NationStates Jolt Archive

Well i was in a bookstore earlier today and i came across this book by michael moore and decided to buy it and see if i could get any laughs out of it. As it turns out, i did get a few. About 15 pages in, he makes the claim that there is no way that the 9/11 hijackers could have flown their aircraft into the WTC's w/o military training, specifically Saudi military training. It goes w/o saying that this is complete bullshit but i thought that it was funny that someone who makes such baseless claims actually is taken seriously by some people. Now from what i can gather, these forums are dominated by liberal thinking people(yes very ground breaking i know;) ) so i was wondering what some of you think about him.

About 15 pages in, he makes the claim that there is no way that the 9/11 hijackers could have flown their aircraft into the WTC's w/o military training, specifically Saudi military training. It goes w/o saying that this is complete bullshit but

without commenting on the theory, why does it "go without saying"? Can you fly a 747?

He should be sedated before he hurts himself.

without commenting on the theory, why does it "go without saying"? Can you fly a 747?

I think it was proven that the hijackers learned how to fly through private lessons, not through military training.

how to keep the aircraft level... check.
take offs... not neccessary.
Turning... check.
Landing... right...

without commenting on the theory, why does it "go without saying"? Can you fly a 747?

Flying a plane isn't the hard part, its the landings that are a bitch.

I think he is trying to say the bit about them being trained by Saudi military to do the job is bullshit.

Can you fly a 747?

Yes

Micheal Moore...Anne Coulter...Rush Limbaugh...Al Franken. They are all the same voice to me, they all cause the same damge, and their respective audiences listen to them for the same reasom. The only one I am really biased against is Franken, but only because he's get the same self-righteous crap as
O'reilly, but with a lot less tolerable voice.

Michal Moore is a jackass. But so is Ann Coulter. They symbolise everything that wrong with American politics.

The pyhsics that keep any plane aloft are the same between planes. Ask your physics teacher. I dare you to contradict this. There are four forces in play: Thrust, Lift, Drag, and Gravity. How planes generate the first two to counteract the second two differs, but that is the basic goal of aviation. That said, flying a 747 involves knowing those factors, which can be learned on a Cessna. Once they were airborn, the terrorists would not have needed Saudi military training.

As for Micheal Moore, Screw him. He is an idiot, as big as they come (literally, as big as they come).

without commenting on the theory, why does it "go without saying"? Can you fly a 747?
It's not that difficult. An Airbus is even easier.

Running through all the safety checks before takeoff, actually taking off, landing - those are the hard parts. There's a reason flying a jumbo jet is described as "hours of unbelievable boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror".

As for Micheal Moore, Screw him. He is an idiot, as big as they come (literally, as big as they come).

Nine posts in and we get the 'fat' comment. Actually better than I thought, and was at least accompanied by some more substantial. The discussion will likely go down hill from here...

My personal opinion about Michael Moore: He is intentionally inflammatory. I think he subscribes to the "all attention is good attention" theory. And he's right, to a point. How many people do you know that have rented his documentary or read his book because they dislike him?

Michel Moore is an idiot.

Michael Moore

For President!

It's not hard at all to believe that at least one Saudi pilot, provided information, somewhere along the way.

And which book might this be? For all we know the OP could be pulling the whole thing out of his ass.

Speaking as a pilot... Holding straight and level flight is fairly simple (as are ascents and descents) and there are several hundred flight schools/instructors in this country. They could (and did) learn how to fly a 747 in this country, all it takes is money (which they had).

Which michael moore obviously does not realize. All it takes to get on the correct vector for collision with a point on the ground is to line it up and get the correct descent rate and hold. It's a little trickier than a landing b/c ur w/o ILS but all pilots learn it for the private pilots license.

Moore has 0 credibility in my mind. He's totally one sided, and is horribly manipulative of the facts he uses in his demagogue films.

And which book might this be? For all we know the OP could be pulling the whole thing out of his ass.

It was "dude, where's my country".

It was "dude, where's my country".

Funny, I own that book, and Moore never says anything remotely like that. Didn't count on someone calling your bluff, did you?

MM is a polemecist in the old fashioned sense. He is by and large right, which is why the right go so ballistic about him, as we will see on this thread. If he wasnt credible, no-one would bother attacking him.

Why is MM not allowed shape an argument but in Fox its a virtue?

Yes'Fly? yes, Land? no" - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Mmm.. well, I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a pretty interesting movie. :D

Michael Moore has one, single goal in life: To keep himself up to his triple chins in Cheezy nachos until the day the big one comes, and his heart explodes.

Anyone want to take bets on whether or not the OP will post again in this thread?

Mmm.. well, I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a pretty interesting movie. :D

Watch the movies: "Roger & Me" then "Bowling for Columbine" A REAL eye opener. (people from Flint Michigan go broke[Roger & Me] then people from the same area go kill crazy. [Bowling for Columbine])

Why is MM not allowed shape an argument but in Fox its a virtue?

Because pretending to be objective has apparently replaced being objective on news stations.

Micheal Moore...Anne Coulter...Rush Limbaugh...Al Franken. They are all the same voice to me, they all cause the same damge, and their respective audiences listen to them for the same reasom. The only one I am really biased against is Franken, but only because he's get the same self-righteous crap as
O'reilly, but with a lot less tolerable voice.

Agreed

And which book might this be? For all we know the OP could be pulling the whole thing out of his ass.


If your allegation is true the OP might even be Michael Moore. That is Michael Moore's favored MO.

Calm down and look at the bottom of page 17

I'll be sure to do that once I get it back from the person who borrowed it and then moved to Canada. Could you quote what it says, though, along with the surrounding context?

Edit: Since that post got deleted, can I assume that it did not, in fact, say what the OP said it said?

Anyone want to take bets on whether or not the OP will post again in this thread?

I'll bet 3 cookies to 1 that he does

Why would it be relevant if one could successfully fly a 747 or not seeing as the aircraft used in the Sept. 11th attacks were 757s and 767s. (sorry, I can't stand inaccuracies with aviation like when they claimed that the A340 that caught on fire in Canada was "a large 737" :headbang: )

I'll be sure to do that once I get it back from the person who borrowed it and then moved to Canada. Could you quote what it says, though, along with the surrounding context?

Edit: Since that post got deleted, can I assume that it did not, in fact, say what the OP said it said?

Nope, he beat me to it but it is the page.
It's really from the middle of page 17 to the middle of 18 and there is no way that i am quoting an entire page. Mabye he will.


p.s. How did you do that?

I'll bet 3 cookies to 1 that he does


Ill take a famous amos chocolate chip cookie please cthulu

Sorry about that, pressed the wrong button. Anyway, what i said still goes.

I'll be sure to do that once I get it back from the person who borrowed it and then moved to Canada. Could you quote what it says, though, along with the surrounding context?

Edit: Since that post got deleted, can I assume that it did not, in fact, say what the OP said it said?


Ill bet you didnt think he would call your bluff and further can I take this to mean that you do not own this book?

I'd also be interested to know which book this is in, because Mike has written a goodly quantity of low quality books, and it could be in any of them post 2001.

Ill bet you didnt think he would call your bluff and further can I take this to mean that you do not own this book?

No, I own it. Well, owned it, because the person I lent it to never returned it. I don't recall ever reading anything of the sort, and I think I would remember throwing a book across the room. Perhaps it was added to the paperback edition.

I'd also be interested to know which book this is in, because Mike has written a goodly quantity of low quality books, and it could be in any of them post 2001.

It's already been said but i'll say it again. "Dude, Where's my country"

No, I own it. Well, owned it, because the person I lent it to never returned it. I don't recall ever reading anything of the sort, and I think I would remember throwing a book across the room. Perhaps it was added to the paperback edition.

My copy is paperback but i don't think that you would necesarily remember it if it was in the hard cover edition. After all, it seems to be pretty loaded w/ bull.

My copy is paperback but i don't think that you would necesarily remember it if it was in the hard cover edition. After all, it seems to be pretty loaded w/ bull.

I'd remember. If it did contain that, the book would have been rather damaged by getting thrown across a room.

...[snipetty-snip]...but i thought that it was funny that someone who makes such baseless claims actually is taken seriously by some people.
The Moore thing is a mystery to me. So far as I can tell he provides a particular type of entertainment. Specifically he 'editorialises', with a particular political slant, in humourous manner.

Why anyone would think this involved a strict adherence to truth or good sense, I dont know. It's just entertainment people. Sure like many entertainment forms it incorporates facts, but it also incorporates artistic license. If you are a leftish-leaning person who wants a bit of light entertainment, it might amuse you, but if you are any person looking for the facts, then you might be better off going to someone who deals in media that is predominately aimed at conveying facts, rather than one that is predominately aimed at entertaining.

I dont argue that Moore isnt talented, in fact he's clever and very good at what he does, so he is talented, but his talents are not put to the use of conveying objective fact, and frankly it's astounding that anyone who has viewed any Moore production could think otherwise. His antics are fine so long as everyone keeps in mind that this is entertainment and any 'facts' presented shouldnt be considered factual without independent verification...usually entertainment-media isnt the best place to do factual research.

The Moore thing is a mystery to me. So far as I can tell he provides a particular type of entertainment. Specifically he 'editorialises', with a particular political slant, in humourous manner.

Why anyone would think this involved a strict adherence to truth or good sense, I dont know. It's just entertainment people. Sure like many entertainment forms it incorporates facts, but it also incorporates artistic license. If you are a leftish-leaning person who wants a bit of light entertainment, it might amuse you, but if you are any person looking for the facts, then you might be better off going to someone who deals in media that is predominately aimed at conveying facts, rather than one that is predominately aimed at entertaining.

I dont argue that Moore isnt talented, in fact he's clever and very good at what he does, so he is talented, but his talents are not put to the use of conveying objective fact, and frankly it's astounding that anyone who has viewed any Moore production could think otherwise. His antics are fine so long as everyone keeps in mind that this is entertainment and any 'facts' presented shouldnt be considered factual without independent verification...usually entertainment-media isnt the best place to do factual research.
The fact that he himself, pushes his movies as Documentaries when they are so obviously edited and with obvious lies.

The fact that he himself, pushes his movies as Documentaries when they are so obviously edited and with obvious lies.

And Rush Limbaugh doesn't think he(Rush) is full of shit.
Your point?

The fact that he himself, pushes his movies as Documentaries when they are so obviously edited and with obvious lies.
You mean like the way reality tv shows pretend to be portraying reality as it was recorded 'live in action', when they are so obviously edited, full of set-ups and often involve reshoots of 'live action'?

Or do you mean like how Fox News pretends to be a true objective account of the news, or how McDonalds pretends to be an 'appropriate' inclusion in a balanced diet, or like how politicians pretend to care about the babies they kiss....

If you (that is the generalised figuritive 'you' as in 'any person', rather than specifically you JuNi) cannot negotiate such obvious and overt antics as Moore's, then he's probably the least of your worries, after all, by now, that charming 'Nigerian Prince' that was having trouble getting his funds out his own country and emailed you to let you know he was willing to give you a cut if you helped him out by providing him with a bank account number or two, will already have all your money so you've got none left to spend on Moore books and DVD's anyway...

If we start believing all the hype, marketers put on their products, we're just asking to be a sucker. Moore produces and sells a product, he's not exceptionally honest or dishonest about it...just because he uses the kind of production style you might expect in a documentary instead of using the kind you might get on the nightly 'hot gossip and bitchy scandels' show, doesnt mean you need expect the content is any more real...both present themselves as 'real' both need to be taken with liberal doses of skeptism. Not everything they say is BS obviously, but the same is probably true of any politician or lawyer...

And Rush Limbaugh doesn't think he(Rush) is full of shit.
Your point?

Not the first time I've said this:
I would pay good money to see a debate between MM and RL.
Mike would kick his ass, wouldn't he?

The fact that he himself, pushes his movies as Documentaries when they are so obviously edited and with obvious lies.
Well if Ann Coulter can assert her poisonous, unsubstantiated, unfactual diatribes are journalism...

Not the first time I've said this:
I would pay good money to see a debate between MM and RL.
Mike would kick his ass, wouldn't he?

I honestly doubt it. Limbaughs' style has changed over the years, he's less mean-spirited, and less bombastic. More clear-spoken I think. And despite what you want to believe, he isn't a stupid man. I don't like him either, but I won't assume he is an idiot becasue our politics are different. Plus he has more time spent in the give and take arena than Moore does. I think at best, it would be a tie.

I have never understood why so many people here willingly underestimate the intelligence of others based purely on their political beliefs.

Well if Ann Coulter can assert her poisonous, unsubstantiated, unfactual diatribes are journalism...

Thats kinda how I think of Moore.

the liberal version of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh...

Well if Ann Coulter can assert her poisonous, unsubstantiated, unfactual diatribes are journalism...

Then both are equally open to criticisms of their accuracy, extreme bias, and very unbalanced fact presentation?

I honestly doubt it. Limbaughs' style has changed over the years, he's less mean-spirited, and less bombastic. More clear-spoken I think. And despite what you want to believe, he isn't a stupid man. I don't like him either, but I won't assume he is an idiot becasue our politics are different. Plus he has more time spent in the give and take arena than Moore does. I think at best, it would be a tie.

I have never understood why so many people here willingly underestimate the intelligence of others based purely on their political beliefs.

I don't think Rush is stupid. In fact I think Rush is VERY shrewd. (he does an incredible job of twisting the truth) What I meant was, Michale Moore has more truth to back him up in a debate, and would catch Rush in some of the lies he's been spreading since the early 90s

I don't think Rush is stupid. In fact I think Rush is VERY shrewd. (he does an incredible job of twisting the truth) What I meant was, Michale Moore has more truth to back him up in a debate, and would catch Rush in some of the lies he's been spreading since the early 90s

And that is where the tie would come in. Moore would catch Limbaugh out, and Rush would catch Michael out. They both lie. Not sure why, cause they suck donkey dick at it.

Sorry! But I don't see the Michael Moore "lies" that he has been accused of in this thread.

What he usually does is just interview people. And they speak their mind. And News clips.

Did George Bush NOT sit in that classroom w/ the deer in the headlights look for 6-7 minutes? (F-911)

Did Charlton Heston NOT host NRA meetings in areas that JUST endured a school shooting? (Bowling for Columbine)

Did Flint Michigan NOT fall flat on it's ass when Roger Smith moved 11 auto plants to Mexico? (Roger & Me)

Was Canadian Bacon NOT one of the funniest movies ever? :p

Micheal Moore...Anne Coulter...Rush Limbaugh...Al Franken. They are all the same voice to me, they all cause the same damge, and their respective audiences listen to them for the same reasom. The only one I am really biased against is Franken, but only because he's get the same self-righteous crap as
O'reilly, but with a lot less tolerable voice.

But with Mike, there's so much Moore to love ...

*ducks to avoid rotten fruit*

Sorry! But I don't see the Michael Moore "lies" that he has been accused of in this thread.

What he usually does is just interview people. And they speak their mind. And News clips.

Did George Bush NOT sit in that classroom w/ the deer in the headlights look for 6-7 minutes? (F-911)

Did Charlton Heston NOT host NRA meetings in areas that JUST endured a school shooting? (Bowling for Columbine)

Did Flint Michigan NOT fall flat on it's ass when Roger Smith moved 11 auto plants to Mexico? (Roger & Me)

Was Canadian Bacon NOT one of the funniest movies ever? :p

1- I've always wondered about that one. What do you think he should have done? Jump up, screaming bloody murder, panic the kids? Whats he supposed to have done? He found out, what, within minutes of it happening? When even onsite news reports were still hazy? When it comes down to it. Bush had nothing he COULD do until he was given information he could act on. If he had jumped up and raced out of the room, what would that have helped? I remember I didn't hear about it for at least a good hour after the first plane went in. And even then, news reports were sketchy as all fuck. You think he had more knowledge than the people on the scene? Guess that would make him smarter than you give him credit for!

2- So. A group that preaches firearm RESPONSIBILITY and more than likely set that meeting up weeks or months in advance is in the same area when it happens. They weren't on scene for the shootings they didn't call attention to themselves during the murders, so whats the beef here?

3- Is Smith responsible for what happens to a town? No. He is responsible for the company and making sure it stays a viable entity. Nothing more. I will bet you twenty bucks, that even if they had decided not to move to Mexico, those Flint plants would have been shut down within a year to keep the company from completely closing its doors.

4- Never saw it, so can't answer the last one.

Sorry, I don't feel the slightest interest in going out and ticking off points for you. You have proven in your posts to be one who cannot believe that Liberals and or Democrats can do wrong. And nothing I say will change that.

They can of course, just like Conservatives and Republicans can do wrong. Both sides of the coin have proved it often enough.

Gee! How convienent! We can talk about my other posts on their coresponding threads, anytime you like. My suggesting that MM does not lie in his films isn't about what all the Republicans and Democrats do.

You mean like the way reality tv shows pretend to be portraying reality as it was recorded 'live in action', when they are so obviously edited, full of set-ups and often involve reshoots of 'live action'?

Or do you mean like how Fox News pretends to be a true objective account of the news, or how McDonalds pretends to be an 'appropriate' inclusion in a balanced diet, or like how politicians pretend to care about the babies they kiss....

If you (that is the generalised figuritive 'you' as in 'any person', rather than specifically you JuNi) cannot negotiate such obvious and overt antics as Moore's, then he's probably the least of your worries, after all, by now, that charming 'Nigerian Prince' that was having trouble getting his funds out his own country and emailed you to let you know he was willing to give you a cut if you helped him out by providing him with a bank account number or two, will already have all your money so you've got none left to spend on Moore books and DVD's anyway...

If we start believing all the hype, marketers put on their products, we're just asking to be a sucker. Moore produces and sells a product, he's not exceptionally honest or dishonest about it...just because he uses the kind of production style you might expect in a documentary instead of using the kind you might get on the nightly 'hot gossip and bitchy scandels' show, doesnt mean you need expect the content is any more real...both present themselves as 'real' both need to be taken with liberal doses of skeptism. Not everything they say is BS obviously, but the same is probably true of any politician or lawyer...

Particularly decent strawman construction, you are to be applauded.

I think there is a bit of merit to Juni's argument that Moore parades his work as documentaries when they would be more correctly labeled as propaganda. Unfortunately I must agree with Moore that they are also documentaries, because there is no law of documentary film production that states documentaries should be as unbiased as possible or that they should not contain propaganda or lies or for that matter actors portraying real life. Maybe there should be a documentary filmakers code of ethics but there is not. Moore is as legitimate as the next guy, but not half as truthful in his finished product.

Gee! How convienent! We can talk about my other posts on their coresponding threads, anytime you like. My suggesting that MM does not lie in his films isn't about what all the Republicans and Democrats do.

You caught my post before I changed it.

Not just Dems and Reps. Libs and Cons too.

You attitude thus far has been that Liberals can say and do no wrong and all conservatives are liars. My contention is that all four groups lie. Michael Moore is no different than the rest.

And nothing convienent about it. I was more concerned I'd say something I shouldn't have and have a mod calling me an idiot. I cooled back enough to be able to respond. QED.

1- I've always wondered about that one. What do you think he should have done? Jump up, screaming bloody murder, panic the kids? Whats he supposed to have done? He found out, what, within minutes of it happening? When even onsite news reports were still hazy? When it comes down to it. Bush had nothing he COULD do until he was given information he could act on. If he had jumped up and raced out of the room, what would that have helped? I remember I didn't hear about it for at least a good hour after the first plane went in. And even then, news reports were sketchy as all fuck. You think he had more knowledge than the people on the scene? Guess that would make him smarter than you give him credit for!

2- So. A group that preaches firearm RESPONSIBILITY and more than likely set that meeting up weeks or months in advance is in the same area when it happens. They weren't on scene for the shootings they didn't call attention to themselves during the murders, so whats the beef here?

3- Is Smith responsible for what happens to a town? No. He is responsible for the company and making sure it stays a viable entity. Nothing more. I will bet you twenty bucks, that even if they had decided not to move to Mexico, those Flint plants would have been shut down within a year to keep the company from completely closing its doors.

4- Never saw it, so can't answer the last one.

Part II:
At least you admit these events DID happen. As did all the segments of his documentries.

In F-9/11, the only thing in question is the very beginning: Stolen election in 2000 or not (please lets not get into that on this thread)

The Mayor of Denver BEGGED Heston not to hold his rally at that time. (shortly after Columbine) MM pointed out what an insensitive prick Heston is as I applaud him for that.

Moore is from Flint Michigan and I give a standing ovation and start a wave for a guy that tries to save his town!!!

Canadian Bacon was about a US president (played by Alan Alda), deliberatly starting a war with Canada, just to get votes. (also w/ Rip Torn and John Candy)

Except, Dragon, that Dunt actually lays out reasoning, brief and lacking in evidence though it may be. Whereas you simply assert that Moore's stuff is true, with one exception (Charlton Heston example, which is more personal viewpoint). While I'm undecided on the issue and see both viewpoints, I have to say that 'Michael Moore is teh truezor' is not a particularly glowing endorsement of yours.

Personally, I have little respect for Moore, Coulter or Limbaugh. I think that they pander in equal measure and slant to the same degree. The only thing that Moore can claim that the others can't is humour. As a humourous piece of entertainment, Moore's films are perfectly good (Canadian Bacon especially, since he doesn't try to pass things off as fact). However, the problem is that the majority of people (both liberals and conservatives) don't see them as entertainment, and neither does Moore himself. Many, many people have cited Michael Moore to me as a legitimate source.

I do not contend that Moore outright lies, and I doubt my ability to debate the facts since I spend relatively little time doing counter-research to liberal (or conservative) demagogues. However, I think that we can all agree that he slants his information rather heavily. Is that a crime? No. But it isn't exactly good journalism, either.

All I'm asking is that people watch his films! Just the first three (the documentries) if they havn't already, then Google yourself blue to find out if he's telling the truth or not. I can't very well post everything he's said. I can give you one from Rush though: He has maintained for years that there is no problem w/ global warming. Now there are global warming specials all over the TV and magizines. :eek:

The funny part is that back during the clinton admin moore did smart TV. Wonder what changed it to the outright politcal propaganda he makes now?

OMFGZ!! BUZH RU1NED M00RE T00!!!!!111

...or not.

Which michael moore obviously does not realize. All it takes to get on the correct vector for collision with a point on the ground is to line it up and get the correct descent rate and hold. It's a little trickier than a landing b/c ur w/o ILS but all pilots learn it for the private pilots license.

Everything I've read suggests that its much harder to do that with a large passenger plane, like the ones involved. Not saying that Moore is correct but the things I've read suggest that they were professional level pilots.

Particularly decent strawman construction, you are to be applauded.
JuNi, made a point, I argued against that point. I didnt construct and attribute to JuNi an argument that JuNi hadnt actually made, just so I could argue against said argument as a substitute for arguing against the points JuNi was making.
If you think otherwise you'll no doubt take great pleasure in quoting the argument that I constructed and tried to pass off as JuNi's before preceeding to argue against it.

I think there is a bit of merit to Juni's argument that Moore parades his work as documentaries when they would be more correctly labeled as propaganda.
I think you are either unobservant, naive or being less than objective in considering all the facts and reaching a conclusion (probably the last, although not necessarily as a result of intentional dishonesty).

Documentaries are often also propaganda. It might be objectional to some people that this is the case, but it is the case. Moore doesnt operate in a vacum. He produces, markets and sells in a particular context. If he stood out as exceptional in this aspect in the context in which he produces, markets and sells his work, then JuNi's point would most certainly stand. However, I dont see that Moore is exceptional in this regard.

Unfortunately I must agree with Moore that they are also documentaries, because there is no law of documentary film production that states documentaries should be as unbiased as possible or that they should not contain propaganda or lies or for that matter actors portraying real life.
Right, which I'm sure we both agree doesnt make it necessarily ok. It might not be against the law for me to say have sex with my best friends spouse, but it's still a right bastard-trick, the lack of criminality not withstanding.

So illegal or not, I'd be inclined to agree that if Moore were acting contrary to established practises, the lack of criminality wouldnt make his behaviour less reprehensible. But the point is that Moore's way of doing things really isnt at all exceptional. It's really rather conventional.

Of course Moore's products are more appealing and more marketable when marketed as documentaries (and technically the claim that they are documentaries isnt untrue). It is quite simply standard practise to 'wrap' the product in the wrapper most appealing to consumers, and it's standard practise to call the kind of production concerned a documentary, the (blatently obviously slanted) perspective not-withstanding. So Moore's practises are not particularly misleading.

What then is the problem? The marketing is consistent with standard practise in the market concerned. The productions themselves are conventional in the market concerned. Documentaries are often made with the purpose of pushing a particular point of view, and none of the editing and framing techniques employed by Moore are unique or innovative, they're stock standard stuff really (which only increases my mystification, maybe if he were particularly brilliant or exceptionally creative, it would explain both the level and intensity of the approval and animosity directed at him, but he's not, so buggered if I can work out why everyone sets so much store by him one way or the other...it's all rather bemusing from my point of veiw...:confused: ).

Maybe there should be a documentary filmakers code of ethics but there is not. Moore is as legitimate as the next guy, but not half as truthful in his finished product.
He's as truthful as anyone can expect given what he does in the particular context in which he does it.

I honestly dont see what all the 'Moore' excitement is about!

I havent read this book, but Ive read a couple of his other ones.
Ive also seen Farenheit 9/11.

I agree with much of his sentiments regarding our country, and our President.
However, I also think he is a douchebag.

Using shady editing techniques, to illustrate a point?

Why?

Theres so much shity Bush has done, that you could simply show all of it,uneditied, no tricky montages, just tell the truth..and make the same point.

But..he didnt.

Despite the fact that much of what he says is indeed true, the way he goes about his business makes him little better than the O Reillys of the world, or the Ann Coulters, or Michael Savages.

Opinionated douchebags, who wish to make your mind up for you.

Coulter, Hannity, Moore, O Reilly..all of em..this is what they do:

Find a particular story, or bit of news.
Create a creative narration of this piece of news, and only speak about one particular side or view of that thing.

Then, repeat this conviction with rabid lunacy, and alter or leave out any parts of this story that does not fit in with the views you have provided for all the plebian asswipes who rely on you to do thier thinking for them.

Welcome to America.

moore is a saint and shood never be qwestchund! he stands for truth and exposes teh lies that goverment feeds us! 911 was a setup by teh bush nazis working with the sody arabs to start a never ending war for oil! teh evil oil companys got a grp on teh goverment and theyr feedin us a bunch of lies man!

Well i was in a bookstore earlier today and i came across this book by michael moore and decided to buy it and see if i could get any laughs out of it. As it turns out, i did get a few. About 15 pages in, he makes the claim that there is no way that the 9/11 hijackers could have flown their aircraft into the WTC's w/o military training, specifically Saudi military training. It goes w/o saying that this is complete bullshit but i thought that it was funny that someone who makes such baseless claims actually is taken seriously by some people. Now from what i can gather, these forums are dominated by liberal thinking people(yes very ground breaking i know;) ) so i was wondering what some of you think about him.

I'm rather on the liberal end of it. And I think MM is a windbag and a jackass.

I think Moore should dig a little deeper, I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and it looked a bit superficial.
Anyone knows of the ties between the Bush and the Bin Laden families, anyone knows that Osama was a CIA op that helped US-supported mujaheddin in the Afghan civil war. But if you want to make serious journalism - and not just sensation - you have to go deeper, as if you were a prosecutor trying to collect proof for trials.


liberal thinking people

Hey! How do you dare to call me liberal? I'm a COMMIE!:D

Economic Left/Right: -9.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

as far as thwe claim about military training in the book Moore does say this To hit it that directly, to do it twice, these people knew what they were doing, and they did not learn how to do that at a flight training school on a video game. They did not learn how to do that there.
And I think some questions need to be asked about what involvement did the Saudi military possibly have in either training these people, or were these rogue elements within the Saudi royal family or Saudi military?
We already know there's a few divisions within the royal family about how the country should be run. It's total chaos over there. The king had a stroke and he's not really running the country now for a number of years.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/15/1543216&mode=thread&tid=25

moore is a saint and shood never be qwestchund! he stands for truth and exposes teh lies that goverment feeds us! 911 was a setup by teh bush nazis working with the sody arabs to start a never ending war for oil! teh evil oil companys got a grp on teh goverment and theyr feedin us a bunch of lies man!

Trolling, or sarcasm? Only the Shadow knows......:cool:

The pyhsics that keep any plane aloft are the same between planes. Ask your physics teacher. I dare you to contradict this. There are four forces in play: Thrust, Lift, Drag, and Gravity. How planes generate the first two to counteract the second two differs, but that is the basic goal of aviation. That said, flying a 747 involves knowing those factors, which can be learned on a Cessna. Once they were airborn, the terrorists would not have needed Saudi military training.


Yeah, so flying a light aircraft at a height of less than 100ft is exactly the same as flying a large passenger aircraft at the height of less than 100ft, which is what we were told (and the video evidence proves the plane was flying at a height at which it was knocking down street lamps) happened to the aircraft that hit the pentagon. That's the sort of thing a few hours of flying lessons in a light aircraft and a few hours on a simulator will teach you to do. Not.

Americans are idiots.

Ha ha !!!!!

Get bush out!

Moore may not be correct all the time - but he presents you morons with an alternative opinion/idea.concept.

Let him be.

American the tyrannical nation.

The more i hear from you yanks the more anti american i feel. yikes!

Hm, I'm not sure if it's possible to fly a 747 into a large building.

Perhaps they just had "luck".

A friend of mine is in a training as Pilot for Lufthansa. Perhaps he could tell me if it's possible.

Funny, I own that book, and Moore never says anything remotely like that. Didn't count on someone calling your bluff, did you?

Its not in Dude Where's My Country, its in Stupid White Men. He makes the claim several times during the course of that book.

You would not need military training to fly a 747 (or even the 757s or 767s that were actually used in the 9/11 attacks). Its a very simple matter of flying and controlling an aircraft once it is airborne. I once flew and landed one of the RAF's full motion VC-10 simulators with zero flying experience other than 40 minutes in a Grob 115E Tutor and a shitload of hours in heavies on FS2002.

There's a reason that flying a plane is a lot like riding a bicycle. Its because once you get the hang of it (in a Cessna or whatever) you never forget it. The principles are the same in every aircraft. Most conversion training revolves around the difficult bits, which are monitoring the various systems, take offs and landings. Anyone who says you need special military training to fly a large aircraft in a straight line is talking out of their arse and has obviously never actually flown an aircraft before.

Americans are idiots.

Ha ha !!!!!

Get bush out!

Moore may not be correct all the time - but he presents you morons with an alternative opinion/idea.concept.

Let him be.

American the tyrannical nation.

The more i hear from you yanks the more anti american i feel. yikes!

And, this, ladies and gentlemen, represents what I'd like to refer to as one who makes up a part of the unfortunately large crowd known as "the impressionable uninformed." Thank you and come again.

does he have any credibility? yes, certainly. but not much of that with me. he was an effective force to get the ball rolling for a popular backlash against bush and american foreign policy and the like, but he really should shut up now, he's making a fool of himself.

Most conversion training revolves around the difficult bits, which are monitoring the various systems, take offs and landings. Anyone who says you need special military training to fly a large aircraft in a straight line is talking out of their arse and has obviously never actually flown an aircraft before.

The difficult bits like flying at less than 100ft?

I've flown propellor (Chipmonk) and jet aircraft (BAE Hawk) (not simulators), and I can say you are talking out of your arse.

A good political critic IMO, does it with style....wouldn't call them documentaries as they are biased, but rather, as critical essays.

Some credibility yes … much no.

As much as I dislike the guy … there are not many people on this earth (none that I know of) that have NO credibility.

I find myself shocked that people are making aspersions upon Michael Moore, unlike Rush and coulter who are clearly enemies of the people with their inflammatory conservative rhetoric, Mr. Moore is a paragon of decency and virtue.

I find Farenheit 9/11 credible and truthful.

(And no, no "Nigerian Prince scams get by me. TINSTAAFL, after all...)

Its not in Dude Where's My Country, its in Stupid White Men. He makes the claim several times during the course of that book.

Oh really? Maybe I'm no good at this searching thing, but can you please point out where in Stupid White Men he does such a thing? Thank you.
http://www.geocities.com/burton_nothing/stupidwhitemen.pdf

You see, I found it strange that he would make those claims there since he wrote his book before sept. 11, 2001, and supposedly did not make huge changes to it afterwards.

The difficult bits like flying at less than 100ft?


Keep in mind they weren't flying under 100 ft in preparation for landing... I'm not contending they did it without training, what I am saying is it was done in America. Like I said previously, all you need is money. I've flown various sizes of aircraft, straight and level flight, ascents and descents are fairly basic. They really weren't worried about flying the jet in slow flight or what airspeed they had to be under to lower the flaps ect.

But really that's not the point, the point is they can learn all of those skills here in America.

Well i was in a bookstore earlier today and i came across this book by michael moore and decided to buy it and see if i could get any laughs out of it. As it turns out, i did get a few. About 15 pages in, he makes the claim that there is no way that the 9/11 hijackers could have flown their aircraft into the WTC's w/o military training, specifically Saudi military training. It goes w/o saying that this is complete bullshit but i thought that it was funny that someone who makes such baseless claims actually is taken seriously by some people. Now from what i can gather, these forums are dominated by liberal thinking people(yes very ground breaking i know;) ) so i was wondering what some of you think about him.

I would like to throw out a possibility here: What if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? What if the nineteen were well-trained soldiers, the elite of the elite, unquestioning in their duty to obey their commander's orders? That they lived in this country for nearly two years and were not discovered - that takes a certain amount of discipline, the discipline of a soldier, not the erratic behavior of some wild-eyed terrorist.

George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-story building at more then 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force.
The Saudi Air Force?
What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family?

- Dude, Where's My Country.
Excert from page 21-22.
Paperback published by Warner books. International edition, October 2003.

I think most of the things said about him is vastly over exegerated. Some of his points make perfect sense. He also backs up everything he says.

However, he tends to be quite one sided and generalises a lot. No more then most people however.

I would like to throw out a possibility here: What if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? What if the nineteen were well-trained soldiers, the elite of the elite, unquestioning in their duty to obey their commander's orders? That they lived in this country for nearly two years and were not discovered - that takes a certain amount of discipline, the discipline of a soldier, not the erratic behavior of some wild-eyed terrorist.

George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-story building at more then 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force.
The Saudi Air Force?
What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family?

- Dude, Where's My Country.
Excert from page 21-22.
Paperback published by Warner books. International edition, October 2003.

Ah, so Moore was taken out of context, like I suspected. That's why I didn't remember it, because it didn't mean what I was told it meant.

So far, 47 votes that claim Michael Moore has no credibility at all.
Yet not one (1) tangable post of when, where or how he did lie.

Well isn't that special? :p

So far, 47 votes that claim Michael Moore has no credibility at all.
Yet not one (1) tangable post of when, where or how he did lie.

Well isn't that special? :p
Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine is chock full of evidence that it's doctored and the facts misrepresented. yet it's still a documentary and he still claims he didn't touch the facts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine is chock full of evidence that it's doctored and the facts misrepresented. yet it's still a documentary and he still claims he didn't touch the facts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Oh my God!!! what a bunch of crap! I said "tangable", not nit-picking.

What difference does it make if the Saudis and bin Ladins left the US on the 13th or 14th?

The august 6 2001 PDB was vauge???!! It was Titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US!!! (watch Condy Rice's testamony to the 9-11 commision on the F-911 "Special Features" section. How many times did the mod ask her: "would you please just answer the question?"

Surely you are not suggesting that the patriot act was a "good thing"

I don't even want to talk about Britney Spears. That Goth-Country thing she did to open the 2004 GOP convention was just down right creepy.

And please: lets save the debate of whether or not the 2000 elections were stolen for another thread.

Maybe I'm missing something. Please show me where F-911 is not basicly, right on the money.

I didn't even bother with the Bowling for Columbine link as the film basicly points out that America has too many people getting killed by guns.

One of my favorite all time quotes is from BfC "It dosn't take a Tech-9, semi-automatic weapon with 30 rounds to kill a deer"

What difference does it make if the Saudis and bin Ladins left the US on the 13th or 14th?

It makes all the difference in the world. They left after the air ban was lifted not before. Which is what MM was implying.

It makes all the difference in the world. They left after the air ban was lifted not before. Which is what MM was implying.

But the point being: What were they doing here in the first place?

Oh my God!!! what a bunch of crap! I said "tangable", not nit-picking.which only shows that MM is not concerned with the truth but what he wants others to percieve as the truth.

Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.

What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better.” “What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?”…

She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and “helped us get through a very difficult day.”


The august 6 2001 PDB was vauge???!! It was Titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US!!! (watch Condy Rice's testamony to the 9-11 commision on the F-911 "Special Features" section. How many times did the mod ask her: "would you please just answer the question?"
Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s assertion appears to be a complete fabrication.

Moore smirks that perhaps President Bush did not read the Briefing because its title was so vague. Moore then cuts to Condoleezza Rice announcing the title of the Briefing: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

However, no-one (except Moore) has ever claimed that Bush did not read the Briefing, or that he did not read it because the title was vague. Rather, Condoleezza Rice had told the press conference that the information in the Briefing was “very vague.” National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing, The White House, May 16, 2002.

The content of the Briefing supports Rice’s characterization, and refutes Moore’s assertion that the Briefing “said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.” The actual Briefing was highly equivocal:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-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.

and another refutation on your Vauge Title attack... http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/fahrenheit911/pdb.htm

it was not the title they said was vauge, but the contents.

I didn't even bother with the Bowling for Columbine link as the film basicly points out that America has too many people getting killed by guns.

One of my favorite all time quotes is from BfC "It dosn't take a Tech-9, semi-automatic weapon with 30 rounds to kill a deer"and Bowling for Truth also covers why MM lost credibility.

But the point being: What were they doing here in the first place?

That's a very good question. Probably up to no good. Or maybe sunny Texas is the most underrated vacation spot in the Western Hemisphere. But that isn't the point of the article nor is it my point.

It's not unreasonable they left after normal flights resumed. Remember, 911 was back when people still had civil rights (pre- patriot act). And guilty or not, anyone with the last name of Bin- Laden would be looking for a fast way out of this country. It used to take more than illegal wiretaps and gut instict to hold someone against their will.

Besides, if they truly knew about 911, don't you think they would have left before not after?

and another refutation on your Vauge Title attack... http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/fahrenheit911/pdb.htm

it was not the title they said was vauge, but the contents.

and Bowling for Truth also covers why MM lost credibility.

From the Link: with my comments in ( )
"I want to reiterate that during this time, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas (w/ a "bin Ladin, dertermined to attack inside the US" title???) The State Dept. and defense Dept. were on a very high state of alert." (With Bush in Florida reading "My Pet Goat"???)

As for the teachers commets: Well of course she suppoted whatever Bush did. They had a celebrity in their class. Anyway that dosn't negate the fact that he sat there for all that time with the deer in the headlights look.

Maybe the BfC link does claim that MM lost credibility for that film. (But where in that film could he POSSIBLY be lying.) It's your link. Care to share any quotes from it?

That's a very good question. Probably up to no good. Or maybe sunny Texas is the most underrated vacation spot in the Western Hemisphere. But that isn't the point of the article nor is it my point.

It's not unreasonable they left after normal flights resumed. Remember, 911 was back when people still had civil rights (pre- patriot act). And guilty or not, anyone with the last name of Bin- Laden would be looking for a fast way out of this country. It used to take more than illegal wiretaps and gut instict to hold someone against their will.

Besides, if they truly knew about 911, don't you think they would have left before not after?

I'm not suggesting that the Arabs that left that week, had beforhand knowledge of an inpending attack and neither did the film. it was a build up to Bush's business dealings with the "bin Ladin Group"

(But where in that film could he POSSIBLY be lying.)

When he manipulated one of the soldiers that he interviewed. He thoroughly edited the interview and, against the soldiers will, made him out to be anti-war. And he's supposed to be helping us.:rolleyes:

I'm not suggesting that the Arabs that left that week, had beforhand knowledge of an inpending attack and neither did the film. it was a build up to Bush's business dealings with the "bin Ladin Group"

I believe that is had been proved that the bin laden family disowned osama when he fought in the afghani-soviet war.

When he manipulated one of the soldiers that he interviewed. He thoroughly edited the interview and, against the soldiers will, made him out to be anti-war. And he's supposed to be helping us.:rolleyes:

You lost me there. My statement that you quoted was refering to the film "Bowling for Columbine"

are you talking about a segment from F-911?

I believe that is had been proved that the bin laden family disowned osama when he fought in the afghani-soviet war.

Who proved that? In any event, surley you can't be suggesting that Osama's ENTIRE family disowned him. (He has an incredibly large family with 22 wives and some 55 children)

Also on the morning of 9-11-2001 Bush part 1 (the former head of the CIA and former president) was in a meeting with Osama's brother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_family

Well i was in a bookstore earlier today and i came across this book by michael moore and decided to buy it and see if i could get any laughs out of it. As it turns out, i did get a few. About 15 pages in, he makes the claim that there is no way that the 9/11 hijackers could have flown their aircraft into the WTC's w/o military training, specifically Saudi military training. It goes w/o saying that this is complete bullshit but i thought that it was funny that someone who makes such baseless claims actually is taken seriously by some people. Now from what i can gather, these forums are dominated by liberal thinking people(yes very ground breaking i know;) ) so i was wondering what some of you think about him.

Michael Moore probably screams the leftist battlecry "Blood For Oil" the loudest yet he has huge investments in stocks involving the War and Oil industries. :confused:

Who proved that? In any event, surley you can't be suggesting that Osama's ENTIRE family disowned him. (He has an incredibly large family with 22 wives and some 55 children)

Also on 9-11-2001 Bush part 1 (the former head of the CIA and former president) was in a meeting with Osama's brother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_family

The entire family doesn't have to. when a family disowns a member of said family, it is the head honcho/ clan leader/ patriarch of the family who does the disowning. For the most part the rest of the family will follow suit, but not always. there will be members who, for whatever reason, will continue to associate with the ostrasized member.

So Bush Sr. was talking business with a member and rep of the Bin laden families business concerns. So? Are you saying that it isn't okay for the Carlyle Group to have financial dealings with arab businessmen?

You never answered the question about Bush. what was he supposed to have done?

my comments in BOLD.
From the Link: with my comments in ( )
"I want to reiterate that during this time, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas (w/ a "bin Ladin, dertermined to attack inside the US" title???) The State Dept. and defense Dept. were on a very high state of alert." (With Bush in Florida reading "My Pet Goat"???)ah yes, because President Bush is the Entire State Dept and Defense Dept. that if they are on high alert, God forbid he does anything else! :rolleyes:

As for the teachers commets: Well of course she suppoted whatever Bush did. They had a celebrity in their class. Anyway that dosn't negate the fact that he sat there for all that time with the deer in the headlights look.you get told that your entire family dies while cameras are on you as you are talking to a classroom full of kids. let's see your reaction... probably, curse and cry infront of the kids and the cameras, then go rushing out, leaving not just those kids, but all the people who didn't hear about the towers wondering about your leadership ability. :rolleyes:

(But where in that film could he POSSIBLY be lying.)
here.
mislabled plaque shown during BfC (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/planeplaque.htm)

8 month Time Warp portrayed in BfC (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/hestonrally2.htm)

omission of alot of facts (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/kayla.htm)

a... TYPO??? Just proves that MM doesn't check facts. (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/williehorton.htm)

creative editing made to portray something totally different. (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/hestonrally1.htm)

there are more and other sites that focus on the inconsistiancies and lies of BfC.

here another you can look at.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and don't take their word on it, go watch it. and please, pay attention to the ties people wear the near blurry words before and after any lighligted newspaper shots and the clocks in the background. ;)

You lost me there. My statement that you quoted was refering to the film "Bowling for Columbine"

are you talking about a segment from F-911?

yes

Michael Moore Rocks!

So Bush Sr. was talking business with a member and rep of the Bin laden families business concerns. So? Are you saying that it isn't okay for the Carlyle Group to have financial dealings with arab businessmen?

You never answered the question about Bush. what was he supposed to have done?

In any event, what the meeting was about will never be proven one way or the other.Whether or not the fact that Bush Sr(Former preZ, Cia director and father of the preZ) was meeting w/ Osama's brother on the morn of 9-11 is coincendence or not, Moore acted accordingly by including that in his film.

On the morning of 9-11 while reading "My Pet Goat"? Well I suppose that depends on the individual. If it were me, I believe I could have quickly left the classroom without upseting the children " Opps! Kids, Ima hafta go now. I promise I will come back when I can. You kids make me proud and study hard. Please?...Okay?. (YEAAAA!!!)..Okay!" (something like that) The president is the "Commander in Chief" of the military. Tending to the military after the only continential attack in American history would "click" in a responsable persons mind (IMHO)


Errands to run- To be continued...

Michael Moore believes alot of dumb ass shit. I read his book about 9/11 and thought there was alot of weird, questionable things. But still, I like Michael Moore. He makes really good movies, even if they are editorial pieces. So in a weird way I think he's got some credibility left.

The president is the "Commander in Chief" of the military. Tending to the military after the only continential attack in American history would "click" in a responsable persons mind (IMHO)


Errands to run- To be continued...

I really do not see what the President could have done in those first minutes. It's not like he is the only person in the gov't. What could he have done to help at ground zero?

In any event, what the meeting was about will never be proven one way or the other.Whether or not the fact that Bush Sr(Former preZ, Cia director and father of the preZ) was meeting w/ Osama's brother on the morn of 9-11 is coincendence or not, Moore acted accordingly by including that in his film.yep, jumping to conclusions and not mentioning the fact that even HE didn't know the reasons.

On the morning of 9-11 while reading "My Pet Goat"? Well I suppose that depends on the individual. If it were me, I believe I could have quickly left the classroom without upseting the children " Opps! Kids, Ima hafta go now. I promise I will come back when I can. You kids make me proud and study hard. Please?...Okay?. (YEAAAA!!!)..Okay!" (something like that) The president is the "Commander in Chief" of the military. Tending to the military after the only continential attack in American history would "click" in a responsable persons mind (IMHO)LOL...

with the entire Media following you... then any attempts to keep them away or out will only throw fuel on the fire as they catch snippets of your conversation with your aids. Then as the story spreads about the WTC...
"President Panics" would be the headline and story. so far, it's only the conspiracy theorists, comedians, and uninformed that are commenting on President Bush's actions that day.

Commander in Chief still does not mean he runs everything personally.

couldn't run a tap.

couldn't run a tap.

Feel like clarifying that comment?

In any event, what the meeting was about will never be proven one way or the other.Whether or not the fact that Bush Sr(Former preZ, Cia director and father of the preZ) was meeting w/ Osama's brother on the morn of 9-11 is coincendence or not, Moore acted accordingly by including that in his film.

On the morning of 9-11 while reading "My Pet Goat"? Well I suppose that depends on the individual. If it were me, I believe I could have quickly left the classroom without upseting the children " Opps! Kids, Ima hafta go now. I promise I will come back when I can. You kids make me proud and study hard. Please?...Okay?. (YEAAAA!!!)..Okay!" (something like that) The president is the "Commander in Chief" of the military. Tending to the military after the only continential attack in American history would "click" in a responsable persons mind (IMHO)

And said meeting was irrelevant to anything else that happened that day, so adding it in was a way to falsely insinuate that there was a connection between the two events.

Okay, Bush recieve the news from his people, suddenly gets up, and well before his alotted time is up, makes some excuse and leaves. Now. What are the adults at the school going to be thinking? Remember, the presidents appearances are planned out in advance, and they tend not to alter the itinerary short of an emergency. So, back to the adults. They are now wondering what would cause the Pres to take off so suddenly. Something that makes him do that is not going to be minor. So people get concerned, then worried. Kids are perceptive as all getout, they WILL pick up on that worry. Kids get nervous, or even a bit scared, and the attempts by the adults to reassure them may not help. So panic a room full of people for what reason?

How would that have helped?

The USA is effectively being run on his behalf and not too well at that.

I really do not see what the President could have done in those first minutes. It's not like he is the only person in the gov't. What could he have done to help at ground zero?

Good point. So how did Bush know that the attacks were not part of a larger conspirisy? Easy. He DID read the Aug 6th PDB. He DID know that an attack was imminent. And that is was coming from Osama. So why rush eh?

How would knowing whether the attacks were part of a larger "conspiracy" have changed his reaction?

Ye gods, so now you are trying to accuse the president of knowingly and willfully allowing 3000 fucking people to be callously and brutally murdered by extremists just to further his political agendas?

Are you fucking insane?

my comments in BOLD.

here.
mislabled plaque shown during BfC (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/planeplaque.htm)

8 month Time Warp portrayed in BfC (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/hestonrally2.htm)

omission of alot of facts (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/kayla.htm)

a... TYPO??? Just proves that MM doesn't check facts. (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/williehorton.htm)

creative editing made to portray something totally different. (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/hestonrally1.htm)

there are more and other sites that focus on the inconsistiancies and lies of BfC.

here another you can look at.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and don't take their word on it, go watch it. and please, pay attention to the ties people wear the near blurry words before and after any lighligted newspaper shots and the clocks in the background. ;)

Nit picking, speculations, and outright lies.
I didnt want to look at that garbage but I did anyway.

Using nonprofit organization as an excuse to not change the date of the NRA meeting. (how pathetic)
Heston seemed to enjoy the comments he made about the Mayor, and it drew some laughs out of the audience. (He didn't care about upseting family members of victims from the area. His ego was his top priority.)

The KKK being declared an illegal terrorists organization, shortly before the NRA was formed is a fact

The killers from Columbine, Timothy McVay and the Nichols brothers being from the same, depressed area of Michigan is a fact.

It's a fact that there are too many assualt weapons in America. (how many more school shootings will it take to convince certain people?)

Oh.. almost forgot. MMs website. Enjoy:
http://www.michaelmoore.com (http://michaelmoore.com)

How would knowing whether the attacks were part of a larger "conspiracy" have changed his reaction?

Ye gods, so now you are trying to accuse the president of knowingly and willfully allowing 3000 fucking people to be callously and brutally murdered by extremists just to further his political agendas?

Are you fucking insane?

That was the first thing that occurred to me the morning of September 11th, when I was watching people jumping to their deaths live on TeeVee. The President knowingly and willfully allowed 3000 fucking people to be callously and brutally murdered just to further his political agendae. Spot on. Incredible. Like a beam direct from my brain. Though somehow delayed five years. No matter.

And sometimes I wish I were fucking insane, but - nope. There it is.

Michael Moore: Noun- Bloated white man, known too be a communist, making sensless claims, while offering no solutions himself. Has a weakness for twinkees.

How would knowing whether the attacks were part of a larger "conspiracy" have changed his reaction?

Ye gods, so now you are trying to accuse the president of knowingly and willfully allowing 3000 fucking people to be callously and brutally murdered by extremists just to further his political agendas?

Are you fucking insane?

That's my point. How could he know? When the 2nd plane hit the WTC, everybody and his sister knew America was at war. Even though Osama was the most likely suspect at the time, how can one be so sure?

Hell the look on his face when he was told, says a thousand words.(figure of speech) He didn't seemed shocked at all. Did he? I saw the 2nd plane hit, live on TV. My jaw droped and my eyes were wider that they had ever been.
When I told my neighbor he did the same thing. Many people on TV for the next few days, described the same thing. Not Bush!!! he looked more like a kid that just got caught stealing candy.

One month later it's off to Afganistan to "smoke 'em out" "get 'em dead or alive" destroy the "Axis of Evil".........With only 11,000 soldiers? There are more than 11,000 police officers in Manhattan alone. 11,000 people isn't enough spectators for a crappy football game. But he's the Commander in Chief so maybe his strategy worked.....oops...No bin Ladin and Taliban reforming.

No I don't put one damm thing past Bush as far as furthering his political agenda or building his bank accounts.

Nit picking, speculations, and outright lies.
I didnt want to look at that garbage but I did anyway.ok, let's see your great Refutation of those sites then...

Using nonprofit organization as an excuse to not change the date of the NRA meeting. (how pathetic)as moore tries to point out, that the dates of those meetings were right after the shootings... yet what he plays is from another meeting a year later in another state. why didn't Moore play any snippets from that meeting? perhaps because there was nothing he could use to paint the NRA as a villian.

Heston seemed to enjoy the comments he made about the Mayor, and it drew some laughs out of the audience. (He didn't care about upseting family members of victims from the area. His ego was his top priority.)
"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."yep... upsetting the families of the victims of that tragedy... lots of laughs...

and it's nice that you missed this one about Heston and the mayor.

Cut 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.

yep... that was shown... but let's examine that response...

"I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph:

"As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land."

He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston. Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" to make him look proud of his defiance.

Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston actually said there was:

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

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

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy." and this is nitpicking to you? two speeches spliced to form a fictious response? Speculation? a Lie on anyone but Moore's part?

The KKK being declared an illegal terrorists organization, shortly before the NRA was formed is a fact

The killers from Columbine, Timothy McVay and the Nichols brothers being from the same, depressed area of Michigan is a fact.

It's a fact that there are too many assualt weapons in America. (how many more school shootings will it take to convince certain people?)and of all the points I presented, these three that I didn't touch upon is the only ones you find wrong?

Oh.. almost forgot. MMs website. Enjoy:
http://www.michaelmoore.com (http://michaelmoore.com)read it already. your point? think he will admit to Lies on his product on his website?
heck, he's putting out Teacher's Guides for his F911 and BfC. and did you read those Study Guides?

obviously not since you still think Michael Moore still has credibility.

That was the first thing that occurred to me the morning of September 11th, when I was watching people jumping to their deaths live on TeeVee. The President knowingly and willfully allowed 3000 fucking people to be callously and brutally murdered just to further his political agendae. Spot on. Incredible. Like a beam direct from my brain. Though somehow delayed five years. No matter.

And sometimes I wish I were fucking insane, but - nope. There it is.

You are insane Dobbs, thats a given babe. :D

So, were you being sarcastic, or serious? I can't tell.

Bowling For Columbine is a really good documentary.

Bowling For Columbine is a really good documentary.


All I remember after seeing it was wondering if he enjoyed portraying Canadians as idiots. Now knowing his lack of scruples when it comes to editing his films, i wonder what those people he interviewed really said.

All I remember after seeing it was wondering if he enjoyed portraying Canadians as idiots. Now knowing his lack of scruples when it comes to editing his films, i wonder what those people he interviewed really said.

*shrugs*

Shrugs?

You okay there Ruffy?

Or does the lack of response mean that this is one of the threads where you think people are being idiots?

However, he tends to be quite one sided and generalises a lot. No more then most people however.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine is chock full of evidence that it's doctored and the facts misrepresented. yet it's still a documentary and he still claims he didn't touch the facts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
I think both the quotes are true. Yes Moore does these things, no more than most. If when Moore does it, it's misleading and so people complain about Moore much more than most others, yet Moore is not doing anything the others are not doing, I gotta wonder if people dont realise that the others are doing exactly what Moore is doing.
If that's the case, the problem isnt that Moore is misleading people, it's that people are being constantly misled without any clue that's happening, otherwise they'd moan not about Moore, but about the media full-stop.

If Moore is fooling folk, then so are everyone else who use the same techniques and antics - another words virtually all American media...that's not a 'Moore problem', it's way bigger than Moore in every sense.

It isnt at all exceptional for documentaries to push an agenda and for such documentaries to be slanted to fit with that motive. According to the accepted conventional standards of the genre, Moore's productions are indeed documentaries. If having viewed one of his productions you cannot deduce that it is a production that pushes a particular agenda rather than a neutral point of view, I gotta wonder if you have any business consuming modern media at all. That being the case, it's hardly Moore's fault that calling productions that document things from a particular point of view 'documentaries', is standard practise.

If people honestly couldnt perceive that Moore's presentation is specifically tailored to push a particular agenda, then how the frig do they navigate the news? Exactly the same tactics are evident in any news production. In some cases the news producers make an effort to insert neutrality (for instance by providing equal time and fair 'framing' to two opposing points of view), but very often this isnt the case. It kinda' scares me that people might not be able be recognising this aspect of their every day news presentations....the fact that a lot of Moore-complainers are Fox viewers being a case in point.

I tend to believe that these people really do know that Moore's misrepresentations and exagerations are not actually lies but simply strong 'bias framing' just as Fox news isnt objective, but rather as prone to misrepresentation and exagerations in the form of the same 'bias framing' techniques Moore employs. I put all the "Moore is teh suxor and Fox News isnt biased" stuff down to political posturing, the alternative is both to conclude that people are a lot more stupid than I currently percieve them to be. The same can be said in regards to those who complain about rightest entertainment (such as Fox News) while arguing Moore objectively presents the truth....

Shrugs?

You okay there Ruffy?

Or does the lack of response mean that this is one of the threads where you think people are being idiots?
Well.. let me review the thread.

I have now read through the last few posts, and it seems that the only thing I know is, is that I liked but did not remember the whole entire movie.

Another thing I see here is that you're a lil too tense.

Perhaps a nap would do you good?

Well.. let me review the thread.

I have now read through the last few posts, and it seems that the only thing I know is, is that I liked but did not remember the whole entire movie.

Another thing I see here is that you're a lil too tense.

Perhaps a nap would do you good?

The stuff about Canada is all I remember myself. I watched that in a classroom, and a quiet, dark room is a surefire way to put me to sleep. Had the same problem watching Brazil in class.

I was tense, talking to someone I see as being unable to open their eyes frustrates the crap out of me. But apparently writing what I said was mildly cathartic as I no longer feel irritated.

Naps are good, naps are your friend. But its only 10:50pm here, too early for sleepies.

Time to go play some more GTA 3.

The stuff about Canada is all I remember myself. I watched that in a classroom, and a quiet, dark room is a surefire way to put me to sleep. Had the same problem watching Brazil in class.

Aye, I know the feeling.
I was tense, talking to someone I see as being unable to open their eyes frustrates the crap out of me. But apparently writing what I said was mildly cathartic as I no longer feel irritated.
I also wonder how Bush getting off of a chair would help the situation.
Naps are good, naps are your friend. But its only 10:50pm here, too early for sleepies.
Actually, it's 2am here, so I should be slepping.. hmm..
Time to go play some more GTA 3.
Have fun.

Going back to the 8 month time warp in Michigan.
Heston admits, in the interview with Moore, that he did not know that the little girl had been killed. How could he have not known 8 months later???

loL JuNii. Moore actually should have added the parts he deleted as he carries on about his 126 year fixture in the mainstream.

Lack of responce Dunt? I havn't type MMs whole career here but I've touched on a good chunk of it.

Going back to the 8 month time warp in Michigan. ok, lets.

Heston admits, in the interview with Moore, that he did not know that the little girl had been killed. How could he have not known 8 months later???what about the 8 month time warp in Michigan that you were going to cover... 8 months pass and...

the NRA is supposed to suspend all rallys and events for how long if 8 months is too short. oh, but Mr Moore didn't say that the rally was 8 months later...

and funny he calls it "Just as he did after the Columbine shootings, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint to have a big pro-gun rally."

This pro gun rally was a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

a LIE. if you still maintain that they are all Mistakes, then Mr Moore needs to fire all of his fact checking people.

oh and check out the shot where Moore claims Heston knew about Kayla's shooting. funny, the part not highlighted are about both columbine and Kayla's shooting and Heston only replies about the Columbine shooting. thus it is possible that Hestion didn't know about Kayla's shooting.

go ahead, watch BfC again and this time, go frame by frame for each of those highlighted news and web shots. you'll see what they are saying is far different than what Moore is saying they are saying.

more lies.

loL JuNii. Moore actually should have added the parts he deleted as he carries on about his 126 year fixture in the mainstream.oh don't worry, he will... and he'll sell it to you for double the price with a "Never before seen footages" tag on the DVD box.

ok, lets.

what about the 8 month time warp in Michigan that you were going to cover... 8 months pass and...

oh don't worry, he will... and he'll sell it to you for double the price with a "Never before seen footages" tag on the DVD box.

Correct! No 8 months between the shooting and Heston showing up in Flint. As suggested in your link.


Ooooh you think? Kewl!!! (and I hope only double the price...Sin City was three times more the second time around) :D


EDIT: I think you need to watch the movie again. (at least the part where Moore goes to Heston's house.


Moore:After that happened, You came to Flint to hold a big rally.
Heston: Mmm hmm, So did the Vice President
Moore: Did you feel, it was being, at all insensitive? The fact that the community had just gone through this....
Heston:Actually, I wasn't aware of that at the time we came. We came and did and early morning rally.

No edits, splicing or camera tricks.

And while were on it, How could Heston not know about a school shooting that happened in a city he was going to? What? Heston dosn't watch the news?

Correct! No 8 months between the shooting and Heston showing up in Flint. As suggested in your link. you didn't read the link... unless you think Feb is not 8 months away from Oct.

however, you mentioned going back to the 8 month time warp... and pointed out Heston's reaction to Kayla's shooting. classic attempt at misdirection... poorly executed. so what is your point? that Oct is not 8 months away from Feb? man you swallowed Moore's line completely and totally.

Ooooh you think? Kewl!!! (and I hope only double the price...Sin City was three times more the second time around) :D
go ahead, I didn't buy the second release of Sin City either.

you didn't read the link... unless you think Feb is not 8 months away from Oct.

however, you mentioned going back to the 8 month time warp... and pointed out Heston's reaction to Kayla's shooting. classic attempt at misdirection... poorly executed. so what is your point? that Oct is not 8 months away from Feb? man you swallowed Moore's line completely and totally.


My point is your link is lying! they obiously didn't watch the film very carefully.

My friend, a pilot, told me that it is not so difficult to fly a plane into a large building if you can fly a small one and you know the controls of the plane.

The difficult thing is the starting and landing.

I really do not see what the President could have done in those first minutes. It's not like he is the only person in the gov't. What could he have done to help at ground zero?

Not much he could have done at ground zero - but when your chief of staff comes in and tells you "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack" and rushes out again, it is as far as I can see it your duty and your responsibility to find out more - is there anything you can do? What is going on? And you can excuse yourself without causing a panic - though so what if you cause unease by excusing yourself and leaving quietly? The country is under attack - there is good reason for panic on this day, so simple unease really doesn't matter at all.

You don't wait around when time might be of extreme importance. In my mind, it was a failure of leadership to remain sitting there.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

I'm sure it wasn't only that der Shrubbenfuhrer hadn't finished reading My Pet Goat- I think he wanted to stay and color in the pictures too.

my comments in BOLD.

here.
mislabled plaque shown during BfC (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/planeplaque.htm)

8 month Time Warp portrayed in BfC (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/hestonrally2.htm)

omission of alot of facts (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/kayla.htm)

a... TYPO??? Just proves that MM doesn't check facts. (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/williehorton.htm)

creative editing made to portray something totally different. (http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/hestonrally1.htm)

there are more and other sites that focus on the inconsistiancies and lies of BfC.

here another you can look at.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and don't take their word on it, go watch it. and please, pay attention to the ties people wear the near blurry words before and after any lighligted newspaper shots and the clocks in the background. ;)


Shock! Horror! Documentary maker uses documentary and news techniques to make documentary. Naive person makes website about it.

I mean, really.

I don't think Moore has much credibility, he's merely pushing a political agenda, in this case it happens to be a far-left agenda.

Lies or manipulation?

I don't think Moore has much credibility, he's merely pushing a political agenda, in this case it happens to be a far-left agenda.

Left is right! Right is wrong! Green is still holding their breath. :p

Not much he could have done at ground zero - but when your chief of staff comes in and tells you "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack" and rushes out again, it is as far as I can see it your duty and your responsibility to find out more - is there anything you can do? What is going on? And you can excuse yourself without causing a panic - though so what if you cause unease by excusing yourself and leaving quietly? The country is under attack - there is good reason for panic on this day, so simple unease really doesn't matter at all.

You don't wait around when time might be of extreme importance. In my mind, it was a failure of leadership to remain sitting there.

Again, what would him leaving at all have done? His staff and the agencies who would be involved in investigating the crashes aren't going to wait for him to decide something, they would have already been working on it by the time the second plane hit. There was nothing he could do to alter or affect what was happening. i am more impressed that he was able to continue reading to them, if nothing else, that says alot about his self-control during a crisis.

Again, what would him leaving at all have done? His staff and the agencies who would be involved in investigating the crashes aren't going to wait for him to decide something, they would have already been working on it by the time the second plane hit. There was nothing he could do to alter or affect what was happening. i am more impressed that he was able to continue reading to them, if nothing else, that says alot about his self-control during a crisis.

He didn't read to them though. He just listened.

But the thing is - he didn't know. He is told "America is under attack". He should leave the room and make sure his staff and the agencies are doing what they should. He should take control of the situation. He should demand to get all the information that was presently available. He didn't know if it was an attack on a larger scale - more planes, unconventional weapons - he should have sought that information out.

I don't see it as self-control at all, since he didn't know that there was nothing he could do at the present time. He should have acted, even if hindsight might prove that there was nothing he could do.

Well i was in a bookstore earlier today and i came across this book by michael moore and decided to buy it and see if i could get any laughs out of it. As it turns out, i did get a few. About 15 pages in, he makes the claim that there is no way that the 9/11 hijackers could have flown their aircraft into the WTC's w/o military training, specifically Saudi military training. It goes w/o saying that this is complete bullshit but i thought that it was funny that someone who makes such baseless claims actually is taken seriously by some people. Now from what i can gather, these forums are dominated by liberal thinking people(yes very ground breaking i know;) ) so i was wondering what some of you think about him.

Accepting things that 'go w/o saying' are a dangerous treat in a person.