Fahrenheit 911

[koolking1]

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.]

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]

Pretty decent

movie but he's preaching to the choir.

Precisely.


I think it was an excellent piece of

film-making.

Yup.

[metroman]

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]

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]

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]

Welcome back Whitehall! Your

presence was sorely missed! :)

[Holmes]

So what course of action would Mr.

Icke have us take in November?

[metroman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"Triumph of the

Will" by Leni Reifenstahl.

Hard to beat. (Subject personalities aside.)

[DrSmellThis]

I can't disagree, because I

haven't seen either film. ;)

[einstein]

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.

[Kari]

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]

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/)

[Kari]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.]

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]

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]

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 :)

[DCW]

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]

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]

<<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

OK, a rational comment about

politics in this thread.

[metroman]

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]

"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]

!WEWILLKILLMICHAELMOORE! (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/fc?d=tmpl&cf=fc&in=entertainment&cat=michael_moore)

[DrSmellThis]

Interesting post. (and nice

pik! :))

[Holmes]

Jagshemash, Pepsi Max!

[Friendly1]

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]

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.

[DCW]

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]

That's really messed up.

[bjf]

Yea, it is. What evidence is there

that there was a plane, btw?

[DCW]

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

[bjf]

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]

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]

The video does indeed ask some

important questions. A lot of the conspiracy theories about Bush are sounding less far-fetched with time.

[belgareth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.