Fahrenheit 9/11

[Trigger-]

Hunter S Tompson has anything to do with this? Lets find the most publicized drugey and make him support our cause. Yeah! His thoughts on patriotism are scarily accurate... but that doesn't in any way support the fanciful claims.

I hope i just didn't see you insult Gonzo. He is an american genius and that is coming from a canadian. Your thoughts on crazed allegations are valid but well rehearsed, Too well rehearsed.
I think it is funny that you can deny H.S.T. Political and literary Genius and yet so blindly discredit the flic. Maybe read some of his books before judging him or his motives. Maybe pick up a circa. 70's Rolling Stone and look at his accomplishments. He might of been on Drugs but i don't hold that against him.
It is that blind faith in the NWO that makes the US hated around the World. It is the fact thaT the US could destroy columbia completly but instead they conquer oil that makes me luagh at you. More "Druggies" i mean drugeys die in your country from state sponsorred coke then you can find dead in iraq any day of the year.



"When the goings gets weird, The weird turn pro"

[Jest@]

Hunter S is quite frankly one of the most honest, truthful, genuine and compassionate people to be avctive in late 20th century america - so he took (a lot) of drugs? so fucking what? at least he never lied. He saw things for what they were and reported his impressions back honestly. And to be honest, almost everything he wever said or wrote about the American Condition not only sounds right (i.e. it doesnt sound like proselytising, vote-winning, hollow, slimey rhetoric, it sounds like a genuine and reasoned assessment, no bullshit), but he's also turned out to be right on a few things.

Hunter S was one of the greatest people America has produced in the last 50-odd years, god rest his soul. Maybe one day the ungrateful, hate-filled shittalking fucks who denounce his name will wake up and realise he was the only person left who actually spoke from his fucking heart, without some cynical manipulative PR agenda behind his every word.

Anyway. Farenheit 911. Overplayed. I'm seriously dissapointed with Moore for using it not as an actual investigation and assessment, but purely as a propaganda tool. Although, there's still a fair bit of substance behind Moore's high-horse megaphone ranting - the House of Saud/Bin Laden link the the Bush administration needs to be considered (I'm not saying zOMG CONSPIRACY!!1111oneone, all i'm saying is Bush's preferential treatment of the bin Laden's immediately post-911 is worth a few raised eyebrows), as does the Halliburton link - that's some serious nepotism going on. But yeah, all in all, F911 is worth watching, but you have to be aware that there's a huge layer of deliberate, crass anti-bushism obscuring the facts there.

What reeeeally fucks me off is people who disregard F911 etc as soon as they take a dislike to Moore's style and approach - the kind of idiot fucks who say "Moore's just shouting his mouth off, bitching. he's unpatriotic and a whining cunt, this film makes me like the American Right even more. Support the government, don't just bitch, wah wah wah" etc etc. fucking fools. So Moore's a dick - agreed - and his film is reeeeally stupidly presented - agreed - but there's still something of substance. Just cos he's a cock doesnt make him totally wrong.

Anyway, Loose Change is brilliant. Really good. I'm reeeeeeeeeally skeptical of conspiracy theories, and as such I'm a little unconvinced by the conclusions it draws (about the gold, robbery, insurance scam etc) - i think these may have been side-effects of whatever happened, unlikely to be the driving concerns. Nor do I think the whole thing was planned and carried out by internal US parties.

One possibility I see is that the attacks were planned and carried out by an external terrorist group - perhaps al'quaeda, perhaps a splinter, who knows - and that a) they were allowed, through inaction, to be carried out, and b) their effect was enhanced (falling towers has a more permanent public impact than the hits alone). Why? by whom? perhaps by the Project For A New Amercan Century - there be some scaaaary fucks in there. I would not put it past them, by any means....the Bush administration link to them is highlighted in Loose Change.

All I know is that Loose change has assured me that things are not as they seem. There was definitely something fishy gong on there - i dunno how big it is, i dont know how high it is....but something is not right.

For anyone who thinks it's simply too crazy to be believed, dont forget the history of the CIA - putting the taliban in power in Afghanistan as a buffer to the soviets, sponsoring the heroin trade in Afghanistan to cripple the soviet trade, numerous unbelievably contrived assassination attempts on Fidel, testing chemical weapons against smalltown US populations (i shit you not), the Iran-Contra affair, deliberate encouragement & subsidising of drug dealing in south-central LA, presumably as a twisted form of population control.....these are not conspiracy theories, these are documented. This shit has happened. There are definitely twisted enough minds in the higher ranks of the more shady US organisations capable of doing this.

Scares the shit outta me, I wish it wasnt true.

Again - i'm not saying there's a big conspiracy. but there's enough evidence to show that the official line certainly isnt correct. Where the truth lies between those extremes is anyones guess, but it scares me that we'll never know.

[Jest@]

oh god, Persol, only just read your post. oh god...people like you will be the end of civilisation.

Plot holes anyone? Critical thought is a good thing. Random, unsupported, contradicting statements proof does not make,

What statements? Loose Change isn't making many. It's providing conflicting evidence - i.e. the existing statements don't add up

So, the plane is empty, and remote controled, yet it matters that the pilot used to be Air Force?

he doesn't say it's "meant to be remote controlled"! He's saying that it's not beyond certain American organisations to concoct such a fucked-up plane, and to risk civilian lives in the name of their percieved higher purpose. As for the pilot - c'mon, that's a little wierd. Pilot goes into training excersise about flying planes into buildings, quits and becomes a civvie pilot, then a year(? cant remember) later his plane flys into a building? c'mon, you gotta admit that's wierd - i'm not saying (and the film's not saying) it's conclusive proof or whatever, but it does give a not-entirely-wholesome impression on events. As blink says, stranger things have happened.

It's odd that the WTC owners took out an insurrance policy against terrorism? Knowing that they had been attacked before, and that threats of new threats were continuous?

Does the film say it's odd? No. shut up and stop exaggerating. You're deliberately missing the point and accusing the film of making leaps when it doesnt. What the film's highlighting is the scale of the insurance and it's odd nature, never before seen neccessary for these buildings (and never would have been if it weren't for 9/11), under the new ownership.

It's odd that put options got placed? Eh?

On that scale, yes it is. so many options on the three biggest instant financial losers from 9/11, many many times higher than average either for markets as a whole or for those companies.

The business of 'controlled demolitions' has been shown false numerous times. A second year enginnering student could simulate the structuaral failure... and several schools have.

Frankly, i dont believe you. Not just because of the film, I independantly think this....those buildings were built to withstand far more than that. Planes alone simply could not bering those down. unless i see good, concrete proof, i cannot believe you.

The tossed about light poles... does he realize the amount of force?

yes, he does...he stresses that, dumbass. The point is that the poles were not damaged in a realistic way - secondly, they would have fucked the plane up too, at least causing more debris on the lawn outside.


Dude, i simply cannot be bothered to go through everything you've said. I admit the film has some sketchy angles on things - reeeeally not sure bout the faked voices bit, and the airphone thing seems wrong - but i urge you to stop being so deliberatley blind. You simply don't want to believe that something could be amiss. I'm not saying 'zomg believe it all' - but do approach it fairly

You have deliberately misunderstood the film. You have deliberately chosen to interpret as 'laying down unsubstantialted facts' etc etc....no. It's just offering up not to believe the official line 100%. It's not saying "BELIEVE US!!! WE'RE RIGHT!!! - it's saying don't necessarily believe them - they're story doesnt add up either.

[zombie@computer]

Frankly, i dont believe you. Not just because of the film, I independantly think this....those buildings were built to withstand far more than that. Planes alone simply could not bering those down.

The WTC were designed to withstand the impact of the biggest plane of the planet. Unfortunately, the biggest during construction was a 737 iirc, a few sizes smaller than the ones that flew into them. Also, the fireproofing wasnt added very good, meaning it was blown off the metal as soon as the plain impacted. No bare metal can withstand a kerosine fire. Seen @ discovery channel btw

[dragonfliet]

quite frankly loose change, like all conspiracy films is such an intense amount of speculation it's not even funny. I'll have to start looking for links later today if I have time to work point by point on things. Most of what he's using is extremely out of context (especially the quotes from news organizations) and the little snippet facts he's using are all very hotly debated-debates he merely ignores. Honestly, you would be a fool to believe that this flick is the truth.

That said, there are a number of good points being raised, and the issue shouldn't be swallowed blindly because it's easy for us. I think things like this, while most probably very far from the truth, are good at keeping us on our toes as to what we are going to believe from the mainstream media and what other opinions are out there.

~Jason

[Trigger-]

Seen @ discovery channel btw

Some say this is the best form of american propaganda.

[zombie@computer]

Seen @ discovery channel btw

Some say this is the best form of american propaganda.

some are paranoia. you tell me if its the same ppl

[Caste]

Seen @ discovery channel btw

Some say this is the best form of american propaganda.

Yeah, because, you know, people on the internet are more credible than a channel devoted to science.

[-[Getty]-]

The thing is for any of those video's, you can't really trust anything they are saying. If you can prove with hard evidence that is true, I'll believe it. But really, you can't trust the internet, and without sources where they got every little bit of information, I'm not going to pay much attention to it.

[Persol]

Your opinion will depend on what you want to believe.

But when it comes to something that effects a nation, logic also helps.

One thing that isn't answered is why the FBI etc are so tight lipped.

They are generally tight lipped about EVERYTHING.

Governments everywhere are always doing things behind their peoples' (and even leaders) backs, maybe little things but still there are secrets you and I will never know. Perhaps 9/11 is just on a grander scale? Maybe because you believe so strongly that it couldn't happen that their cover up has worked.

I was across the river watching when the second plane hit. I don't need media. What I need is some actual proof that it was some idiotic conspiracy on behalf of the government. What the movie provides is a bunch of unsubstantiated (and heavily disproven in many cases) claims. Even their 'plotline' is logically inconsistent and contradicting.

I'm just saying keep an open mind, as not everything the US (and other countries) do is all innocent and helpful to others.

Obviously not. But it's important to not accept anything that is fed to you because 'it sounds right'.

I hope i just didn't see you insult Gonzo.

Good thing I didn't, eh? Like I said, he has a valid view on patriotism.. but he was only put in this movie because he's famous.... it doesn't in anyway support anything said.

I think it is funny that you can deny H.S.T. Political and literary Genius

Lol, are you illiterate? I've read Fear and Loathing (both) and parts of the gonzo papers. He's an awesome author.... but yet again... not in anyway supporting this movie's claims. As entertaining as his books are (and as much as I may agree with most of his views) they aren't pillors of fact.... especially when regarding the FACTS surrounding the WTC attacks. The official story may not be the whole story, but gonzo has nothing except opinions on this matter... no facts.

So Moore's a dick - agreed - and his film is reeeeally stupidly presented - agreed - but there's still something of substance.

Agreed. The issue I take with Moore is that he dilutes and distorts reality in his favor.

One possibility I see is that the attacks were planned and carried out by an external terrorist group - perhaps al'quaeda, perhaps a splinter, who knows - and that a) they were allowed, through inaction, to be carried out, and b) their effect was enhanced (falling towers has a more permanent public impact than the hits alone).

The support tying it to al'quaed isn't very solid. The problem with the falling towers part is that there is NO PROOF that the towers fell because of anything other than the impacts. Structural simulations (one of the most consistent and reliable sciences) demonstrate this very simply.

he doesn't say it's "meant to be remote controlled"! He's saying that it's not beyond certain American organisations to concoct such a fucked-up plane

Wait, so he says that it's technically possible to remote control a plane, and that the US is trying to defend against 'plane bombings' (which have been an issue since WWII), and this supports that a pseudo-government agency planed to do this?

As for the pilot - c'mon, that's a little wierd. Pilot goes into training excersise about flying planes into buildings, quits and becomes a civvie pilot, then a year

Using American Airline as an example, about 1/6 are in the military reserves. 50-80% of airline pilots were trained by the armed forces (depending on age). So no, it's not odd that they're ex-military. The claim about the training missions doesn't have any support that I can find. If you can find some collaborating evidence, let us know. Right now it's just a baseles claim.

What the film's highlighting is the scale of the insurance and it's odd nature, never before seen neccessary

So the films saying that it was 'never before seen neccessary', but they paid the money for the policy anyway? And? The point of this is?

On that scale, yes it is. so many options on the three biggest instant financial losers from 9/11, many many times higher than average either for markets as a whole or for those companies.

Airline stocks had been fairly steadily dropping since 98'. Yes, it was much larger then the average. The ratios noted were NOT the highest in the history of the stock. Furthermore, a major financial publication advised that airline stocks would go down.

Frankly, i dont believe you. Not just because of the film, I independantly think this....those buildings were built to withstand far more than that.

My god, this is assine. What EXACTLY were these building built to withstand that was 'far more than that'?

Well, it was built to withstand an impact from a 707 (largest plane at the time) which wieghed 160,000 lbs. Has about 15,000 gallons of fuel. (at time of WTC design - later version 707s have bigger wings and more fuel).

The crash was two 767s which wieghed 395,000 lbs. Each has about 24,000 gallons of fuel (figured from empty to max weight, minus 180lbs per passenger).

So, roughly about double the mass and fuel. Regardless, the fuel wasn't even considered in the original design.

As for the simulations of the collapse, a quick google search would've helped you:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sim ... 1&safe=off

Structural simulations are simply not questionable. The only variables in this case is the materials simulated (how much damage the fire did). The physics of the situation was exactly as would be expected if the structure were weakened.

(Plane info courtesy wikipedia - and boeing links via google)

yes, he does...he stresses that, dumbass. The point is that the poles were not damaged in a realistic way - secondly, they would have fucked the plane up too, at least causing more debris on the lawn outside.

You missed the point. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The plane didn't need to impact the poles, and nobody claims they did.They would be bent away from the pentagon, as that's the direction of thrust.


Here's my major gripe. I've pointed out several things that in no way support the movie's claim that 911 was a US plot, and the response seems to be that 'the movie doesnt say that is what happened.. its just pointing out discrpenacies'. AND THIS MAKES A GOOD DOCUMENTARY WHY? Half of the things they point out are simply wrong. Others are unsupported. Most have nothing to do with the issue.

Dude, i simply cannot be bothered to go through everything you've said... but i urge you to stop being so deliberatley blind.

Stop. Think about that for a second.

I've watched the movie.
Looked for support on what it's said. Found none.
Looked at some of the 'scientific claims' and found them to be false.
Found the 'plot' logically inconsistent and just plain stupid on behalf of the perpatrators.

You can't be bothered to research this and just take it at face value, yet you are telling me not to be blind. Uh huh. Do you see a problem with this?

[Persol]

Unfortunately, the biggest during construction was a 737 iirc, a few sizes smaller than the ones that flew into them.

707 when it was designed.

Seen @ discovery channel btw

Some say this is the best form of american propaganda.

It is, after all, in america's best interest to demonstrate that no, you can not easily set a bnoat on fire with a mirror.

The thing is for any of those video's, you can't really trust anything they are saying. If you can prove with hard evidence that is true, I'll believe it. But really, you can't trust the internet, and without sources where they got every little bit of information, I'm not going to pay much attention to it.

On the nose. There's some incredible claims there that would be interesting if true. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there is NO supporting evidence.

[Jest@]

The thing is for any of those video's, you can't really trust anything they are saying. If you can prove with hard evidence that is true, I'll believe it. But really, you can't trust the internet, and without sources where they got every little bit of information, I'm not going to pay much attention to it.

Well, you can say with equl weight and reason that the government and/or major media can't be trusted.

I'm not saying believe them to the letter - far from. But do give it a thought. Ignoring it would be an intellectual crime. Having said that, don't go into it attempting to refute everything and deliberately muffling yourself to the possibility of it's (at least partial) validity. I think the more important message behind Loose Change is NOT omgzorz conspiracy, but...ask questions. Be critical.

Of course, someone's gonna turn around and say "well i'm being critical of Loose Change, ha!". Fine. Whatever. Be critical. Don't believe it. But dont let that be aa reason to continue, or worse, strengthen, your faith in the official line.

Something somewhere in the 9/11 story doesnt add up. Someone hd foreknowledge - that's not saying it was planned by the government, or that the government knew, but someone outside the terrorists did. And there was more than just plane damage, of that I am convinced. For all we know, the terrorists rigged the building with bombs, and it's being kept quiet cos no-one wants to admit the secuirty was compromised at such a high, persistent level. That explanation is as plausible as the official line IMHO.

edit: Persol, fair enough. I get what you're saying. I still remain highly skeptical. I don't believe either end of the scale. All i'm saying is, from what I've seen, the official story doesn not seem plausible by any means.

[Persol]

I think the more important message behind Loose Change is NOT omgzorz conspiracy, but...ask questions. Be critical.

Loose Change is FAR from being critical. It's taking a bunch of rumors and implying that they are true and proven.

All i'm saying is, from what I've seen, the official story doesn not seem plausible by any means.

I completely agree that some things don't add up... but that doesn't stop this Loose Change from being a piece of dishonest crap.

F911 is (IMHO) in the same vein. It makes connections where connections don't neccessarily (or even likely) exist.

I think it's sad really. Make a movie with a soundtrack and people believe you. Do actual research, write papers, consider the feasability of what happened... and you can't be trusted. This same movie has been pasted on every forum I visit. On every single forum people don't see issues with it... but when you point out that the movie is unsupported they claim it's that you 'just didnt like the idea'.

This isn't about 'liking' a movie. Depending on the next few years, the attack (and it's 'rebuttals') could have severe consequences in history. It's worthy of criticial thought, not blind acceptance... regardless of your political/societal lean.

[Trigger-]

I hope i just didn't see you insult Gonzo.

Good thing I didn't, eh? Like I said, he has a valid view on patriotism.. but he was only put in this movie because he's famous.... it doesn't in anyway support anything said.

I think it is funny that you can deny H.S.T. Political and literary Genius

Lol, are you illiterate? I've read Fear and Loathing (both) and parts of the gonzo papers. He's an awesome author.... but yet again... not in anyway supporting this movie's claims. As entertaining as his books are (and as much as I may agree with most of his views) they aren't pillors of fact.... especially when regarding the FACTS surrounding the WTC attacks. The official story may not be the whole story, but gonzo has nothing except opinions on this matter... no facts.

Hey am i missing something here ? Was H.S.T. in loose change cuase i dont remember that part.

It is the shocking exageration of truth that contradicts blatent cover-ups. I do not believe totally in these films, but i do believe that these blanket cover-ups happen every day in the bloat of america. My opinion is only that and doesn't require a segment on the biography channel, Save it for the gonz's in memoriam.

Question... having read fear and loathing old and new, do you believe his writing as literal or stretched fiction. Sure it was the 70's but did this guy write his books after his buzzes or was he describing the times as best he saw fit. Did rolling stone magazine allow him on that train (well at least his credentials) becuase he was a mess ?
I am sure he was an artist painting the picture of hard american life.

Thank-you it isn't often i can chat about interesting people like this i apreciate it more then you know.

OH yeah am i literate ?> where the fuk did that come from ignorance isn't going to set you free dude. I am sure of it.

[Terminator]

It is too bad that the US government has lost the faith of its citizens. There used to be a time when they always told the truth, and the people rightly believed them.

Then came the Cold War, and the Government started to lie. It did not take too long (about a decade) for the entire country to catch on. By then, the damage had been done. The US Government is self-centered and corrupt, and any information they release is scrutinized. I think some sections of the government are honestly trying to tell us the truth, and others just want to lock up the past in a little box and throw away the keys. They should apologize to the people, and reveal everything they know. Enough with the "that is classified" bullshit. But, we all know that the US Government is too proud and corrupt to ever do that. Thus they seal their fate...

I only hope that when the US Government falls, people give its replacement another chance. Logical people do not like conspiricy theories because it makes the academic community look like a pack of government-bought liers, which cannot be completely true.

It is my firm belief that a Government should always tell its citizens the truth. Understand that some facts may be supressed temporarily (such as details on a pending military operation), but all that information should be freely available as soon as it is safe. The people should be able to trust their leaders, and the leaders should always keep the people informed about the truth.

People can handle the truth. What they cannot handle is lies and half-truths.