another dictator began capturing huge portions of the world. The Soviet Union was only just
collapsing after existing for 80 years. It was never in American interests to allow a new power to arise and replace
the Soviet Bloc as a threat to our stability.
The current President Bush was given bad evidence by the
intelligence community. Period. This fact has been so well documented through several investigations that, if the
Democrats could show it was otherwise, our current presidential campaign debates would be overwhelmingly focused on
the confirmation of Moore's nonsense. Instead, we have Bush nailing Kerry over Kerry's supposed changes in
position and Kerry chasing Bush over Bush's supposed mis-interpretations of Kerry's supposed non-changes in
positions.
Why isn't Kerry pressing home the attack that Moore launched? Because Moore's attack was little
more than hot air with no political value.
If the so-called liberal media cannot help but find fault with Mr.
Moore's "facts", and if the Democratic Party's presidential candidate cannot use Mr. Moore's "facts" to rally
American public opinion against the incumbent Chief Executive, clearly there is something seriously wrong with Mr.
Moore's "facts".
And, therefore, they should be given no further scrutiny. I, for one, am tired of seeing the
movie picked apart for its factual errors. It has failed to make its case, since its case is built on inaccuracies
and misrepresentations.
I could just as easily call Mr. Moore a liar, but I would rather say he did no better
than Mr. Bush, and acted on bad information.
Mr. Bush, btw, is responsible for far fewer Iraqi deaths than his
predecessor. By some estimates, U.N. sanctions resulted in approximately 500,000 Iraqi deaths -- all children. Even
10 per cent of that number represents a price too high for NOT going into Iraq.
Yes, we'll probably lose more
than 1,000 soldiers before this is all over. And that number doesn't include the numerous serious injuries our
soldiers will return home with. Thousands of American families are going to be impacted by our involvement there.
But the alternative was that we would have continued murdering thousands of Iraqi babies through deprivation every
year.
If going into Iraq was wrong, maintaining the sanctions would have been even more wrong. So, let's give
Mr. Bush some credit for making a hard choice, even if we don't all agree with or like the consequences of the
choice he made. Mr. Gore, had he won the election, would have had to face the same choice. I fear he would have
continuing allowing innocent children to die.
President Clinton was one of the worst commanders-in-chief this
country has ever had. His foreign policy was generally derided and considered disastrous during his presidency. He
failed to provide our troops with the support they required when they were committed to action, and though we
technically won the Battle of Mogadishu by inflicting more casualties on the enemy than we took, AND by achieving
most of our objectives, he nonetheless betrayed the courage and trust of our soldiers by acting like we had been
defeated, and generally leading our armed forces in a shameful, cowardly fashion.
He also disgraced this nation
with numerous scandals. But because most Americans had jobs, we were willing to endure his nonsense and bad
leadership.
If Mr. Bush loses in November, he will lose because too few Americans have jobs, not because of the
choices he made with respect to which countries would feel the brunt of American military power.
While many
people could have chosen differently from Mr. Bush, it has yet to be shown (and can never really be shown) that
anyone would have chosen more wisely.
At the very least, we now have an obligation to help the Iraqi people
avoid falling into the misery of living under another dictatorship. Because if a new Iraqi dictatorship rises from
the ashes, what guarantees do we have that they won't try to create a new Arabic/Islamic empire again?
Absolutely none. In fact, the forces opposing Iraqi democracy today (from wothin Iraq) all represent, to one
degree or another, the very real threat of a future regional war of conquest. We owe it to the service people who
died in the first Persian Gulf War, as well as those who have perished in the current Iraqi conflict, to do our best
to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain.
We cannot do that by pulling out of Iraq before it is clear
our continued presence will only serve to make matters worse. We CAN do that by continuing to allow narrow-minded
extremists like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Moore to continue to lambast our presidents with half-truths and
unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
DrSmellThis
08-17-2004, 01:31 AM
Thanks for your detailed and
substantive post, Friendly1 -- good grist for the mill of left vs. right debates. :) You made some interesting
points; some I concur with, some unclear, and others I disagree with. I wish I had time to respond as thoroughly as
your post deserves. But with all the work I have these days I just wanted to call attention to the fact that there
is no longer any need to settle for general dismissives like, "Moore's film is obviously chock full of falsehoods".
Anyone can now take the specific references for each claim, as linked above, and lay out their case. For example,
Section Two of the references documents the exodus of the Saudis and Bin Ladens shortly after 9/11. It
indicates that "only one" of the many such flights was thought to occur during the grounding; that the film never
claimed the whole exodus happened during the grounding; but, that the mass exodus did happen as portrayed, approved
at very high levels of government. Not that Moore should be anybody's preferred news source, but what wasn't
factual? The only thing I know of is that the limo was maybe pelted with just one egg in that one scene and not
"eggs," as the movie claimed.
Someone sent me
this (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf) today. I never considered this what do
u think?
Real or what?
DCW
Pancho1188
10-22-2004, 01:03 PM
That's really messed up.
Yea, it is. What evidence is there
that there was a plane, btw?
I never believed that the crash in
Long Island was caused by the wind, remeber that one it was a few days after 911.
DCW
Yea, I remember that. When you said
Long Island, I was thinking of the JFK to Paris one that went down, and people said they saw a missle. The one that
went down after 9/11 they recently came out with an explanation. Basically, I think somethign fell off the plane,
and then the pilot overcompenstated or something.
belgareth
10-22-2004, 02:40 PM
Yea, I remember
that. When you said Long Island, I was thinking of the JFK to Paris one that went down, and people said they saw a
missle. The one that went down after 9/11 they recently came out with an explanation. Basically, I think somethign
fell off the plane, and then the pilot overcompenstated or something.
The plane that went down over Long
Island was due to a mechanical flaw. It had to do with the stresses on the laminate used in the tail section, the
effects of wake turbulance and repeated side to side motion. It was something Airbus had specifically warned about
months prior to this accident. Nothing really that remarkable about it. Airliners and huge ships both are amazingly
fragile to stresses outside their design limits.
As for the video, it was well done and asked some good
questions that need to be answered. There were several things about it that struck me right off as nonsense. First
was the grainy footage from the Pentagon cameras they were using to question it being a 757. It was too poor a
footage to be able to tell anything.
Most investigators dismiss eyewitness accounts because they are not very
reliable and they have probably heard all the comments about what it looked and sounded like. Try it sometime, after
a sudden stressful but brief event, give people a couple days then compare their stories. It can be pretty
interesting.
Another was the hole through the building. An airplane is a fragile thing, impacting concrete walls
at over 500 MPH it would have mostly disintegrated on impact. Only a few of the more massive parts would have
travelled far. One of those parts was just the right size and shape to have made that hole they showed in the inner
rings; the engines! I thought it was strange that there was no debris also, even a missile would have left some
debris, especially one that made such a nice, neat hole through a wall like that. I suspect the picture was taken
after the remains were at least partly clean up. You'll notice that there isn't even remnants of the wall shown!
Where did all the concrete and twisted steel go?
They mention that the E-Ring didn't collapse for about 23
minutes. It took the World Trade Center towers 56 and 103 minutes to start to collapse. I think it's pretty clear
that they were hit by airplanes. You'll also recall that the jet fuel burned off very quickly at the World Trade
Center; funny thing about jet fuel, it's highly volitile and would go up quickly causing the kinds of fire damage
you saw in some of the pictures. It would be extremely hot but burn out fast.
There may be some validity to the
questions posed but much of what was shown only made me think they were lacking any real engineering knowledge or
evidence and pretty much spoiled their argument.
The JFK to Paris flight you mentioned was interesting. I'm
still dissatisfied with the government's answers about that. While what the investigation describes could have
happened, I saw the picture showing what looks much like a missile below the plane. It could be an artifact or could
be closer or further away than it seems but I've never heard it addressed other than a curt dismissal.
DrSmellThis
10-26-2004, 03:31 AM
The video does indeed ask some
important questions. A lot of the conspiracy theories about Bush are sounding less far-fetched with time.
belgareth
10-26-2004, 03:49 AM
The video
does indeed ask some important questions. A lot of the conspiracy theories about Bush are sounding less far-fetched
with time.
If so much of their video wasn't clearly baseless, it would have done better at bringing up
the important questions.
DrSmellThis
10-26-2004, 04:08 AM
We are not constrained from
asking questions by the quality of the film, incomplete and vague though it was. The film as a whole was far from
completely baseless. To be objective I think you have to look at what you can take from the film; instead of taking
the part you can't know about one way or the other, and being primarily interested in that aspect of it. The film
is not responsible for providing any final word or proof on anything, after all. For example, why no wreckage? There
wasn't time to remove it all before the footage was shot, and total disintegration of the plane is almost
unimaginable. What engineering data would suggest otherwise?
BTW, has anyone even seen a coherent
engineering/munitions analysis of the WTC disintegration and collapse? I'd love to. Not to be paranoid, but I'm
still not fully convinced that the two planes by themselves, with their rapid-burning fuel, could have caused that
whole chain of events to unfold as it did.
Pancho1188
10-26-2004, 05:03 AM
I'm still
not fully convinced that the two planes by themselves, with their rapid-burning fuel, could have caused that whole
chain of events to unfold as it did.
You don't believe that two planes weighing tons upon tons flying at
hundreds of miles per hour into the middle of a building could cause the top to topple down? Take a 300-pound metal
object and send it at 60 miles per hour into the middle of a tree. The top is coming down. That may or may not be
a good analogy, but even I as a skinny 150-pound wide receiver could take down a big lineman if I take him down from
the hips or lower.
Maybe I'm seeing this from the wrong angle, but planes are big, heavy, and move very fast.
You could take out enough of a building for it to lose stability and topple over.
belgareth
10-26-2004, 05:34 AM
Doc,
I agree that we are
not constrained from asking question and they should be asked. However, once a source starts spewing BS any
reasonable person is going to question all their statements. You don't know that there was no wreckage, only what
you saw in the footage and that was not very good. Despite Pancho's comments, an airplane is a pretty flimsy
structure. It would be too heavy to fly otherwise. The wings and tail section stricking trees and such at oblique
angles and at a couple hundred miles an hour would break up pretty badly, striking a solid wall, at almost a
perpendicular angle, at better than 500 MPH would do unbelieveable damage, especially since the wings should have
been full of fuel.
Speaking as an engineer, (That is my education, after all) I am surprised the WTO stood as
long as it did in view of the damage and the stresses put on it. I've read parts of the damage report and feel the
analysis was well done.
Pancho1188
10-26-2004, 07:06 AM
Despite
Pancho's comments, an airplane is a pretty flimsy structure. It would be too heavy to fly otherwise.
Planes are flimsy. Have you ever seen the tapes where they shake the hell out of the plane (turbulance
simulation) to see if it's flexible enough to take it? Man, they beat the hell out of those things in tests. That
doesn't mean they aren't big and heavy, though. Hell, the people alone weigh tons within the plane (sample: 200
pounds/person * ~100 people is 20,000 pounds).
Friendly1
10-26-2004, 08:53 AM
Someone sent me
this (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf) today. I never considered this what
do u think?
Real or what?
DCW
Basically a load of crap put together by people who want to fan the
flames of consipiracy theorists. They would probably say that the bunker bombing which failed to kill Hitler was
probably just faked, too.
Explosions don't incinerate everything around them. Some things survive, and some
things don't.
DrSmellThis
10-26-2004, 11:05 AM
I'm not saying we shouldn't
question the video. Of course we should. But those WTC buildings didn't just fall, they were both almost completely
disintegrated, including the steel beams. I think they were supposed to be able to withstand an airplane crash. I'd
just like to see an independent, critical analysis of what happened rather than blindly accept the mainstream story.
It's skepticism, not paranoia. Few things are more reasonable than skepticism in this day and age, especially here
and now. You just have to not be upset by holding simultaneous possible conflicting realities in your mind. People
not being able to deal with that cognitive dissonance on any big level is the biggest problem with "conspiracy
theories". Considering them is always uncomfortable, because we are very attached to our ideas of "reality", even
though they are logically no more sacrosanct or invulnerable to rebuttal than other ideas. Nobody, myself included,
wants to think their government is evil.
Government conspiracies have been happening throughout history. The
only ingredient needed is a corrupt government, or even corruption at the top of a government. There have never been
any of those, have there? Could never happen here, right? Somebody needs to ask the tough questions, and follow
through with them. The fact that someone is considering a possible "conspiracy" is not an argument against their
position.
With the Pentagon, we are talking about explosions where all the airplane parts may well have been
missing, (it's possible the filmmakers weren't lying) and yet many windows where the plane hit didn't break. That
is a discrepancy worth following up on, regardless of how unpopular it is with Bush and his supporters, or how many
"crazy" accusations might ensue. Maybe the documentary is BS and maybe it isn't. If we're going to be objective
we'll consider every substantive idea.
An awful lot of fishy stuff has come out about this administration's
handling of 9/11 that suffice as reasonable cause to wonder; such as spending 25 minutes after you are told your
cities were bombed, sleepily reading a children's book and completing a meaningless photo op; without so much as
making a phone call -- as president. (Not to mention that you then fly right back to Washington DC, the city that
was just attacked, and don't scramble jets except for one way out into the Atlantic.). Hell, he didn't even turn
on the TV or radio like the rest of us. My profession is psychology, and that behavior pattern is pretty much
psychologically impossible unless you have an alterior motive -- an uncomfortable, tentative, partial
conclusion, to be sure; but that is overwhelmingly the most logical and likely psychological scenario, from that
particular data (I do advocate using multiple data sources before really concluding anything, of course.). For
example, DIHL, stupidity, or the desire to remain calm do not remotely cut it as possible psychological
explanations. A child of 7 or 8 would know better. There are only so many real possibilities.
In pop culture
terms, it was a bit like OJ's full page ad the day after he was accused, the text of which was profoundly
psychologically inconsistent with an innocent person. I knew immediately that he did it from reading that, even
though it wasn't legal proof; because almost every guilty murderer talks exactly that way right after their crime,
and no innocent person who just lost his ex-wife to a brutal murder could react that way mentally and emotionally.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.