9/11 staged by the US evidence video

[Mariox]

Fools to beleave OP

He won an oscar for a documentary

So did brokeback mountain, because movie industry is full of Democrat leftys want to promote gays, not because it was good. Thay gave moore a oscar because thay wanted to make it looke like a creditable "documentary"

reading these 20 pages is a waist of time. Accept the truth.

I'd not even bother trying to argue, since you can't change the mind of fanatics.... I mean democrats, or your against the war. In which case I'd sudgest you read the book "Sadam's secrets" (no doubt you will not beleave the guy, even tho he WAS sadam's adviser).

This thread not going to change any minds ither way. Enoph proof that it was planes that hit the twin towers/pentigon. and enoph theary to make who want to bash busk and the war be able to beleave bush was responsible.

Oh, if you getting info from someplace other then fox news, your hearing what democrats want you to hear, not the truth. if you want truth, listen to Fox.

If I didn't make it clear... if you beleave US/bush caused 9/11 you are an idiot.

 

[Trippyhippy]

So did brokeback mountain, because movie industry is full of Democrat leftys want to promote gays, not because it was good. Thay gave moore a oscar because thay wanted to make it looke like a creditable "documentary"

Brokeback mountain was not a documentary and has no place in this discussion. If you want to work with stereo types and name calling, niether do you.

reading these 20 pages is a waist of time. Accept the truth.

Present the truth.

I'd not even bother trying to argue, since you can't change the mind of fanatics.... I mean democrats, or your against the war. In which case I'd sudgest you read the book "Sadam's secrets" (no doubt you will not beleave the guy, even tho he WAS sadam's adviser).

you are one to talk about fanatics. I suggest you read anything by Gore Vidal. His writing may be a bit beyond your grasp, but you should try anyway.

This thread not going to change any minds ither way. Enoph proof that it was planes that hit the twin towers/pentigon. and enoph theary to make who want to bash busk and the war be able to beleave bush was responsible.

Well, there is one thing you are right about... you didn't read the first 20 pages.

Oh, if you getting info from someplace other then fox news, your hearing what democrats want you to hear, not the truth. if you want truth, listen to Fox.

Yeah, a news station owned by Rupert Murdoch is gonna tell you the truth. But then again, you've probably never heard that name before.

If I didn't make it clear... if you beleave US/bush caused 9/11 you are an idiot.

If you believe everything your government tells you without question, you are Naive.

It kills me when people talk about "bush bashing" and "knowing the truth", then they give absolutly no evidence to support their opinion. Especially when it's an opinion they only have because that's what Fox News told them they believe.

 

[Raesvelg]

I beg to differ. If your cause is not to better the country you work for, but to remove sanctions so the company you used to work for (and will again) can make a massive amount of proffits, yes, that is wrong.

Did you even read what you cut/pasted?

1997. 4 years before 9/11. People working for corporations who would wind up working for the government. While doing THEIR JOBS in their respective corporations, they made what were arguably smart business moves.

Dear god, the humanity.

I absolutely will not "get used to the idea". What's wrong is wrong. If I can't do anything about it directly, then I at least have the right to bitch about it. Big business is taking over my country. I love america. It kills me to see it become a playground for big business that makes and breaks laws as they see fit.

And goes to jail for breaking laws, if they're caught and sufficient evidence is available.

Much like you would be, incidentally, if you broke the law.

Now, making laws is another accusation entirely. To that end, guess what?! We all make laws. Anyone with sufficient political influence makes laws. That includes corporations, sadly, due to an inherently flawed campaign finance system. Though, to be honest, corporations SHOULD have a say in the creation of laws, given the amount of influence they exert. I'd just rather see them do it through their stockholders in a more indirect fashion.

He won an oscar for a documentary

Roman Polanski won an Oscar.

'Nuff said.

He gives a quote from heston sayin "From my cold dead hands" holding up a gun. Then he starts talking about the big pro-gun rally in Denver. and Only includes clips from that speech.

It starts out "As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

That is all of the speech that is included. It is all from the same speech. It was edited, yes, but the original speech is no better. This is the whole speech.

Point in fact, he leaves out the line about cancelling festivities (unless he edited that back in after being called on it), and you forgot to mention that the "cold dead hands" speech was from an entirely different speech a year later in North Carolina. You also forgot to mention that the NRA meeting was REQUIRED by state law to be held as there was not sufficient time to meet the legal requirements for cancelling it.

And in what fashion is that speech "no better"? It is, to be brutally honest, absolutely true.

Holding a pro-gun rally in Colorado after what happened is not respectful.

Arguable. Telling people they're not welcome (bearing in mind that you don't know who they are, for the most part, other than their undisclosed membership in a non-profit group) is also not particularly respectful. Heston's speech was rather spot on, in fact.

Accusations with no examples. I've even given you examples of truthful statement for you to refute, and you still give me no specifics. If your objective was to state an opinion, that's all well and good. But if you were trying to make a point, try again.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

There, quick easy link for you. Enjoy.

 

[Trippyhippy]

Did you even read what you cut/pasted?

1997. 4 years before 9/11. People working for corporations who would wind up working for the government. While doing THEIR JOBS in their respective corporations, they made what were arguably smart business moves.

Dear god, the humanity.

The thing about that is, working for a corporation is no longer his job but he still caters to them. In the interest of Big business, not in the interest of the american people.

And goes to jail for breaking laws, if they're caught and sufficient evidence is available.

ok, I can buy that. Now tell me, who went to jail over watergate? Whitewater? How bout when Cheney shot a guy in the face? Iran Contra Scandel? Did clinton or Janet Reno do time over all those people that died at Waco?

Much like you would be, incidentally, if you broke the law.

One time, I went to jail because someone broke in my house and stole a whole bunch of weed from me. They never tried to find out who broke in, they just tried to nail my ass to the wall. They failed at that too. I saw the inside of a cell for 8 hours over 10 lbs of pot. Our legal system doesn't work.

Now, making laws is another accusation entirely. To that end, guess what?! We all make laws. Anyone with sufficient political influence makes laws. That includes corporations, sadly, due to an inherently flawed campaign finance system. Though, to be honest, corporations SHOULD have a say in the creation of laws, given the amount of influence they exert. I'd just rather see them do it through their stockholders in a more indirect fashion.

Laws should be made in the interest of the american people, not in the interest of who has more money.

Roman Polanski won an Oscar.

'Nuff said.

Not really. Do you discredit the entire idea of Oscars because they gave one to a pedophile? So everything George Lucas, the Cohen Brothers, Oliver North, Tom Hanks, won means squat because Roman Polanski won an oscar?

Point in fact, he leaves out the line about cancelling festivities (unless he edited that back in after being called on it), and you forgot to mention that the "cold dead hands" speech was from an entirely different speech a year later in North Carolina. You also forgot to mention that the NRA meeting was REQUIRED by state law to be held as there was not sufficient time to meet the legal requirements for cancelling it.

I did mention that it was from a different speech. I just specify when. But you are right, it is from a speech about a year later in North Carolina.

Required by state law it was. New York State law. Even tho they were in Colorado. God Forbid they reschedule after a bunch of kids die because of a lack of gun control (among many many other reasons).

And in what fashion is that speech "no better"? It is, to be brutally honest, absolutely true.

And heartless and Disrespectful, just like Moores Editing of it.

Arguable. Telling people they're not welcome (bearing in mind that you don't know who they are, for the most part, other than their undisclosed membership in a non-profit group) is also not particularly respectful. Heston's speech was rather spot on, in fact.

Just another difference of opinion.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

There, quick easy link for you. Enjoy.

And so I shall. But right now, I have to get up off my ass and do my audit. I did scam over it a bit, and saw about 15 that were lies/half truths. No better than michael moore. I'll read over them and look for news articles that disprove the ones I know are lies, and also for articles that concur with the few I expect to be truthful.

Keep in mind, I never said the movie was entrely factual. I just think there is more there than people care to see. Moore screwed up in a bad way when he made this movie. One piece of innacurate information discredits the whole piece to anyone that isn't already on your side.

 

[Direwolf]

You know what? People die everywhere everyday. So what a gun rally should be banned because it offends people? The reason I despise Moore is because he believes in the idea of blaming guns as the root of all evil. The firearm was invented ROUGHLY 500 years ago. Human beings have been killing eachother and reaping evils upon one another for... How old is the human race? 30 thousands years roughly? Yea, about that, 30 thousand years we have been killing eachother. Its what we do. The whole idea of blaming someone else for your own failings is the biggest problem in this country at this point. Where were the parents, the teachers, the friends to say hey wait wtf is going on. To this day I will argue the kids parents should be thrown in jail for gross negligence.

And returning to the 9/11 thing. Until one of you conspiracey theorists can address the hard fact that the 4 planes existed, had people get on them ,including the terrorists, whom existed beyond a shadow of a doubt from airport records, just mysteriusly vanished while they where being tracked by Airtraffic control (see radar), your theories have no more wheight to me then the ideas in the 50s about the goverment using microwaves to control your brain. That sprung the whole idea of wearing aluminum foil over your hear. Which btw would make your head a better conductur for that sorta thing so it was a stupid idea all around.

But hey people know what they know and do not want to be troubled by such petty things as facts, evidince, or physics.

 

[Torqameda]

ok, I can buy that. Now tell me, who went to jail over watergate? Whitewater? How bout when Cheney shot a guy in the face? Iran Contra Scandel? Did clinton or Janet Reno do time over all those people that died at Waco?

Did ya notice that the media played that at such an interesting time? ANd by the way, the "guy" that was shot in the face was a friend of Cheney's, and a formal apology was made. And actually, people were prosecuted in the Watergate Scandal, but I don't know of any that went to jail. But they did lose their power, and dignity, atleast, losing whatever dignity means in this world nowadays. And most presidents that commited crimes recieved amnesty by other presidents or governmental postions.

 

[Tagrineth]

He gives a quote from heston sayin "From my cold dead hands" holding up a gun. Then he starts talking about the big pro-gun rally in Denver. and Only includes clips from that speech.

It starts out "As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

That is all of the speech that is included. It is all from the same speech. It was edited, yes, but the original speech is no better. This is the whole speech.

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

Holding a pro-gun rally in Colorado after what happened is not respectful.

He was right in including that in his documentary.

The quote "from my cold dead hands" holding a gun was not a reference to guns in general, it was a reference to that specific gun; it held sentimental value to him. Moore pulled the context away from that quote to make it sound like Heston would die before allowing more Gun control in the face of Columbine.

Check out this page for the full info.

Or, because you're so completely swayed by Moore's bullshit that you probably won't even click that link, I'll just cut and paste the relevant section for you right here. Complete with markup to make it match the formatting from the linked page.

Sorry for the long quote making this post excessively long, but I somehow doubt Trippy would end up reading it any other way.

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.

Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in narration."

 

[Mokk]

Sorry for the long quote making this post excessively long, but I somehow doubt Trippy would end up reading it any other way.

Sorry, had to break silence for this. I've been eyeballing this thread on and off sicne it started just for kicks and i've got to say .. tag, not only are you a complete ass but you've obviously not been reading this thread at all. Trip has given EVERYONE the respect they deserve and has knocked moore on more than a couple occasions now. The fact that you're blindly patriotic is keen and all, i dig that. It's a wonderful thing to be blissfully unaware. But to attempt to paint trip like he's not A. proven his point numerous times in this thread or B. gone anywhere near as disrespectufl to opposing viewpoints as you showed yourself to be is completely laughable.

After all, he's checked the facts/links/complete BS provided by everyone else .. god knows he wont give your link the time of day, right? Completely off topic and irrelevant but .. jesus H, how hard is it to not come out acting like a dick over something you feel pasisonately about? Without the flameboard there's not much call for that kinda crap, keep it in your pants.

Good show. Real mature, way to raise the bar. Stay classy.

 

[Tagrineth]

Sorry, had to break silence for this. I've been eyeballing this thread on and off sicne it started just for kicks and i've got to say .. tag, not only are you a complete ass but you've obviously not been reading this thread at all. Trip has given EVERYONE the respect they deserve and has knocked moore on more than a couple occasions now. The fact that you're blindly patriotic is keen and all, i dig that. It's a wonderful thing to be blissfully unaware. But to attempt to paint trip like he's not A. proven his point numerous times in this thread or B. gone anywhere near as disrespectufl to opposing viewpoints as you showed yourself to be is completely laughable.

After all, he's checked the facts/links/complete BS provided by everyone else .. god knows he wont give your link the time of day, right? Completely off topic and irrelevant but .. jesus H, how hard is it to not come out acting like a dick over something you feel pasisonately about?

Good show. Real mature, way to raise the bar. Stay classy.

I'm sorry, but Trippy has from what I've seen pretty blindly championed Moore's bullshit, even in the face of Moore's blatant editing and chopping to spin it his way. He speaks clearly but he defends so much bullshit it's just pathetic, and this often seems like the only way to get through to people on forums...

 

[Mokk]

If that's the only way to get through it's time to stop posting. I honestly don't mean to single you out here, tag, but that was a tad below the belt with little to no provocation. As a reader attempting to take the conversation seriously with consideration to all those involved i would implore you guys to knock off the vague intellectual insults and outright snide comments, it devalues your contributions.

Now i'm off to hide under a rock again.

 

[Torqameda]

As a reader attempting to take the conversation seriously with consideration to all those involved i would implore you guys to knock off the vague intellectual insults and outright snide comments, it devalues your contributions.

The insults, may have gotten a bit to far, but the whole point is to put in educated information in which defends the opinions of the posters. So the 'intellectual insults' are just a part of it. But maybe that was below the belt, but it has some provocation. Maybe not directly, but definitely indirectly because of their clash of opinions and ideologies.

 

[Trippyhippy]

I'm sorry, but Trippy has from what I've seen pretty blindly championed Moore's bullshit, even in the face of Moore's blatant editing and chopping to spin it his way. He speaks clearly but he defends so much bullshit it's just pathetic, and this often seems like the only way to get through to people on forums...

He used factual information. At times he made suggestive comments in about the clips in the movie. He was a smart ass about it tho. Anyone that didn't agree with his opinion before the movie, damn sure won't after it. He was smug about it. Smelling your own farts style smug. The same reason Democrats don't like GWB as a person.

What I would say about him is that he obnoxious, smug, patronizing, and self-serving.

There is just as much factual information in the movie as there is opinionative partisan dribble.

note:"opinon partisan dribble"... My words. Me recognizing that the movie in question is full of opinionative partisan dribble.

One of my favorite parts was when he rode around reading the patriot act out to the people of Washington. What an asshole.

I think it's obvious his video did NOT work. It pissed off people that didn't already agree with him, and bush got re-instated anyway.

me calling moores video a failure.

He got booed off the stage when he made his accetance speech because he used the oppertunity to speak about issues as opposed to thanking the people involved with the film. He's the only person I've ever seen get booed off stage at the oscars.

also...

He speaks clearly but he defends so much bullshit it's just pathetic

You are one to talk about me defending bullshit.

The quote "from my cold dead hands" holding a gun was not a reference to guns in general, it was a reference to that specific gun; it held sentimental value to him. Moore pulled the context away from that quote to make it sound like Heston would die before allowing more Gun control in the face of Columbine.

The gun he had in his hand was indeed a hand made musket that was given to him almost a year later in North Carolina. But to act like it was specificlly about that gun and no other is to act like you don't know goolge exists.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="from+my+cold+dead+hands"

The insults, may have gotten a bit to far...

I have insulted noone.

 

[Tagrineth]

Trippy, I clicked your Google link and the only hits that referred to Heston were about that Musket...

He said it again in a speech when he stepped down from the NRA, but he held that same musket during that speech.

Oh and good job responding to my link and extensive quote...

 

[Trippyhippy]

Trippy, I clicked your Google link and the only hits that referred to Heston were about that Musket...

He said it again in a speech when he stepped down from the NRA, but he held that same musket during that speech.

You can't tell me that's not a catch phrase. He says it all the time. "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hand." It's printed on Shirts you can buy from the NRA. He was the president of the NRA, a group that likes to focus on making sure the government doesn't take guns away from people. Logic would dictate that he is NOT talking about that gun, but guns in general. Perhaps someone else could give their

Oh and good job responding to my link and extensive quote...

I'm at home today, I had a couple of days off. I'll talk about that when I'm bored at work and have nothing else to do but post on work safe QCDN.

Don't think I'm gonna let ya off that easy :wink:

 

[Tagrineth]

I dunno, Trippy. I remember hearing those five words before 1999...

 

[Trippyhippy]

Here is my response to your link Tagrineth.

First of all, there isn't a single source listed, it does say it is a summary of a larger report, but I looked for it and couldn't find anything about it.


1. Does it really matter that the Gore victory rally presented wasn't the actual one? I mean, we all know it was called for Gore first. We all know there was a victory rally. Does it matter which one had footage available?

Call this a lie if you want to. I'm gonna say we are down to 58.

2.This url is the Only other source I can find that says anything at all about Fox calling the election for Bush. It's a site dedicated to debunking F9/11 as well. I can't find any factual information that says this is true, as none of the sites debunking 9/11 ever have sources. They just know.

3. The author refers to a 6 month study by a "consortium of major newspapers". It doesn't say what newspapers, or even mention when the study was. This link says otherwise and has explanations and numbers with their claims.

4. This claim is this mans opinion. Just like Michael Moores claim that it was race was his opinion. Not Facts, But not lies either way.

5. This one is again a matter of opinion. He passed a Tax cut (yahoo. 400 Dollars for me.) and that was about it. He went on Vacation and started working on that wretched "No Child left Behind" bill. His second point about the candidates making fun of theirself... What did gore say? A joke about how he was budies with all the corporation owners and rich beyond belief?

6. This number is unfair and untruthful. Bad Mike! It was more like 30% of the time. Which in its self is bad enough. There was no need to lie here, I don't know why he did.

7. This was our president being assanine. Call it what you want for whatever reason you want. but to paraphrase "Yeah 9/11 was bad. Now watch this Drive ". Heartless bastard.

8. http://www.antiwar.com/rothschild/?articleid=2342

9. No, Condaleeza Rice did though. Right after she refused to be sworn in because she didn't "See any point in it."

10. No, it said "Osoma determined to attack inside the US". And then Condi said that the title of the report was vague. While the people that usually read the reports to him refused to gauge his response to the report in any way.

11. Moore is misleading on this one. You can have this one.

12. Moore says this in his movie. He also said in an interview

13. Why Clarke’s clearance of the flights is important, I do not know. To quote Moore, “I don?t agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think he's good on a lot of things doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.” Moore’s criticism is with the Bush administration’s handling of 9/11. Clarke was acting as part of that administration. If Bush is not responsible for the activities of his administration officials, one might wonder what he is responsible for.

14.“Detailed questions” is not the same as a full investigation. Moore thinks it was hurried; that someone else disagrees with him is neither news nor vital to his argument. Even so, if his argument is weak this isn’t a deception; it’s a difference of opinion. No one is obligated to quote experts who disagree.

15. Moore’s being deceptive because he doesn’t report Bath’s claims to the contrary? Well, Kopel doesn’t mention that some people think Bath is lying:

Time reporters Beaty and Gwynne suggest in their book that the $50,000 Bath invested in Dubya’s Arbusto Energy drilling company may have belonged to Bath’s Saudi clients since the Houston businessman “had no substantial money of his own at the time.”

Pretty deceptive to leave that out, don’t you think? Well, by Kopel’s standards, it is.

16. So how did moore get the info?

17. Is that why they call him Bandar Bush?

18. Again, this omission strikes me as immaterial. That Bush’s lawyers cleared the deal is interesting, but also interesting would be what Bush said to his lawyers about it. Was Bush keeping secrets from council? Or was council helping him dodge proesecution by recommending filing SEC papers late?

19. Well, holds up under NRO scrutiny, perhaps. But that doesn’t mean that Bush is absolved of wrongdoing, or there aren’t still questions.

... additional SEC documents show that Bush violated federal securities laws on three other occasions during his tenure at Harken by missing the deadline for filing documents about his stock transactions with the SEC… John Heine, a spokesman for the SEC, said the agency has never prosecuted anyone for missing the deadline to file insider-transaction forms with the agency. In fact, Heine said, insiders routinely miss the deadline. “It’s something we’re starting to crack down on,” Heine said. The Nation

20. Moore’s omission of George Soros’ name does not in any way detract from Moore’s allegations that the Bush family has a deep financial relationship with the Saudis, and therefore our national interests in the war on terror may not be getting the full support they need.

21. The canceling of one contract does not mean that UD did not benefit then or continue to benefit now from expanded military activity.

http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/prs_2001.htm
http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/prs_2002.htm
http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/prs_2003.htm
http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/prs_2004.htm

22.Notice how “Bush connections” is read as merely “former president Bush.” Surely there were Bush associates on the Carlyle group?

23/24. Craig Unger says the Sauds are into America for up to $860 billion. Kopel says $420 billion. I’m tired enough at this point that I’m willing to give Kopel the point rather than track down Unger’s source. Besides, Kopel is taking a beating.

25. This one’s pretty solid, and I had a problem with it in the theater, too. Another point for Kopel. (Three in a row!)

26. Kopel turns Moore’s query about where Bush family priorities lie into a straw man, then blow the man down. The idea that the Bushes may be reluctant to be as forceful as necessary with the Sauds because of their business relationships strikes me as a simple conflict-of-interest concern, not a conspiracy theory.

27.Unocal was a Texas oil company. Bush was an oil man with many friends in the energy business. Whether they met or not, which moore never says they did, Bush was surely interested.

28. That doesn’t mean that they were no longer interested in it. Nor does it mean that American companies in general weren’t (aren’t) interested in it either.

That doesn’t mean that they were no longer interested in it. Nor does it mean that American companies in general weren’t (aren’t) interested in it either.

29. F9/11 shows many images for illustration purposes. This is relatively trivial and doesn’t impact the argument in any way that I can see. There is an agreement in place.

30. http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp

31. Although the State department refused to recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, members of the Taliban were allowed entrance into the country and given enough freedom to move around that members went on a speaking tour to improve the image of the Taliban in the US. The degree to which the Taliban were welcomed strikes me as a matter of opinion and interpretation, not deceit.

32. Opposition to the war does not preclude someone from criticizing how the war was fought; also, if Moore no longer opposes the war, then he’s changed his mind. While changing your mind, in this case may be poor judgement, it is not deceit.

oopsy, accidently hit enter There is the first half anyways...

 

[Trippyhippy]

part II:

33. The fact that some things are going well does not mean that everything is, or that things are better. Drug production is up, democracy has no hold at all in many areas of the country, it’s still very chaotic and still a mess. Oh, and Bush forgot to put money for reconstruction in the budget. (Congress had to add it later.) Whether or not the things that are going well counterbalance the things that are going poorly is a matter of opinion. Not deceit.

34. Kopel says on “Kean stated that the Commission had been given “unprecedented” access to records.” Kopel credits Kean’s snappish statement with Bush’s cooperation; but belated cooperation does not erase years of obstructionism. Kean’s criticism is still valid.

35. A cheap shot and old joke, yes. Deceit? No.

36. Ashcroft’s own FBI knew that summer that there were Al Qaeda members in the US and that Bin Laden was sending his agents to flight schools around the country.

Kopel says the memo wasn’t passed around. But they did know. That they did not do anything with the knowledge is the FBI’s fault, not Moore’s.

Ashcroft ignored the terror warnings.

Kopel says Ashcroft never got the memo. What Kopel doesn’t mention (remember! That’s deceit!) is that Ashcroft was quite aggressive about ignoring terrorism.

37. I can't find figures on this. I'll let Kopal have this one.

38. This looks like sloppy fact-checking; but I’ll give him the point. (The number is for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, (877) 858-9040.)

39. I thought Moore overstated his argument here too. Point. We did have another war with Saddam where americans died.

40. I can't find anything about this. Mainly because everyone want to talk about assassinating sadam.

41. He did threaten US interests abroad, but he did not threaten to attack the United States homeland. Bush tried to make the case that Saddam could and was going to attack us, which is why we had to fight. No point here, as far as I’m concerned. You may disagree, but I feel I’ve been generous so far to Mr. Kopel.

42. The issue is arguable at best. Experts are still fighting each other over this. Not deceit, but a matter of who you choose to believe.

43. The extended statement by Condi that Kopel quotes is facetious and foolish. Hussein was a secular despot who was hated by Osama bin Laden for his perversion of the pure Islamic state. That Hussein was involved in 9/11 because they both support the idea of terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not US involvement in Iraq at this time was justified or needed at the expense of fighting Al Qeda.

44. We’ve seen plenty of unhappy Iraqis. What we have not seen is happy Iraqis. The administration often omitted this part, and Moore has shown it to us to provide balance. I do not think Moore is trying to claim, as Kopel does, that everything wasy hunky-dory in Iraq. Significant overstatement of argument on Kopel’s part.

45/46. Moore is showing us what the rest of the news media have omitted. He does not need to carry water for FOX News, FOX News has been carrying its own for quite some time.

47. England, Spain, Italy, Poland—their forces are still miniscule compared to the American presence. And, again, anyone who’s been watching CNN knows these people are there. This omission is not deceptive. Counting nations as part of the coalition when they do not have anyone to send, on the other hand, is.

48. Kopel takes issue with this, saying Jennings opposed the war. But the larger point still stands. The media has been very much behind this war—some, like Fox News, saying their job was to support the President, not ask hard questions.

49. This is the way our military behaves?

50. Kopel says the VA is reorganizing facilities to better meet people’s needs—something I feel is still open to debate—and so do many people, apparently, if you google on “VA Hospital closing.” In this case, however, I do think the omission is important as it certainly weakens Moore’s argument that the Government is closing VA hospitals. Chalk another one up for Dave.

51. Moore actually says “proposed cutting combat soldiers? pay by 33%.” Kopel tries to weasel out of this, saying that the money cut came from imminent danger bonuses, not salaries. But pay is pay and compensation is compensation. Moore did not say “salaries,” he said “pay.”

52.Kopel is speaking of a 3.7% pay increase for all military soldiers. I don’t think this omission weakens Moore’s position at all—taking away with one hand and giving with the other is not generosity.

53. I’ll concede that point. 2/535 as opposed to 1/535. Trivial at best.

54. That’s certainly not the sense I got from watching the film. I felt like Congressman Kennedy was agreeing to help the same way we agree to read flyers handed to us by Moonies. Did Kennedy pass out fliers? If he did, I can concede this point, too. But for now it stands.

55. I have to concede this point, too—Castle doesn’t have kids.

56. I don’t think this was Moore’s argument. I believe Moore’s argument was that Congressional supporters of war are not risking their own children.

57. Yeah, I call Knoxville my Hometown. I Grew up in Lenoir City, a town about 30 miles down the Highway. What's the point?

58. “Anyone who disagrees with me agrees with Saddam” rhetoric. It is apparently beyond Kopel to imagine that there’s armed resistance in Iraq that is anti-Sadam and anti-American. You know, like al Queda.

59. I don’t know what to make of this one: the only journalistic source to say that is World Net Daily (a wako Right-wing organization if there ever was one) and Screen Daily. I’m kind of surprised I haven’t heard these allegations elsewhere, as eager as people are to tank the film. What was that called again? Oh yes: tin hat conspiracy theory.

 

[Raesvelg]

1.) Nothing wrong per-se with using the wrong footage... just not correct for a documentary particularly when the footage is labeled incorrectly during narration. Again, typical Moore, preferring footage that he feels looks better for his point rather than the footage that would accurately depict the events.
2.) Meh, I was there, and Kopel's account matches fairly well with what I recall. You'll have a hard time finding much evidence that incriminates the media though. After all, they'd have to be the ones to publish it, and they can hardly be expected to make *themselves* look bad.
3.) Actually, he DOES name newspapers, including the Miami Herald and USA Today, and provides a link to a summary of the article in question. You also neglected to address the Pantagraph fraud and copyright infringement allegations. ^^
4.) Again, you neglect to address the actual issue, instead preferring to write it up as "opinion". Felons are not permitted to vote in FL. Period. Racism is irrelevant.
5.) Approval ratings can hardly be called opinions, though the interpretation of them could arguably be so deemed. Polls are, after all, notoriously untrustworthy when the people conducting them are themselves not impartial.
6.) The exact percentage of "time off" is unknown, and possibly unknowable. Let's be honest: When the president is out of the White House, he's still making political decisions. He may limit the amount of time per-day spent on such activities, but we can't be sure without a lot more investigation into the subject. And hell, I'm lazy.
7.) Paraphrase the comment incorrectly and out of context even. Outstanding.
8.) Yes, no doubt one of Clinton's former advisors is privy to the inner workings of the Bush White House. It all makes sense now. Aside from that, try to imagine how many terrorist threats, plots, and plans are uncovered and analyzed by US intelligence services. This is one of those points that has perpetually irritated me about the way the media has handled the post-9/11 situation.
9-10.) The fact that Bin Laden intended to strike at the US was not news. He'd been saying as much for years. The fact that he *might* attempt to hijack a plane was brought up, but uncorroborated. Read the briefing.
11-12.) Meh, Moore likes to say "it's in the film", while taking steps to distract people from actually seeing it, or more commonly simply removing it from context.
13.) The purpose of bringing Clarke up is simple: It was HIS decision (appropriately, I might add) to let the Saudis leave, and he likes to pretend after the fact that it was something he was merely a part of. He was, in fact, the highest ranking official involved in that particular decision.
14.) I think we're confused as to what 14 is, but to address your version, that would indeed be a matter of opinion. It is, however, relevant.
15.) In investment terms, $50,000 isn't substantial. $500,000 maybe, but $50K? Hardly worth mentioning.
16.) Probably by going back and digging up the earlier release from someplace that hadn't updated to the new regulations. Not overly difficult.
17.) He's a career politician. Tying him to Bush is, frankly, unfair and unrealistic, and Moore does so simply in an attempt to further his own agenda.
18-19.) That particular incident was brought up during the election, and promptly dismissed as partisan mudslinging with no actual wrongdoing. That Moore decided to bring it up and phrase it in the fashion that he did was, to me, rather sad.
20-22.) Ultimately, this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. In order to become president, it helps an awful lot to have money. Yet given the global economy, a president can very easily find himself suffering allegations of conflict of interest. Personally, I've always been intrigued in how it was handled in one theoretical novel, in which the Pres. had his assets liquidated and, for all intents and purposes, invested in the nation itself. Might be an interesting incentive, though would probably go poorly. Oh, and cancelling an $11 Billion weapon system which is 80% complete HURTS.
23-24.) Good, because Unger's "sources" are distinctly nebulous.
26.) Yeah, I skipped 25. Sue me, it's 4am and I'm probably gonna get back to the rest of this later. Anyway. Conflict of interest is difficult to gauge, honestly, and particularly when we lack certain necessary information. Like, what percentage of the Bush family fortune is strongly tied to Saudi interests. Moore doesn't know either, btw.
27-30.) Did US companies have a vested interest in establishing a pipeline through Afghanistan? Of course. There's money to be made. Was it a secret, known only to government agencies and secret corporate negotiators? God no. A pipeline through Afghanistan is an old wish list item of the oil industry, and has been for some time. Is it worth going to war over? Unlikely. Particularly in Afghanistan, a country known for its... intractable nature.
31.) Refusal to recognize the government cannot be in anyone's opinion a "welcoming" attitude.
32.) Opposition to the war is not the issue, tying Bin Laden to Bush and claiming that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen and that Bin Laden was responsible on film, while simultanously claiming that Bin Laden could well be innocent and that as such the war in Afghanistan was utterly unjustified... Somewhat different. It boils down to tailoring your message to suit your audience in order to further your larger goal (in this case, to prevent re-election), and is in itself a form of hypocrisy. Then again, that should come as no surprise.

That's enough for now, Garka needs sleep. I think I shall be more selective in the next post, point by point is time consuming, and I'm lazy. ^^

 

[Trippyhippy]

1.) Nothing wrong per-se with using the wrong footage... just not correct for a documentary particularly when the footage is labeled incorrectly during narration. Again, typical Moore, preferring footage that he feels looks better for his point rather than the footage that would accurately depict the events.

It is indeed insignificant. It holds no bearing on the point he is trying to make. It just opens him up to nit picking.

2.) Meh, I was there, and Kopel's account matches fairly well with what I recall. You'll have a hard time finding much evidence that incriminates the media though. After all, they'd have to be the ones to publish it, and they can hardly be expected to make *themselves* look bad.

I was there too, and I don't remember hearing the words "Gore wins" being reported from fox at any point in time.. But there is not actually any evidence at all that they called it for Gore. Ever. Anywhere. Find me some evidence and I'll concede this point.

3.) Actually, he DOES name newspapers, including the Miami Herald and USA Today, and provides a link to a summary of the article in question. You also neglected to address the Pantagraph fraud and copyright infringement allegations. ^^

The link you provided me says "A 6-month study by a consortium of major Newspapers shows Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits." The word Pantagraph doesn't even appear anywhere on that page. Perhaps we were looking at 2 different links. here is what I was getting information from.

4.) Again, you neglect to address the actual issue, instead preferring to write it up as "opinion". Felons are not permitted to vote in FL. Period. Racism is irrelevant.

Felons aren't permitted to vote anywhere. But you forget these people were not felons. If you want to call deeming a whole predominatly district as "Fellons" a mistake, you do that.

6.) The exact percentage of "time off" is unknown, and possibly unknowable. Let's be honest: When the president is out of the White House, he's still making political decisions. He may limit the amount of time per-day spent on such activities, but we can't be sure without a lot more investigation into the subject. And hell, I'm lazy.

The impression that Bush is speaking of al-Qaeda terrorists is Mr. Wilson’s interpretation. For my part, I thought it was a statement about the “war on terror,” and this certainly fits the bill. Kopel is blaming Moore for Wilson’s interpretation of something Moore did not say—which is more of a deceptive than Moore is here. Anyway, whether Bush is speaking of al-Qaeda or Palestinian terrorists Moore’s point that the President is not fully engaged in the issues while on vacation is not damaged.

7.) Paraphrase the comment incorrectly and out of context even. Outstanding.

The impression that Bush is speaking of al-Qaeda terrorists is Mr. Wilson’s interpretation. For my part, I thought it was a statement about the “war on terror,” and this certainly fits the bill. Kopel is blaming Moore for Wilson’s interpretation of something Moore did not say—which is more of a deceptive than Moore is here. Anyway, whether Bush is speaking of al-Qaeda or Palestinian terrorists Moore’s point that the President is not fully engaged in the issues while on vacation is not damaged.

8.) Yes, no doubt one of Clinton's former advisors is privy to the inner workings of the Bush White House. It all makes sense now. Aside from that, try to imagine how many terrorist threats, plots, and plans are uncovered and analyzed by US intelligence services. This is one of those points that has perpetually irritated me about the way the media has handled the post-9/11 situation.

What Moore is pointing out is that Bush received warning that something was up and did not act upon that warning. Given the White House’s refusal to answer even basic questions about the President’s reaction to the memo …

The two White House officials who held the teleconference call said that they would not divulge whether Bush asked questions when given the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing, saying the president’s response was “confidential.” They also declined to say whether the president or others followed up on the warnings or sought more information, other than to say that the government spread to various agencies the warning about the call to the embassy in the UAE.

... it seems an appropriate dig to question whether or not the President even bothered to read the dang thing.

9-10.) The fact that Bin Laden intended to strike at the US was not news. He'd been saying as much for years. The fact that he *might* attempt to hijack a plane was brought up, but uncorroborated. Read the briefing.

The memo is not all that equivocal. I have read the full memo (it’s only 1 1/3 pages long) and it does not seem unreasonable to think that the President should have sat up and taken more notice after reading it. The President is supposed to give marching orders, not have marching orders handed to him in a PDB. The omission of this detail does not strike me as important because the memo’s vagueness does not offer the President any absolution.

11-12.) Meh, Moore likes to say "it's in the film", while taking steps to distract people from actually seeing it, or more commonly simply removing it from context.

It's written in plain english on the screen. That isn't distracting at all. In reference to the departure dates... I already conceded that point.

13.) The purpose of bringing Clarke up is simple: It was HIS decision (appropriately, I might add) to let the Saudis leave, and he likes to pretend after the fact that it was something he was merely a part of. He was, in fact, the highest ranking official involved in that particular decision.

Yes he is. And he is a high ranking appointed official. Once again, I must ask, if bush cannot take responsability for his appointees, what can he take responsability for?

14.) I think we're confused as to what 14 is, but to address your version, that would indeed be a matter of opinion. It is, however, relevant.

14 says "Contrary to what F9/11 claims, the 9/11 Commision found that many Saudis were asked "detailed questions" before being allowed to leave."

I addressed it appropriatly. And yes, it is very relavant.

15.) In investment terms, $50,000 isn't substantial. $500,000 maybe, but $50K? Hardly worth mentioning.

The celebration footage is worth mentioning, but this is not. Ask yourself if that is fair to argue. I am trying to be as fair as possible on this. When I compare your response from 1 and 15, it makes me think you are seeing what you want to, and not what is actually there.

16.) Probably by going back and digging up the earlier release from someplace that hadn't updated to the new regulations. Not overly difficult.

Of what new regulations do you speak?

17.) He's a career politician. Tying him to Bush is, frankly, unfair and unrealistic, and Moore does so simply in an attempt to further his own agenda.

But the Bush family, who are also career politicians, actually call him Bandar Bush. Those are words from their own mouth. What makes it unfair?

18-19.) That particular incident was brought up during the election, and promptly dismissed as partisan mudslinging with no actual wrongdoing. That Moore decided to bring it up and phrase it in the fashion that he did was, to me, rather sad.

Promptly dismissed by who? The fact that you totaly dismiss Bush doing the Same thing Martha Stewart went to jail for is rather sad.

20-22.) Ultimately, this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. In order to become president, it helps an awful lot to have money. Yet given the global economy, a president can very easily find himself suffering allegations of conflict of interest. Personally, I've always been intrigued in how it was handled in one theoretical novel, in which the Pres. had his assets liquidated and, for all intents and purposes, invested in the nation itself. Might be an interesting incentive, though would probably go poorly. Oh, and cancelling an $11 Billion weapon system which is 80% complete HURTS.

11 Billion is a drop in the bucket to the Carlyle Group. And in no way did you repond to what I said.

26.) Yeah, I skipped 25. Sue me, it's 4am and I'm probably gonna get back to the rest of this later. Anyway. Conflict of interest is difficult to gauge, honestly, and particularly when we lack certain necessary information. Like, what percentage of the Bush family fortune is strongly tied to Saudi interests. Moore doesn't know either, btw.

I didn't have a problem with 25. And earlier, you said 500k was a significant. I'd be willing to bet it's at the very very least, 10 times that.

27-30.) Did US companies have a vested interest in establishing a pipeline through Afghanistan? Of course. There's money to be made. Was it a secret, known only to government agencies and secret corporate negotiators? God no. A pipeline through Afghanistan is an old wish list item of the oil industry, and has been for some time. Is it worth going to war over? Unlikely. Particularly in Afghanistan, a country known for its... intractable nature.

My thoughts exactly. But they did it anyway.

31.) Refusal to recognize the government cannot be in anyone's opinion a "welcoming" attitude.

Once again, The degree to which the Taliban were welcomed strikes me as a matter of opinion and interpretation, not deceit. Moore is not lying, you just don't agree with his opinion. Kopel calls it an outright lie.

32.) Opposition to the war is not the issue, tying Bin Laden to Bush and claiming that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen and that Bin Laden was responsible on film, while simultanously claiming that Bin Laden could well be innocent and that as such the war in Afghanistan was utterly unjustified... Somewhat different. It boils down to tailoring your message to suit your audience in order to further your larger goal (in this case, to prevent re-election), and is in itself a form of hypocrisy. Then again, that should come as no surprise.

Check your dates, these things did not happen Simultanously. That's one thing about conservatives that always bothered me. People that pick a side and stay with it no matter what are "Strong Leaders". People that change their opinion based on the latest facts and information available are "Flip Floppers". It boils down to you not believeing anything about this movie because it has michael moores name on it.

That's enough for now, Garka needs sleep. I think I shall be more selective in the next post, point by point is time consuming, and I'm lazy. ^^

See why I only do this crap while I'm at work? It is very time consuming to check all your facts. Look at the time between when I made the post with the first 30 responses to the time when I posted the 2nd half. I was working on this that whole time.

 

[Chasym]

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/14090/Rumsfeld_s_Slip_of_the_Tongue_of_What_Happened_to_Flight_93


thought that was funny.
woops on his part.