Fahrenheit 9/11

poetry duck .you should try it sometime "it could enlighten you .duck rhymes with quack /quack rhymes with back . do you now get it . . ? .i hope you gave your head a really good shake lad / nothink like blowing those cobwebs away .

 

duck and quack don't rhyme

 

a duck doe"s rhyme with quack / cos a duck quacks . duuuuuuuuuuuuumb duuuuuuuuuuuumb dddddddumb . duck also rhymes with suck . how can yer have your puddin if dont eat yer meat .yes you laddy .

 

Hmm...an interesting develpoment. Wouldn't it have been better if Michael Moore didn't have a political agenda and just let the moving pictures of his documentary speak for themselves?

 

ok.. first of all, is amazing how people cannot discuss a documentary without getting into a silly, name calling argument. This is just sad, I mean if we cant talk about a movie, what can we talk about??

On the other hand... I just watched Farenheit 9/11 last night, it wasn't mind blowing or shocking. But some of the facts like the Bin Landens relationship to the Bush.. I mean.. what's up with that?? Also about the briefs and reports, that talked about how a terrorist attack should be expected, and these were ignored. Another thing is how until July of 2001 the goverment talked about Sadamm Hussein as a no threat, because he military hasn't been rebuild, and he wasn't able to get any weapons.. and puff suddenly.. everything changed.
I mean all of this, for me wasn't like revealling or ground breaking.. but for the general public, I think it opens up their eyes, and we you see what you read, put together with images.. it becomes more powerful.
But I do agree on the fact that Moore, when he decides to adress a topic, he wants to defend his ideals, and what he believes in, and you know make his point get across, and things shouldn't be parcialized... but you need to take into account that most media is parcialized into one side, so who's gonna show us, the other side?? and I dont think is wrong to make your point get across when is supported with true things.
Finally I think Bowling For Columbine was better.. a lot better. This one, was just ok.. and well it seem like it didn't accomplish its goal.. Bush is still there.

 

The reason people get into a "stupid argument" is because it is contreversial (sp?)
For the truth behind Fahrenheit 9/11
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Fahrenheit_9/11_(movie_2004)
and for Bowling For Columbine
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

but controversial doesn't mean.. ohh let me just say, every stupid thing that comes to my head.. and insult everybody, that's just pointless and takes things nowhere.

 

I remember a classic line uttered by Jack Nicholson in the movie 'A Few Good Men':
"You can't handle the truth."
Each side shows its own version of the truth. How hard would it be to get the basic facts. What harm would it do for us to know who really killed Kennedy? What harm would it do to know the real reason the U.S. invaded Iraq? I sometimes wonder, however, if there is a higher purpose in all of this. If, perhaps, like Jack says, we can't handle the truth. Maybe we're getting all the bullshit to keep us satisfied, keep us obedient. Maybe Michael Moore is right in trying to balance things by trying to show us the truth others won't admit to. But then again, maybe he's just opening up Pandora's box.

 

My biggest problem with Moore is that he keeps his audience trapped inside the two party paradigm, instead of looking outside the box to show that both parties are owned and operated by some of the same exact corporate interests and are both corrupt.

Face the facts; the US government orchestrated and perpetrated the events on 9/11. Bin Laden didn't orchestrate 9/11 from his cave like the government wants you to believe, nor did Arab hijackers with limited flying skills have the ability to fly planes into buildings.

Moore didn't ask the REAL questions, like why did NORAD stand down for almost two hours before scrambling jets? This was after Flight 11 and Flight 175 crashed into the north and south towers, and after "Flight 73" struck the Pentagon (or so we were told).

Or why did World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein admit that Building 7 was "pulled" in a controlled demolition, when our government says that it collapsed due to fire damage?

In reality, building 7 received hardly any damage at all, with the exception of some small fires on the lower levels of the building. Keep in mind a steel-structure building had never collapsed from fire damage alone until that day.

What about the way the towers collapsed, and the fact that firefighters were reporting bombs going off in and around the buildings prior to collapse?

What about the wargame exercises that were taking place on the morning of September 11th, SIMULATING HIJACKED AIRCRAFT FLYING INTO THE TWIN TOWERS, inserting flase radar blips on the screen and paralyzing fighter response?

What about insider trading taking place in the days leading up to the attacks?

WHY DIDN'T MOORE ASK THESE QUESTIONS?

 

by calling anyone influenced by this film dumb " will bound to get a reaction". if duck stated that he thought the film was dumb fair enough ( he is entitled to his opinion ). amanda"s shadow then say"s something about conservatives ( not insulting a named person)ie duck . now if duck would of called her a dumd liberal (fair enough) but he personally attacked her by calling her a dumb bitch . why? . i saw the arrogance of this / therefore if he can give it out / he will get it back of people . / peace /

 

I think Moore should make a movie about the truth behind JFK's assasination, then one obout the truth behind the moon landing!

The truth is out there!

 

Well, as I know it, they weren't running a simulation of hijacked airplanes flying into the Twin Towers but rather the possibility of an errant (not hijacked) plane striking the National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, Virginia.

Directly from my 9/11 notes:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the US intelligence agency was running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if an errant plane were to strike one of four towers of a government building (the National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, Virginia).

However, I agree with you, Pressed_Rat. In my opinion, Moore would have done well to have basically taken the facts from Michael Ruppert's famed article, "Oh Lucy! - You Gotta Lotta 'Splainin to Do," and constructed them into a film. Now that would have been a good documentary.

 

quote: WHY DIDN'T MOORE ASK THESE QUESTIONS?

Do you think it would be safe for Moore to ask these questions in a big movie? I don't know for sure, but there may be only so much the powers that be will let you question publicly before someone finds your body in an oil drum in the middle of the Mojave desert.

 

I feel that Mike put together farenheit 9/11for all those people who still had their heads stuck in the sand.

He reached alot of people with that film, though obviously not enough to change anything.

Guess we'll have to wait for all the crystal and indigo generations to do that.

Excellent film for ostriches

 

I believe that probably he did asked a lot more questions than the ones shown on the documentary, but he didn't get any answers, or probably what happened was what seamonster said.
I believe that if it was more underground, then it would be allowed to ask and say a lot more than it did, but then again, it wouldn't reach out as many people.
To my eyes, what Moore wanted to do was to reach as many of the people as he could by showing as much as the truth that he was allow to, or could.
I think it would been a lot better if it had more insight, but I believe that this alone was enough to show people what was going on, at least to open up their eyes.. and start realizing things for themselves.

 

I called her a dumb bitch because she assumed I was conservative.

 

Isn't it amazing that freethinkers can discuss these ideas on the internet with each other, but no one can paste them on to a documentary? Pressed Rat is 100% spot on. You see, whether the statements he made are valid, or not, they ARE on people's minds. He's right. WHY DIDN'T MICHAEL MOORE ASK THESE QUESTIONS? Would the documentary be too long? Did they run out of film budget? Surely he could have spent a few minutes less playing 'Bonanza' or 'High Chapparal' or whatever it was and explored some of these not-so-conspiracy theories. The truth perhaps comes in the form of Seamonster's statement and in fact considering what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, I am genuinely surprised that if MM is such a thorn on the government's backside, he is still roaming free. In Michael Moore I see a false messiah. A part of the system, Matrix style, if you will. If anyone got Bush re-elected it was him. If he was a threat you can bet your silver dollar that we would have scandal coming out of the lavatory about him. Without realizing it, we are more predictable than we realize. We've been studied for aeons. Not by aliens, but by our own people, though by the way we are treated, I think we'd be better off with the aliens. A person with a clear objective of getting Bush out of the White House would not have bothered with such a 'kettledrum' campaign and the Democrats themselves would have given the contention to someone that actually stood a clear chance to win. Then they would have concentrated on the mid-west since they knew they had the west and east coast basically in their pocket. Then again if the only other choice was to earn a spot next to J.Hoffa then who can really blame them? They're just people, just like us. They sure as hell ain't truth telling messiahs.

 

/ if you read her thread again "she says why are stupid conservatives on this site. she names no names duck.she could of meant anyone . your persumpion therefore is not a valid one . so the question remains the same .back to the film / i could"nt believe that the national guards (as we call them in the uk ) were walking around trying to bully young kids into joining up . when one of these kids told them he was/nt interested " there manner and tone soon changed " they then got very personall ie= wanting to know his name address why? . i have my own theories . some freedom eh"

 

I liked it, personally. Sure it was slanted - so is pretty much everything we watch, read or listen to. I think 9/11 was made to reiterate what most people already knew, to really drive some points home. That said, I think Bowling for Columbine was better... or at least as far as I'm concerned it was better. I guess I found it more shocking, there were more things I was unaware of.

 

It doesn't make it invalid, we don't know for sure if it's valid or not, only Amanda's Shadow would. I decided that since she said it after my post and since mine was the only post that said anyhting opposing liberals or the movie itself it is a pretty safe assumption.