9/11 staged by the US evidence video

Status
Not open for further replies.
Torqameda said:
When an object exceeds 210 MPH (an estimate), it is too fast to be taken on camera frame by frame. So when you see seperate frames, it is more of a blur, than a plane. However, you can easily distinguish that it is a plane.
The speed that an object distorts on camera relies heavily on distance from the camera, and shutter speed of the camera. It could distort at 5 mph, or could look crystal clear at 500 mph.

And Michael Moore is propaganda, anyone that claims otherwise is retarded. He shows half of the story, the half that supports his side of course, and tosses in a whole lot of emotional moments, and calls it a documentary.
 
Furthermore, he does use many facts to back up (not prove) his opinion. There is just as much factual information in the movie as there is opinionative partisan dribble.

The fact that he had enough info to make the movie at all speaks volumes to me and makes me feel ashamed of our government.

He backs up his opinion by clipping peoples' responses to sound exactly the way he wants them to and when he interviews people, he asks leading questions to get the answers he wants people to hear to meet his agenda.

Do the world a favour and watch Farenhype 9/11 or Celsius 411.

Check this out - http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/links.htm

A hell of a lot of links that all talk about the truth that Moore avoids telling.
 
Trippyhippy said:
You say things without giving good examples. I can accept that as your opinion, but I want you to tell me why.

As for the reason you did give...



Personally... I use such actvites to help me not think about other things in my life. Smoking pot, Video Games, etc. The clip of W playin golf that was in F9/11 makes me think the president does the same thing. He stumbles over a question about 9/11 that he was not focused on then says something about "now watch this drive" and smiles real big. But that is indeed just one subject, and a minor one at that.



I eagerly await the discussion.



I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that whole moron bit. It takes a good bit of intelligence and knowhow to win an oscar (wether you think he deserved it or not is irrelivant, he won it.) What I would say about him is that he obnoxious, smug, patronizing, and self-serving.

Anyone and everyone that had a camera pointed at them within a year after the election told us all what they thought. From brittney Spears to richard gear, they all used their public voice to state their opinion. But then again, I see no reason not to. The people with the money are the ones who have the most interaction with the government.

Furthermore, he does use many facts to back up (not prove) his opinion. There is just as much factual information in the movie as there is opinionative partisan dribble.

The fact that he had enough info to make the movie at all speaks volumes to me and makes me feel ashamed of our government.

i still havent heard anything from him that has held up. you say facts....i say what facts?
winning an award doesnt make a movie true.

also, you must remember that bush isnt the only person in governement that makes decisions. moore just points bush out of the bunch because he is an obvious scapegoat to target. there are hundreds of people in government that make decisions. not just bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11

this is a pretty good link that tells section by section to what the movie is about. now, the part i can definately point out as to be totally pointless is the military. seeing as i have first hand experience in this, you can try to argue it all you want, but you dont have anythign to back yourself on. number 1...what is the point of the military number 2...are military members not knowing what COULD happen by joining the military? well, we know the answer to number 1. the answer to number 2 is "yes". its the number one thing that should go into the persons mind when joining. "could i die when in the military?". moore uses propoganda to help fuel his point. focusing on recruiters going to a low income part of flint michigan and focusing on the woman that lost her son.
as a job of a recruiter, which is something that i have done in the military, the whole point of being a recruiter is to get enlistments. enlistments dont just startup because of a war. they are ongoing even in times of peace. if there are no enlistments, there is no military. hence, the reason to go to the low income areas. they are the best place to start when getting enlistments. the military pays alot more than the men and women in those areas could ever imagine. what need is it for moore to even video tape the recruiters? there is none. no reason period. it backs nothing in his video except as an attempt to help fuel the fire to get people to back him. this is a tie into the woman that lost her son. moore tries to imply that bush and the rest of the government are the ones that are out recruiting.
if you lose your son/daughter in a war, obviously your going to be upset. is there a reason to place blame to anyone? NO. you will probably disagree with that, but until you decide to join the military, which i highly doubt you would even get the gumption to do so, you have no backing to argue that point. it was up to her sons own personal decision to join. he knows the consequences. if he doesnt, hes an idiot taht wanted a free ride that he thought the military could give him. and again, does this woman and her story need to be in the documentary...no. it holds no point in moores attempt to bash the president. but, incase you forgot. bush isnt the only one that makes decisions to go to war. there are other parts of the government that can go for or against.
recruiters will spice things up to get their enlistments. that is point blank fact. however, its been done well before iraq even came into the picture.

and one of my favorite parts being moore talking to a government official asking why he wouldnt let his children join the military. for one, its not that persons choice to decide whether or not his kids join. as a parent myself...utoh, i have experience here too!! would i let my kid join the military? i would let him know the truth about the military and what could happen. if he wants to join, thats his decision. would i be angry if i lost my son? absolutely. if i didnt already have military experience and have been like the uneducated lady that looked for someone to blame, would i go as far as blaming the government? yes. but if my son died in a war and i have the knowledge of how the military works, i cant blame anyone other than the bullet that killed him

fact: nothing about the military/war that moore states in this video, is correct. he has no idea about the military because he hasnt lived it and has no idea what the military does.

its obvious that moore's video worked, cuz it seems that its coerced you a bit. that was the whole point of him making this video..to get people against bush.
 
Last edited:
Scuba-divers that go into deep-diving exercises never bring a partner, for if one gets into a deep narcosis, and starts wasting air, their partner will be attacked by the suffocating diver.
I'm a PADI certified scuba diver and that's not true. You always bring a buddy, especially on deep dives. Narcosis is more like being drunk or high than panicing. If they did panic, their are proper procedures divers are taught for the buddy to approach and bring them out. Typical is to approach from behind and latch your knees onto the tank on their back. They can fight all they want and they will never be able to reach you there. From there its just a matter of inflating your bcd (boyancy control devices) and slowly ascending to the surface.

Just for a couple examples of narcosis. There was a guy on a dive down to 100 ft. He came back up on his own and said he realized he was suffering narcosis when the bubbles started going down. His partner also had the same problem on the same dive he realized after noticing he had just spent 5 mins entranced by the dirt swirling on the bottom. Fortunately it is completly safe with no permanent effects. Here's a legal way to get high Trippy and not even hurt yourself. :biggrin:

Trippy and I have discussed Moore before, so I'll sit that out.
 
Rones said:
I'm a PADI certified scuba diver and that's not true. You always bring a buddy, especially on deep dives. Narcosis is more like being drunk or high than panicing. If they did panic, their are proper procedures divers are taught for the buddy to approach and bring them out. Typical is to approach from behind and latch your knees onto the tank on their back. They can fight all they want and they will never be able to reach you there. From there its just a matter of inflating your bcd (boyancy control devices) and slowly ascending to the surface.

Just for a couple examples of narcosis. There was a guy on a dive down to 100 ft. He came back up on his own and said he realized he was suffering narcosis when the bubbles started going down. His partner also had the same problem on the same dive he realized after noticing he had just spent 5 mins entranced by the dirt swirling on the bottom. Fortunately it is completly safe with no permanent effects. Here's a legal way to get high Trippy and not even hurt yourself. :biggrin:

Trippy and I have discussed Moore before, so I'll sit that out.

Yea, I mixed up my facts very badly here, dunno what I was thinking. I'm training to get my certification to become a diver. What I meant was that if you stay at deep depths for too long, the narcosis gets more severe. Now, even with proper procedure to help your buddy, there is still that high risk that they may attack you or something similar without even knowing it, because they might already be losing oxygen or trimix because of their continuous heavy-breathing.

My point was that even if the helicopters were for rescue purposes, it would've been too hard for them to rescue the victims from an inferno of that magnitude. Let alone coming close up to a building, which would put the crew in great danger, and would end up being a lost cause.
 
Loose Change is a pretty good documentary, take it as a grain of salt like anything though, if you watch it a few times the initial impact is gone and you can view it more critically. There is a book that is mentioned in there, I'll look for the name that is pretty much the same type of evidence. I reccomend reading it if you are interested because such books have better direct links to evidence gathering and can be scrutinized easier. I saw the guy on CSPAN at some point...I'll look around.
 
Also, a fire causes some crazy air currents, it would be very dangerous for a helicoptor to even come close to a burning building, let alone land on it.
 
masterorion said:
also, you must remember that bush isnt the only person in governement that makes decisions. moore just points bush out of the bunch because he is an obvious scapegoat to target. there are hundreds of people in government that make decisions. not just bush

I never said he was alone in decision making and niether did more. I really don't like the entire administration as a whole. I doubt he does either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11

this is a pretty good link that tells section by section to what the movie is about. now, the part i can definately point out as to be totally pointless is the military. seeing as i have first hand experience in this, you can try to argue it all you want, but you dont have anythign to back yourself on.

I haven't said anything yet that would need baking really...
Bsides, anyone can have an opinion, no?

number 1...what is the point of the military number 2...are military members not knowing what COULD happen by joining the military? well, we know the answer to number 1. the answer to number 2 is "yes". its the number one thing that should go into the persons mind when joining. "could i die when in the military?". moore uses propoganda to help fuel his point. focusing on recruiters going to a low income part of flint michigan and focusing on the woman that lost her son.

I think the point he was trying to make was her son died for no reason. This war that we are in is not being fought for freedom. It's being fought for money. Money is also used to persuade people past that "I could die" point as you state in your next paragraph.

as a job of a recruiter, which is something that i have done in the military, the whole point of being a recruiter is to get enlistments. enlistments dont just startup because of a war. they are ongoing even in times of peace. if there are no enlistments, there is no military. hence, the reason to go to the low income areas. they are the best place to start when getting enlistments. the military pays alot more than the men and women in those areas could ever imagine.

Live in the projects or risk my life to get out is the choice they have then?
The military offers you lots of money, an education, a job, a place to live...
But there is the smallest chance you could die if the government decides to start a war. That seems like acceptable odds to me. I would have joined the military straight out of high school if I was able.

what need is it for moore to even video tape the recruiters? there is none. no reason period. it backs nothing in his video except as an attempt to help fuel the fire to get people to back him. this is a tie into the woman that lost her son. moore tries to imply that bush and the rest of the government are the ones that are out recruiting.

That isn't the implication I got from it at all. He tries to imply that Bush and his administration have started a war for thier own personal gain. That's why anyone dying is a tragedy. They signed up to die for their country if neccesary, but they are die under false pretenses. If you believe this war is really for our freedom, I can understand why moore looks like an asshole to you.

if you lose your son/daughter in a war, obviously your going to be upset. is there a reason to place blame to anyone? NO.

Blame has to fall somewhere or they died for no reason, and that's even worse.

you will probably disagree with that, but until you decide to join the military, which i highly doubt you would even get the gumption to do so, you have no backing to argue that point.

Not to make you feel like an asshole or anything, but I was denied. I have Epilepsy and they won't take ya if ya have epilepsy.

it was up to her sons own personal decision to join. he knows the consequences. if he doesnt, hes an idiot taht wanted a free ride that he thought the military could give him.

I don't think it was his own personal decision, I think she encouraged him. Then he died for no reason (in her eyes). If he did think it was a free ride, it was because of misinformation. Probably from his recruiter.

and again, does this woman and her story need to be in the documentary...NO. it holds no point in moores attempt to bash the president.

He did an in-depth interview with someone from his hometown. I don't really see the problem.

but, incase you forgot. bush isnt the only one that makes decisions to go to war. there are other parts of the government that can go for or against.

I'll I can say here is that yes, it is the vast majority of the administration that is crooked, not just bush.

recruiters will spice things up to get their enlistments. that is point blank fact. however, its been done well before iraq even came into the picture.

By spice things up, you mean try and make it seem as the the good heavily outwieghs the bad. That the job of a recruiter. But when you spiced things up did you mention the whole "You may die in the military" bit, or did yo try to stay away from that?

and one of my favorite parts

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

being moore talking to a government official asking why he wouldnt let his children join the military. for one, its not that persons choice to decide whether or not his kids join. as a parent myself...utoh, i have experience here too!! would i let my kid join the military? i would let him know the truth about the military and what could happen. if he wants to join, thats his decision. would i be angry if i lost my son? absolutely. if i didnt already have military experience and have been like the uneducated lady that looked for someone to blame, would i go as far as blaming the government? yes. but if my son died in a war and i have the knowledge of how the military works, i cant blame anyone other than the bullet that killed him

As a parent and former child, you should know that your children look up to you and listen to your advice. Your opinion would (should) heavily influence your childs decision.

If your son died, it would be your burden to deal with it in the way you saw fit. loosing a child is not an easy experience to go through, people handle things differently, and this is how she chose to handle it.

fact: nothing about the military/war that moore states in this video, is correct. he has no idea about the military because he hasnt lived it and has no idea what the military does.

that is a bold statement and you are going to have to be more specific. Quote him if you must.

its obvious that moore's video worked, cuz it seems that its coerced you a bit. that was the whole point of him making this video..to get people against bush.

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.
 
Trippyhippy said:
I think the point he was trying to make was her son died for no reason. This war that we are in is not being fought for freedom. It's being fought for money. Money is also used to persuade people past that "I could die" point as you state in your next paragraph.
there are no facts stating its being fought for money. just theories. i personally believe that it MIGHT be fought for money, but i wont place claim to that theory as being fact.
its a little bold for you to actually state that because there is nothing specifically stating "we are going to war to gain money"

Trippyhippy said:
Live in the projects or risk my life to get out is the choice they have then?
The military offers you lots of money, an education, a job, a place to live...
But there is the smallest chance you could die if the government decides to start a war. That seems like acceptable odds to me. I would have joined the military straight out of high school if I was able.
this is a reason why alot of people join. my family isnt well off, i wanted a good income that my non educated ass couldnt get. in the long run, it has done well for me. military background plays a role in alot of job interviews. believe it or not, it plays a big role.


Trippyhippy said:
That isn't the implication I got from it at all. He tries to imply that Bush and his administration have started a war for thier own personal gain. That's why anyone dying is a tragedy. They signed up to die for their country if neccesary, but they are die under false pretenses. If you believe this war is really for our freedom, I can understand why moore looks like an asshole to you.
his "opinion" is that bush started the war for his personal gain. there is no fact to this. its strictly opinion. if its fact, again, i want to see a link that is signed by bush saying that "im doing this war for my personal gain". there are only a bunch of fingers pointing at things such as "the governement was doing dealings with so and so"...that doesnt mean jack. well before bush, we also helped afghanistan fight off russia. does that mean a conspiracy started that long ago?

and well, we know that it wasnt for freedom of the U.S. thats obvious. however, its common to see people say "the troops are there for our freedom". which is a crock of shit. one reason why they MIGHT be there is to gain an alliance with a future democratic iraq for oil trade? there are a couple theories that i have, but i dont feel like going into all of them.


Trippyhippy said:
Blame has to fall somewhere or they died for no reason, and that's even worse.
no, blame doesnt necessarily have to be placed anywhere. its an upset person that isnt thinking straight that wants to place blame. people that are in upset times like that could be easily influenced as to whom is to blame or they may just simply jump the gun to justify a means to wanting someone to be held responsible.


Trippyhippy said:
Not to make you feel like an asshole or anything, but I was denied. I have Epilepsy and they won't take ya if ya have epilepsy.
true. and i retract my statement with appology


Trippyhippy said:
I don't think it was his own personal decision, I think she encouraged him. Then he died for no reason (in her eyes). If he did think it was a free ride, it was because of misinformation. Probably from his recruiter.

even if she did encourage him, he still makes the ultimate decision.some of the people that join the military look at it as a free ride. not because they were misinformed, its because recruiters dont bring that up. for simple reasons such as fear. most people dont want to die. that is fact. recruiters will tell someone what they want to hear. that is also fact. however, if someone is ignorant enough to look past the obvious, they are going to get a reality check real fast. the military has positive things to offer, but you dont get those positive things unless you work for it. the whole point of the military is for conflicts/war.


Trippyhippy said:
He did an in-depth interview with someone from his hometown. I don't really see the problem.
but why do this interview? you say because the kid died for no reason and it was for money. well, i say show proof that its for money. people think that it was for money as a theory. i dont doubt that it was, but there is no rock hard evidence that it was for that reason. you will not be able to show proof of the reason for war, becaues there is none. unless you have a paper signed by every member of the government stating that this war with iraq was for monetary gain. i dont want to see links of theory after theory stating that all fingers point toward whatever reason. theories have been wrong before.




Trippyhippy said:
By spice things up, you mean try and make it seem as the the good heavily outwieghs the bad. That the job of a recruiter. But when you spiced things up did you mention the whole "You may die in the military" bit, or did yo try to stay away from that?
ive pretty much adressed this in a paragraph or two above. but again, recruiters will show a person what they have to offer. its common sense that you could die while serving in the military. if you dont think so, well, i guess that person should take a class in common sense.


Trippyhippy said:
As a parent and former child, you should know that your children look up to you and listen to your advice. Your opinion would (should) heavily influence your childs decision.
and yes, i know that. and i would tell my son the truth. im not going to say "yes" or "no" to joining the military. i will state facts. such as death being a possibility. i will also state my experience in the military. i will state what the military gave me. from there, he will make his own decision and i will support his decision. if he dies in the military, then that is what happens. will i be upset? of course i will. can i point a finger at anyone other than the person that actually shot him? no. however, i also understand that its kill or be killed. in that sense, you cant really blame the person that fired the bullet. everyone has a destiny. well, that is my theory. his history, life, and death is already written. how he dies is how he dies. i may not like it, but that isnt up for me to decide.

Trippyhippy said:
If your son died, it would be your burden to deal with it in the way you saw fit. loosing a child is not an easy experience to go through, people handle things differently, and this is how she chose to handle it.
yes. that is one point i was making. most people will place blame somewhere. now, whether or not they place blame in the correct direction is another story. that could be opinion biased and will differ depending on that persons outlook.



Trippyhippy said:
that is a bold statement and you are going to have to be more specific. Quote him if you must.
i wrote that wrong. this is what i should have written somethign like.... "moore makes the recruiters look like they are doing something wrong by going to low income areas." but he uses the deaths in the military as a way to place anger on the government. and it is clearly seen in the video. there is honestly no reason to tie in deaths to bush. that is really what it is. moore has a vendetta for bush. me and you know that its not just bush that makes the decisions. however, moore leaves that out. if he didnt have a vendetta just for bush, bush wouldnt be singled out as much as he is.


Trippyhippy said:
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.
moore wasnt widely known until this video. the video was subliminaly meant to persuade people to be against bush. if it wasnt meant to persuade, it wouldnt have been made.
 
masterorion said:
there are no facts stating its being fought for money. just theories. i personally believe that it MIGHT be fought for money, but i wont place claim to that theory as being fact.
its a little bold for you to actually state that because there is nothing specifically stating "we are going to war to gain money"

I am begining to see where this conversation is going to drift to.

this is a reason why alot of people join. my family isnt well off, i wanted a good income that my non educated ass couldnt get. in the long run, it has done well for me. military background plays a role in alot of job interviews. believe it or not, it plays a big role.

It does play a big role. Military = Discipline. People like that in their employees. That is the way to go if you want to make something of yourself when you are starting out with nothing.

his "opinion" is that bush started the war for his personal gain. there is no fact to this. its strictly opinion. if its fact, again, i want to see a link that is signed by bush saying that "im doing this war for my personal gain". there are only a bunch of fingers pointing at things such as "the governement was doing dealings with so and so"...that doesnt mean jack. well before bush, we also helped afghanistan fight off russia. does that mean a conspiracy started that long ago?

He includes many facts in his documentry that elude to the idea that bush started the war for personal gain. Some of it is bullshit, but there are things in that movie that should not be ignored. And just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean that it's not still happening now. Look how long it took to uncover who was the "Deep Throat" that ratted Nixon out. We know only what our government allows us to know. Finding out anything else is like trying to pull teeth out of a Crocadile. The info is there, but it's dangerous to look into it.

and well, we know that it wasnt for freedom of the U.S. thats obvious. however, its common to see people say "the troops are there for our freedom". which is a crock of shit. one reason why they MIGHT be there is to gain an alliance with a future democratic iraq for oil trade? there are a couple theories that i have, but i dont feel like going into all of them.

The people have to want democracy. Some do, some don't. As far as your theories... I'll show ya mine if you show me yours.

no, blame doesnt necessarily have to be placed anywhere. its an upset person that isnt thinking straight that wants to place blame. people that are in upset times like that could be easily influenced as to whom is to blame or they may just simply jump the gun to justify a means to wanting someone to be held responsible.

Someone is to blame. You can't just lose someone that close to you and not ask why. You want a reason. You feel that a reason will make it not hurt so much. Wether this is true or not, anything that will make the pain go away is acceptable to the people that have experinced such a loss. Wether you want to blame the bullet, the gun, the finger on the trigger, the guy that the finger belongs to, the government that sent him there, or the people behind the war, someone is to blame and should answer the question "What did each and every american die for?". If the answer is oil alliance in the future, I don't want my military to suffer loses of life for fuel.

even if she did encourage him, he still makes the ultimate decision.some of the people that join the military look at it as a free ride. not because they were misinformed, its because recruiters dont bring that up. for simple reasons such as fear. most people dont want to die. that is fact. recruiters will tell someone what they want to hear. that is also fact. however, if someone is ignorant enough to look past the obvious, they are going to get a reality check real fast. the military has positive things to offer, but you dont get those positive things unless you work for it. the whole point of the military is for conflicts/war.

The way I look at that... Survival of the smartest and sacrafice of the poor.

but why do this interview? you say because the kid died for no reason and it was for money. well, i say show proof that its for money. people think that it was for money as a theory. i dont doubt that it was, but there is no rock hard evidence that it was for that reason. you will not be able to show proof of the reason for war, becaues there is none. unless you have a paper signed by every member of the government stating that this war with iraq was for monetary gain. i dont want to see links of theory after theory stating that all fingers point toward whatever reason. theories have been wrong before.

I'll keep this in mind as I lead into my next point.


ive pretty much adressed this in a paragraph or two above. but again, recruiters will show a person what they have to offer. its common sense that you could die while serving in the military. if you dont think so, well, i guess that person should take a class in common sense.

"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

and yes, i know that. and i would tell my son the truth. im not going to say "yes" or "no" to joining the military. i will state facts. such as death being a possibility. i will also state my experience in the military. i will state what the military gave me. from there, he will make his own decision and i will support his decision. if he dies in the military, then that is what happens. will i be upset? of course i will. can i point a finger at anyone other than the person that actually shot him? no. however, i also understand that its kill or be killed. in that sense, you cant really blame the person that fired the bullet. everyone has a destiny. well, that is my theory. his history, life, and death is already written. how he dies is how he dies. i may not like it, but that isnt up for me to decide.

In the end, if your child wants to know what your opinion is and asks you directly, "Do you think I should join the military like you dad?", what would you tell him?


i wrote that wrong. this is what i should have written somethign like.... "moore makes the recruiters look like they are doing something wrong by going to low income areas." but he uses the deaths in the military as a way to place anger on the government. and it is clearly seen in the video. there is honestly no reason to tie in deaths to bush. that is really what it is. moore has a vendetta for bush. me and you know that its not just bush that makes the decisions. however, moore leaves that out. if he didnt have a vendetta just for bush, bush wouldnt be singled out as much as he is.

Keep in mind Bush has appointed a lot of people that do make decisions. The Bush family is made up of career politicians. It's not just a job, it's a way of life. A lot of the people were friends of Bush Sr. and Cheney. Cheney is even worse than bush, I want a documentary on him. Hell, maybe I'll make one :-p

moore wasnt widely known until this video. the video was subliminaly meant to persuade people to be against bush. if it wasnt meant to persuade, it wouldnt have been made.

He won an oscar before this movie came out. Bowling for Columbine was very widely known. 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. "Roger and Me" got a lot of plublicity in Europe. It had to do with the closing of an automobile plant in Flint. I never saw that one.

I suppose the main reason I like Michael moores movies is because it's not just him talking. He talks to real people and listens to what Joe Schmo has to say. We already know what all the politicians are gonna say. They have whatever opinion that they have been compromised into having. They agree to support something they don't like in order to get others to support something that they don't like in order to get others to support something they don't like...
 
i dont have time to read all of that "head hurt too much"


so who start this ... al Qaeda or your government ?
 
Also, I have said a lot about "facts from the movie", and have asked you to refute some without offering any to refute. Here is some of what I was talking about.

If it is in bold, it came straight from michael Moores mouth. Everything else should be considered a source for his info. I picked through it somewhat and took out some of the bullshit. We can go over that later if you wish. The facts listed below are almost reason enough for me to believe our government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. Take your time with this one, don't try to respond to everything at once, we'll end up getting a bunch of "tl;dr" posts like this one and my last one.

“On the day George W. Bush was inaugurated, tens of thousands of Americans poured into the streets of D.C. They pelted Bush’s limo with eggs.”
“Shouting slogans like ‘Hail to the Thief’ and ‘Selected, Not Elected,’ tens of thousands of protesters descended on George W. Bush's inaugural parade route yesterday to proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had ‘stolen’ the election.” Michael Kranish and Sue Kirchhoff, “Thousands Protest ‘Stolen’ Election,” Boston Globe, January 21, 2001.

-

“In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”

“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

-

“Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism?”

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf

See Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004:

MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --

MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.

MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

MR. CLARKE: I did geta response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?

MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB): “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

“In the days following September 11th , all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded.”

“The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.”

“At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.”

NOTE: It should be noted that even though the film does not make the allegation, strong evidence has come to light that at least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded. Moreover, for nearly three years, the White House has denied that this flight existed. This was reported in the June 9, 2004 St. Petersburg Times article cited below.

TheSt. Petersburg Times reported on Jun 9 said:
o "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country.”

o Moreover: “For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose… The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight… The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.

o "Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights.” Jean Heller, “TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.” St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004

“Bush tried to stop Congress from setting up its own 9/11 investigation.… When he couldn’t stop Congress, he then tried to stop an independent 9/11 commission from being formed.”

The original effort by the White House was to limit the scope of the 9/11 investigation to only two congressional committees. “President Bush asked House and Senate leaders yesterday to allow only two congressional committees to investigate the government's response to the events of Sept. 11, officials said.” Mike Allen, “Bush Seeks To Restrict Hill Probes Of Sept. 11; Intelligence Panels' Secrecy Is Favored,” Washington Post, January 30, 2002.

“I, of course, want the Congress to take a look at what took place prior to Sept. 11. But since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it’s best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committees,” President Bush said. David Rosenbaum, “Bush Bucks Tradition on Investigation,” The New York Times, May 26, 2002.
“Angry lawmakers [McCain, Pelosi, Lieberman] accused White House Friday of secretly trying to derail creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks while professing to support the idea.” Helen Dewar, “Lawmakers Accuse Bush of 9/11 Deceit,” Los Angeles Times, October 13, 2002.

“In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan.”

“A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for Talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)
“The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the NASA space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives. The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr. Miller about his Christmas tree.” Caroline Lees, “Oil Barons Court Taliban in Texas,” The Telegraph (London), December 14, 1997.

“And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney, Halliburton.”

On October 27, 1997, both Unocal and Halliburton issued press releases about their energy work in Turkmenistan. “Halliburton Energy Services has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years.” Press Release, “Halliburton Alliance Awarded Integrated Service Contract Offshore Caspian Sea In Turkmenistan,” October 27, 1997. http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/hesnws_102797.jsp; “ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 - Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday.” Press Release, “Consortium Formed to Build Central Asia Gas Pipeline,” October 27, 1997.

Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline.

Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, “explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline.” Elaine Kelly, “Northwest Groups Discuss Afghan, Iranian and Turkish Rights Violations,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 31, 1997.

Kenneth Lay of Enron was Bush’s number one campaign contributor.

Mr. Lay, also a friend to former President George Bush, was the top campaign contributor to Mr. Bush’s 2000 presidential election.” Jerry Seper, “Colossal Collapse: Enron Bankruptcy Scandal Carves a Wide Swath,” The Washington Times, January 13, 2002; “Although Enron is George W. Bush’s No. 1 career donor, the president also is heavily indebted to the professional firms that aided and abetted the greatest bankruptcy and shareholder meltdown in U.S. history.” Texans for Public Justice, “Bush Is Indebted To Enron’s Professional Abettors, Too,” January 17, 2002 http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=255

"Bush also appointed as our envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also a former Unocal advisor."

"Mr. Khalilzad himself knows how compasses change. In the mid-1990's, he briefly defended the Taliban while working as a consultant for Unocal, the oil company that was then trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. He later became one of the Taliban's fiercest critics." Amy Waldman, "Afghan Returns Home as American Ambassador," New York Times, April 19, 2004.

"Afghanistan signed the agreement to build a pipeline through its country carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea ."

"The framework agreement defines legal mechanisms for setting up a consortium to build and operate the long-delayed US$3.2-billion natural gas pipeline, known as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, which would carry gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan. It would be one of the first major investment projects in Afghanistan in decades." Baglia Bukharbayeva "Pakistani, Turkmen, Afghan Leaders Sign US$3.2 Billion Pipeline Deal," Associated Press, December 27, 2002.

"In the year 2000, [John Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy." (Note: BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHA)

"Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Eric Stern, "Ashcroft Rejects Challenge To Election; Senator Says He Hopes Carnahan’s Victory Will Be ‘Of Comfort’ To Widow,"St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2000 .

"During the summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told acting FBI director Thomas Pickard that he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats."

"Former interim FBI chief Thomas Pickard testified Tuesday that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft didn’t want to hear about terrorism when Pickard tried to brief him during the summer of 2001, as intelligence reports about terrorist threats were reaching a historic level." Cam Simpson, "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton," Chicago Tribune, April 14, 2004.

"His own FBI knew that summer that there were al Qaeda members in the U.S. , and that bin Laden was sending his agents to flight schools throughout the country."

[T]he July 2001 ‘Phoenix’ memo, written by an FBI agent in Arizona, warned about ‘an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest’ taking flight training. It urged the agency to collect data on flight schools and foreign students, and to discuss the potential threat with other intelligence agencies. ...[O]ne of the men mentioned in the memo was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 with a senior al Qaeda facilitator, Abu Zubayda. R. Jeffrey Smith, "A History of Missed Connections; U.S. Analysts Warned of Potential Attacks but Lacked Follow-Through," Washington Post, July 25, 2003.
Excerpt from "Phoenix Memo": "The purpose of this communication is to advise the Bureau and New York of the possibility of a coordinated effort by USAMA BIN LADEN (UBL) to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation universities and colleges. Phoenix has observed an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest who are attending or who have attended civil aviation universities and colleges in the State of Arizona." Read the entire Phoenix Memo at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/...Limit," The New York Times, October 13, 2001.
 
Trippyhippy said:
The people have to want democracy. Some do, some don't. As far as your theories... I'll show ya mine if you show me yours.
ill compose my theories later on today

Trippyhippy said:
Someone is to blame. You can't just lose someone that close to you and not ask why. You want a reason. You feel that a reason will make it not hurt so much. Wether this is true or not, anything that will make the pain go away is acceptable to the people that have experinced such a loss. Wether you want to blame the bullet, the gun, the finger on the trigger, the guy that the finger belongs to, the government that sent him there, or the people behind the war, someone is to blame and should answer the question "What did each and every american die for?". If the answer is oil alliance in the future, I don't want my military to suffer loses of life for fuel.
most people will react to a childs death by hating someone. this is true. look what happens when a child is killed while driving home at night or whatever. who do they blame? they automatically look to god to blame. are they blaming the right person, probably not. they use the obvious scapegoat to blame.


Trippyhippy said:
The way I look at that... Survival of the smartest and sacrafice of the poor.
its not necessarily the way you say. some people join the military because they want to, regardless of family background. IE: tilman. played football for the cardinals, died in combat. ive also met doctors and other people that were well off when it comes to money during my 4 years in the military. so, its not necessarily a sacrifice as you see it. a sacrifice would be putting a life of a person against their will to imminent death. if you wanted to keep "sacfrice of the poor" you need to change the quote to "survival of the cowardly, sacrifice of the poor".



Trippyhippy said:
In the end, if your child wants to know what your opinion is and asks you directly, "Do you think I should join the military like you dad?", what would you tell him?
i still wont tell him a yes or no answer. its not what im going to do. point blank. im going to distill in him that the choices he makes have consequences. if he chooses that decision, ill let him know what a consequence might be and he will make that decision. i refuse to hold his hand and make his decisions for him. ill also explain to him why i would have him make the yes or no answer.

Trippyhippy said:
He won an oscar before this movie came out. Bowling for Columbine was very widely known. 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. "Roger and Me" got a lot of plublicity in Europe. It had to do with the closing of an automobile plant in Flint. I never saw that one.
must not be that well known unless you watch for things like this. i personally didnt know who moore was till after his movie came out.
Trippyhippy said:
I suppose the main reason I like Michael moores movies is because it's not just him talking. He talks to real people and listens to what Joe Schmo has to say. We already know what all the politicians are gonna say. They have whatever opinion that they have been compromised into having. They agree to support something they don't like in order to get others to support something that they don't like in order to get others to support something they don't like...
well, chances are, moore only put in the people that shared the same views as himself. is there anyone in the video that opposes his point of view(civilian type person, not part of the gov.). of course there isnt. that wouldnt support his view if there were people that opposed it in the same video and he allowed them to speak out on his movie.
 
Trippyhippy said:
I personally think they worked on it together. How bout you?

i dont care anymore .. all i care is , the one who did it give bad image to islam
 
Trippyhippy said:
“On the day George W. Bush was inaugurated, tens of thousands of Americans poured into the streets of D.C. They pelted Bush’s limo with eggs.”
“Shouting slogans like ‘Hail to the Thief’ and ‘Selected, Not Elected,’ tens of thousands of protesters descended on George W. Bush's inaugural parade route yesterday to proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had ‘stolen’ the election.” Michael Kranish and Sue Kirchhoff, “Thousands Protest ‘Stolen’ Election,” Boston Globe, January 21, 2001.
ok, people protested. this doesnt prove that moore is correct about anything. iits more of an observation than anything else. it may be true, but this doesnt mean anything when it comes to making bush look bad.

-
Trippyhippy said:
“In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”

“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.
i guess moore thinks that vacationing is illegal? it is also stated that bush uses his ranch and makes many of his decisions there. who is moore to say when someone goes on vacation. the only reason why this sounds like a big deal is because there isnt another president that he is compared to. big deal, he spent a month at his ranch. he didnt abandon his decision making.
many president spend time at camp david. moore doesnt compare other presidents to bush. point blank. he might find that the time spent elsewhere by other presidents is not all that different than bush? but moore wouldnt ever put that in because he wouldnt be able to use it in his movie if he did.


Trippyhippy said:
“Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism?”

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf

See Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004:

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism...."
i must be missing the part that tells where the president is to blame? by the article saying "they" means that other people in government wouldnt allow him? is that just me, or does that sound like what it is?
as to moores part of that section, who is moore to put his big mouth in there to determine what and what shouldnt have been done? fact: there is alot more stuff to do as president than can be seen by us here in the civilian sector. ill use large corporation as example. do u think that the head of a large corp. just sits in his office all day, stays home, plays golf etc. i guarantee there is a boxload of papers that passes his desk in a day. president isnt going to be any different. people have misconceptions because they only see what the press and asshats like moore videotape.



Trippyhippy said:
The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB): “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
i guarantee the FBI recieves and responds to this information before the president gets it. so, who is really to blame? i say FBI if there is anywhere to really place blame.
Trippyhippy said:
“In the days following September 11th , all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded.”

“The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.”

“At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.”

NOTE: It should be noted that even though the film does not make the allegation, strong evidence has come to light that at least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded. Moreover, for nearly three years, the White House has denied that this flight existed. This was reported in the June 9, 2004 St. Petersburg Times article cited below.

“The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.” sorry,but bush still isnt singled out. he may not have even known about it?

Trippyhippy said:
“Bush tried to stop Congress from setting up its own 9/11 investigation.… When he couldn’t stop Congress, he then tried to stop an independent 9/11 commission from being formed.”

The original effort by the White House was to limit the scope of the 9/11 investigation to only two congressional committees. “President Bush asked House and Senate leaders yesterday to allow only two congressional committees to investigate the government's response to the events of Sept. 11, officials said.” Mike Allen, “Bush Seeks To Restrict Hill Probes Of Sept. 11; Intelligence Panels' Secrecy Is Favored,” Washington Post, January 30, 2002.

“I, of course, want the Congress to take a look at what took place prior to Sept. 11. But since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it’s best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committees,” President Bush said. David Rosenbaum, “Bush Bucks Tradition on Investigation,” The New York Times, May 26, 2002.
“Angry lawmakers [McCain, Pelosi, Lieberman] accused White House Friday of secretly trying to derail creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks while professing to support the idea.” Helen Dewar, “Lawmakers Accuse Bush of 9/11 Deceit,” Los Angeles Times, October 13, 2002.
this is the only thing so far that has held any water so far. however, it never explains to a reason why. there COULD be a simple answer to it? we dont know why. the only reason why its even brought up is because it looks fishy. still no facts here saying ya or nay to anything.
Trippyhippy said:
“In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan.”

“A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for Talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)
“The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the NASA space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives. The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr. Miller about his Christmas tree.” Caroline Lees, “Oil Barons Court Taliban in Texas,” The Telegraph (London), December 14, 1997.

Trippyhippy said:
“And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney, Halliburton.”

On October 27, 1997, both Unocal and Halliburton issued press releases about their energy work in Turkmenistan. “Halliburton Energy Services has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years.” Press Release, “Halliburton Alliance Awarded Integrated Service Contract Offshore Caspian Sea In Turkmenistan,” October 27, 1997. http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/hesnws_102797.jsp; “ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 - Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday.” Press Release, “Consortium Formed to Build Central Asia Gas Pipeline,” October 27, 1997.

we also helped the taliban in the 80s to fend off russia. but again, moore wouldnt put that into his documentary because it would take focus off of bush and in essence, negate the point that was trying to be said. he interacted with the taliban in the 90s..big deal. times change as can be seen from the 80s to now. we actively supported afghanistan and fought off russia. its totally backwards in todays world now.

during the 90s, yes bush probably was an oil baron. many rich men are. i guess moore should have added their names in there too. but wait, they arent added. might that be because moore singles out the president?
Trippyhippy said:
Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline.

Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, “explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline.” Elaine Kelly, “Northwest Groups Discuss Afghan, Iranian and Turkish Rights Violations,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 31, 1997.

Kenneth Lay of Enron was Bush’s number one campaign contributor.

Mr. Lay, also a friend to former President George Bush, was the top campaign contributor to Mr. Bush’s 2000 presidential election.” Jerry Seper, “Colossal Collapse: Enron Bankruptcy Scandal Carves a Wide Swath,” The Washington Times, January 13, 2002; “Although Enron is George W. Bush’s No. 1 career donor, the president also is heavily indebted to the professional firms that aided and abetted the greatest bankruptcy and shareholder meltdown in U.S. history.” Texans for Public Justice, “Bush Is Indebted To Enron’s Professional Abettors, Too,” January 17, 2002 http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=255
this still doesnt state that bush is at war for money. it sure does seem like it because there is the world oil in there many times. it merely points a finger that something might be going on. but is there? can you honestly say from this whole couple paragraphs that it does say that we are in it for the oil? to my knowledge, that pipeline hasnt been started. so, in my opinion, this is nothing but heresay unless that pipeline was actually underway.

Trippyhippy said:
"Bush also appointed as our envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also a former Unocal advisor."

"Mr. Khalilzad himself knows how compasses change. In the mid-1990's, he briefly defended the Taliban while working as a consultant for Unocal, the oil company that was then trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. He later became one of the Taliban's fiercest critics." Amy Waldman, "Afghan Returns Home as American Ambassador," New York Times, April 19, 2004.
fomer that is the key word.hmm, former as in 20 years ago, 30 years, more maybe? does that mean anything is going on. the press likes to point out prior jobs when it comes to anyone and everyone holding a job in the spot light. god forbid that a woman that posed for playboy becomes someone in a high position in a job. that person gets singled out. the guy was merely an advisor. not a chairman, ceo, vp, or anything of the sort. if what moore is trying to imply, is that this guy is getting benefits from anything, i highly doubt that an advisor is going to get any benes from anything.
Trippyhippy said:
"Afghanistan signed the agreement to build a pipeline through its country carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea ."

"The framework agreement defines legal mechanisms for setting up a consortium to build and operate the long-delayed US$3.2-billion natural gas pipeline, known as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, which would carry gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan. It would be one of the first major investment projects in Afghanistan in decades." Baglia Bukharbayeva "Pakistani, Turkmen, Afghan Leaders Sign US$3.2 Billion Pipeline Deal," Associated Press, December 27, 2002.
ok, so afghanistan did this. is there a point? or am i missing it? if your referring to the "US$3.2 billion pipeline deal" part of it, that isnt saying that the US is part of it. its using a reference to let people know how much afghanistan is giving/receieving in our currency system so it can be seen easier to how much is being used for the deal.
Trippyhippy said:
"In the year 2000, [John Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy." (Note: BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHA)

"Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Eric Stern, "Ashcroft Rejects Challenge To Election; Senator Says He Hopes Carnahan’s Victory Will Be ‘Of Comfort’ To Widow,"St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2000 .
your probably misunderstanding this. when both were running for election and both were still alive, the person that WOULD have won is the guy that died. its not saying that "even though the guy is dead, we still want him as senator of this other schmo". its simply stating "we wanted to elect so and so, rather than ashcroft". again, why moore put this in the video, i dont know. it holds no bearing on anything. hes using it as a joke that will have a truth that will be easily overlooked just as it is unless you analyze it such as i did.

Trippyhippy said:
"During the summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told acting FBI director Thomas Pickard that he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats."

"Former interim FBI chief Thomas Pickard testified Tuesday that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft didn’t want to hear about terrorism when Pickard tried to brief him during the summer of 2001, as intelligence reports about terrorist threats were reaching a historic level." Cam Simpson, "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton," Chicago Tribune, April 14, 2004.
i was starting to get tired of hearing the same thing over and over. i guess that i should have been put in the movie too. now, if moore would have said "he didnt want to hear anythign more about NEW terrorist threats" then, that is another story. those 2 scenarios are totally different in meaning and was probably taken out of context by moore?

Trippyhippy said:
"His own FBI knew that summer that there were al Qaeda members in the U.S. , and that bin Laden was sending his agents to flight schools throughout the country."

[T]he July 2001 ‘Phoenix’ memo, written by an FBI agent in Arizona, warned about ‘an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest’ taking flight training. It urged the agency to collect data on flight schools and foreign students, and to discuss the potential threat with other intelligence agencies. ...[O]ne of the men mentioned in the memo was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 with a senior al Qaeda facilitator, Abu Zubayda. R. Jeffrey Smith, "A History of Missed Connections; U.S. Analysts Warned of Potential Attacks but Lacked Follow-Through," Washington Post, July 25, 2003.
Excerpt from "Phoenix Memo": "The purpose of this communication is to advise the Bureau and New York of the possibility of a coordinated effort by USAMA BIN LADEN (UBL) to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation universities and colleges. Phoenix has observed an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest who are attending or who have attended civil aviation universities and colleges in the State of Arizona." Read the entire Phoenix Memo at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/...se facts off of just one side all of the time
 
Last edited:
It amuses me that Moore somehow implies that people who work for oil companies should for some reason not pursue their objectives or do their job well... because of something that will happen 4 years in the future.

Corporations are amoral. Get used to the idea. They will work with anyone when not directly prohibited, and sometimes they'll do it anyway. Particularly if they're a French corporation...

Anyway.

My fundamental problem with Moore is that he doesn't produce documentaries.

Ever.

He takes footage, edits it together to produce the effect that he wants. For example, Heston's "speech" in Bowling for Columbine is spliced together from something like 4 different speeches at varying locations over a 6 month time period or so. Moore implies that he gave *that* speech near Columbine mere weeks after the incident.

That's a lie.

In Fahrenheit 9/11, he does much the same thing. In particular he presents HALF the fact at best. He posts vague questions then implies connections. He presents facts in such way as to skew the perceived truth to his line of thinking.

In short, he does precisely the same thing he accuses the government of doing.

And that, boys and girls, is called HYPOCRISY.
 
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11

this is a pretty good link that tells section by section to what the movie is about. now, the part i can definately point out as to be totally pointless is the military. seeing as i have first hand experience in this, you can try to argue it all you want, but you dont have anythign to back yourself on.




wikipedia.org is the worst source for information by the way, for it can be edited by anyone...
 
masterorion said:
ok, people protested. this doesnt prove that moore is correct about anything. iits more of an observation than anything else. it may be true, but this doesnt mean anything when it comes to making bush look bad.

This is a matter of opinion.


i guess moore thinks that vacationing is illegal? it is also stated that bush uses his ranch and makes many of his decisions there. who is moore to say when someone goes on vacation. the only reason why this sounds like a big deal is because there isnt another president that he is compared to. big deal, he spent a month at his ranch. he didnt abandon his decision making.
many president spend time at camp david. moore doesnt compare other presidents to bush. point blank. he might find that the time spent elsewhere by other presidents is not all that different than bush? but moore wouldnt ever put that in because he wouldnt be able to use it in his movie if he did.

There are obviously better things he could have been doing.


“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism...."
i must be missing the part that tells where the president is to blame? by the article saying "they" means that other people in government wouldnt allow him? is that just me, or does that sound like what it is?
as to moores part of that section, who is moore to put his big mouth in there to determine what and what shouldnt have been done? fact: there is alot more stuff to do as president than can be seen by us here in the civilian sector. ill use large corporation as example. do u think that the head of a large corp. just sits in his office all day, stays home, plays golf etc. i guarantee there is a boxload of papers that passes his desk in a day. president isnt going to be any different. people have misconceptions because they only see what the press and asshats like moore videotape.

The movie isn't all about the president like you thought it was. It's about the adminstration as a whole. You are being too defensive and not accepting things for what they are. This is pointing out some of the many breakdowns in communication, in my opinion, that led up to 9/11.

i guarantee the FBI recieves and responds to this information before the president gets it. so, who is really to blame? i say FBI if there is anywhere to really place blame.

The government as a whole is to blame. Particularly the administration in the white house and people that pass along information.

“The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.” sorry,but bush still isnt singled out. he may not have even known about it?

The odds that bush didn't know about his friends around the country leaving on airplanes when everything else in the country had been grounded on orders from the highest level... Besides, this movie isn't completely about singling out Bush.

this is the only thing so far that has held any water so far. however, it never explains to a reason why. there COULD be a simple answer to it? we dont know why. the only reason why its even brought up is because it looks fishy. still no facts here saying ya or nay to anything.

This was simply an example of our government hiding things from us. We saw what happend. Everyone knew who did it. There were people taking responsability. What did they need to hide? Asking questions helps to keep this a free country.

we also helped the taliban in the 80s to fend off russia. but again, moore wouldnt put that into his documentary because it would take focus off of bush and in essence, negate the point that was trying to be said. he interacted with the taliban in the 90s..big deal. times change as can be seen from the 80s to now. we actively supported afghanistan and fought off russia. its totally backwards in todays world now.

Once again, this is a matter of opinion.

during the 90s, yes bush probably was an oil baron. many rich men are. i guess moore should have added their names in there too. but wait, they arent added. might that be because moore singles out the president?

That's because the president wasn't an oil baron.

“George W. Bush founded an oil company, a drilling company, out in west Texas called Arbusto, which was very good at drilling dry holes.”

“After graduating from the Harvard Business School, Bush organized his first company, Arbusto Energy (Arbusto is Spanish for Bush) in 1977 on the eve of a run for Congress. According to records on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arbusto didn’t start active operations until March 1979.… According to 1984 securities filings, Bush’s limited partners had invested $4.66 million in Bush’s various drilling programs but they had received cash distributions of only $1.54 million. However, Bush’s CFO stated, ‘We didn’t find much oil and gas,’ adding ‘We weren’t raising any money.’ George Lardner Jr. and Lois Romano, “Bush Name Helps Fuel Oil Dealings,” Washington Post, July 30, 1999.

“Bush eventually renamed his company Bush Exploration and later merged with a firm called Spectrum 7. Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that the firm lost money from 1979 to 1982 and that investors who put in nearly $4.7 million got back just $1.5 million. Published reports contend that Bush Exploration was salvaged by Cincinnati oilmen Bill DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Bush today says otherwise, that his company was on firm financial footing and that the merger was a strategic one. Either way, George W. drilled his fair share of dry holes. As Conaway rues to this day, the company ‘never hit . . . the Big Kahuna.’” Maria La Ganga, “Bush Finesses Texas 2-Step Of Privilege, Personality,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2000.

“There is no indication that daddy wrote a check to start Bush off in his company.”

“Seed money, upward of $4 million, was largely raised between 1979 and 1982 with the help of [Bush’s] uncle, financier Jonathan Bush. The Arbusto investor list is filled with family and famous friends. His grandmother, Dorothy W. Bush, chipped in $25,000. Corporate luminaries like George L. Ball, chief executive of Prudential-Bache Securities, invested $100,000. Macomber and William H. Draper III, who invested more than $125,000, were later named presidents of the U.S. Export-Import Bank during the Reagan and Bush administrations.” Maria La Ganga, “Bush Finesses Texas 2-Step Of Privilege, Personality,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2000.

“Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy and they gave him a seat on their board.”

“Bush's name …was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies. After finding Spectrum, Harken's executives saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record. By the end of September 1986, the deal was done. Harken assumed $ 3.1 million in debts and swapped $ 2.2 million of its stock for a company that was hemorrhaging money, though it had oil and gas reserves projected to produce $ 4 million in future net revenue. Harken, a firm that liked to attach itself to stars, had also acquired Bush, whom it used not as an operating manager but as a high-profile board member.… It was one of the biggest breaks of Bush's life. Still, the Harken deal completed a disappointing reprise of what was becoming a familiar pattern. As an oilman, Bush always worked hard, winning a reputation as a straight-shooter and a good boss who was witty, warm and immensely likable. Even the investors who lost money in his ventures remained admirers, and some of them are now raising money for his presidential campaign. But the story of Bush's career in oil, which began following his graduation from Harvard Business School in the summer of 1975 and ended when he sold out to Harken and headed for Washington, is mostly about his failure to succeed, despite the sterling connections his lineage and Ivy League education brought him." George Lardner Jr. and Lois Romano, “Bush Name Helps Fuel Oil Dealings,” Washington Post, July 30, 1999.

Bush was investigated by the S.E.C. The James Baker law partner who helped Bush beat the rap from the SEC was a man by the name of Robert Jordon, who, when George W. became president was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

“A week before George W. Bush's 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Co., the firm's outside lawyers cautioned Bush and other directors against selling shares if they had significant negative information about the company's prospects. The sale came a few months before Harken reported significant losses, leading to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The June 15, 1990, letter from the Haynes and Boone law firm wasn't sent to the SEC by Bush's attorney Robert W. Jordan until Aug. 22, 1991, according to a letter by Jordan. That was one day after SEC staff members investigating the stock sale concluded there was insufficient evidence to recommend an enforcement action against Bush for insider trading.” Peter Behr, “Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers’ Warning,” Washington Post, November 1, 2002.

“President Bush has chosen as ambassador to Saudi Arabia a Dallas attorney who represented him against … allegations arising from his sale of stock in Harken Energy Co. 11 years ago.” G. Robert Hillman, “Bush Taps Dallas Attorney to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia,” The Dallas Morning News, July 21, 2001.

“After the Harken debacle, the friends of Bush’s dad got him a seat on another board, of a company owned by the Carlyle Group.”

"Fred Malek, a senior advisor to Carlyle, who also served as the director of the 1988 Republican Convention, suggested to Carlyle that the President’s eldest son, George W. Bush, would ‘be a positive addition to Caterair’s board.’ Mr. Malek was also a Caterair director and vice chairman of Northwest Airlines, a major Caterair customer. ‘I thought George W. Bush could make a contribution to Caterair,’ stated Malek. Malek further claimed, ‘He would be on the board even if his father weren’t President.’" Kenneth N. Gilpin, “Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,” New York Times, March 26, 1991

Co-Founder of Carlyle Group, David Rubenstein, talking about setting up Cater Air after Carlyle acquired it: “When we’re putting together the board,” Rubenstein said, ‘somebody came to me and said ‘Look, there is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. Needs some board positions. Could you put him on the board? Pay him a salary and he'll be a good board member and be a loyal vote for the management and so forth.’ …We put him on the board and (he) spent three years. Came to all the meetings. … And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years – ‘You know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.’ The board member told him, Rubenstein said, ‘Well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.’ And I said, 'Thanks.' Didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush,’ Rubenstein said. ‘He became president of the United States. So if you said to me, name 25 million people who would be president of the United States, he wouldn't be in that category. So you neverknow." Nicholas Horrock, “White House Watch: With Friends Like These,” UPI, July 16, 2003 .

this still doesnt state that bush is at war for money. it sure does seem like it because there is the world oil in there many times. it merely points a finger that something might be going on. but is there? can you honestly say from this whole couple paragraphs that it does say that we are in it for the oil? to my knowledge, that pipeline hasnt been started. so, in my opinion, this is nothing but heresay unless that pipeline was actually underway.

heh. If you want to know more about that pipeline, here is some reading for you. That pipeline is the only reason cheney entered politics.

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DE29Ag02.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/175.html
http://www.islandnet.com/~contempo/library/wtc/flandersj2.html
http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/news/cheney_haliburton.htm

And here is one that says I'm wrong.
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/moore2.htm
I gotta tell ya though, this guy avoids a lot of facts to try and prove michael moore liead about a Date. He seems more obnoxious than Moore himself, which is a feat in and of itself.

fomer that is the key word.hmm, former as in 20 years ago, 30 years, more maybe? does that mean anything is going on. the press likes to point out prior jobs when it comes to anyone and everyone holding a job in the spot light. god forbid that a woman that posed for playboy becomes someone in a high position in a job. that person gets singled out. the guy was merely an advisor. not a chairman, ceo, vp, or anything of the sort. if what moore is trying to imply, is that this guy is getting benefits from anything, i highly doubt that an advisor is going to get any benes from anything.

actually the paragraph you were responding to says it was only 5 years ago, not 20 or 30. I don't agree with yout playboy simile. More like a woman posing for playboy and then becoming a high ranking Nun. That would be more accurate. It just explains that Zalmay Khalilzad believes what is best for Zalmay Khalilzads wallet.

ok, so afghanistan did this. is there a point? or am i missing it? if your referring to the "US$3.2 billion pipeline deal" part of it, that isnt saying that the US is part of it. its using a reference to let people know how much afghanistan is giving/receieving in our currency system so it can be seen easier to how much is being used for the deal.
your probably misunderstanding this. when both were running for election and both were still alive, the person that WOULD have won is the guy that died. its not saying that "even though the guy is dead, we still want him as senator of this other schmo". its simply stating "we wanted to elect so and so, rather than ashcroft". again, why moore put this in the video, i dont know. it holds no bearing on anything. hes using it as a joke that will have a truth that will be easily overlooked just as it is unless you analyze it such as i did.

well... I thought it was funny. Remember that one Eddie Murphy movie where Congressman Johnson died, and some random guy (played by Eddie Murphy) had the same name and ran for office, then won just because of the name? It reminded me of that. Or like richard Nixon running for governer of Cali, losing then like 6 years later becoming the Presidet of the US. To each his own I guess.

i was starting to get tired of hearing the same thing over and over. i guess that i should have been put in the movie too. now, if moore would have said "he didnt want to hear anythign more about NEW terrorist threats" then, that is another story. those 2 scenarios are totally different in meaning and was probably taken out of context by moore?

he didn't say old or new. He said "no more", meaning None. It wasn't specified, and untill it is, I guess this one is a moot point.

again, bush isnt stated in this...its all pointing at the FBI which will recieve intelligence info well before the president.

from the smart ass in me. :wink:

CONGRESS voted on it. doesnt say anything about bush...again. is it possible that moore uses bush as a scapegoat because he is the head of the country. many decisions are made without him even knowing. yet, moore picks apart at bush. ive seen less than a handful of things that have been quoted that include bush in them. and each of them except maybe one have other possibilities. all of moores quotes simply are tied into someone elses quotes. does it make all of them correct? no it doesnt. as can be seen in one of the videos i posted(i think i posted it), the reporter admitted that he may have been/was wrong. reporters arent perfect either. many info they get is taken from an inside source. however, what happens to info when its passed down the grapevine. i think we know that answer already. fact is, there is no rock solid information that gives definate answers. only research that points fingers and research has been known to be flawed

Moore does pick apart bush, and everyone in his administration.

everything that i replied on was taken from my own mind. i didnt research anything because i dont have time to be surfing the internet, and frankly i dont have patience to do so. but, everythign i did mention should easily be comprehended if you have an open mind. dont just automatically shoot down my answers because your going to keep believing what you believe. i have read what you quoted, and have placed my opinion on it. the information might be correct but it might not. if it is correct, it may not even have bearing on anything. we dont know because its nothign more than a bunch of finger pointing. no where in any of that research does it say "bush replies to this.." or "member of congress, insert name here, says such and such in rebuttle". no one got to put up a rebuttle as to the information that was provided in your quotes. it makes it one sided. you cant base facts off of just one side all of the time

I will have to agree with you that my viewpoint is one sided. But that is the objective here. To get another point of view. You feel that I'm a bush basher and can't see the Forest for the trees. I feel that you have let your patriotism get in the way of your better judgement.

If nothing else, we have had a spirited debate without calling each other names, cussing, or being generally unruley.

Maybe we should move this thread to good times...
 
Raesvelg said:
It amuses me that Moore somehow implies that people who work for oil companies should for some reason not pursue their objectives or do their job well... because of something that will happen 4 years in the future.

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.

Corporations are amoral. Get used to the idea. They will work with anyone when not directly prohibited, and sometimes they'll do it anyway. Particularly if they're a French corporation...

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.

My fundamental problem with Moore is that he doesn't produce documentaries.

Ever.

He won an oscar for a documentary

He takes footage, edits it together to produce the effect that he wants. For example, Heston's "speech" in Bowling for Columbine is spliced together from something like 4 different speeches at varying locations over a 6 month time period or so. Moore implies that he gave *that* speech near Columbine mere weeks after the incident.

That's a lie.

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.

In Fahrenheit 9/11, he does much the same thing. In particular he presents HALF the fact at best. He posts vague questions then implies connections. He presents facts in such way as to skew the perceived truth to his line of thinking.

In short, he does precisely the same thing he accuses the government of doing.

And that, boys and girls, is called HYPOCRISY.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top