Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute?

I agree with that , because . i would have hoped that 'todays' news was added and studied with and put in the place of 'yesterdays' news ...unfortunatly lazy journalists don't 'investigate' and take into consideration 'old' news...They do not learn anything and just can't take a step back...Like just reading all that has been written and rarely writing anything that has not been written before. The problem is too deal with what has gone before with out dredging up everything so that everything can be put into context , is hard work.

 

i don't understand the right wing. war is wrong. this is not self-defense. our reasoning is to get oil. why doesn't everyone go and read some information. a lot of what you see on the news is set-up. for instance, my boyfriend was telling a guy that he was going to go see f9/11 (last week when we went) and the guy said "thats the movie by the french guy, right?" you know where he got that information? the news (fox in particular). we are only shown certain things. a lot of which is set up. like all the people being oh so happy about the statue of hussein being torn down. if you see pictures of a widerscope of that, there aren't many people there, it was blocked off by the military to keep a small amount of people there.

as for MM films, yes they are controversial. they are the opposite of what the government wants to have us know/think. he admits that a lot of it is his opinion. but they are facts. he is trying to get his message across. yes, he leaves out a lot, but the fact is if he put everything in the movie it would have been WAY too long. few would watch it then. he puts in enough that hopefully it gets people to want to vote bush out (and hopefully want to learn more about this stuff).

this all is giving me a headache. i don't feel like arguing this anymore.

 

Speaking of paradigms of thought becoming the prevailing ethos, when is your paradigm going to stop being utter stupidity?

Do you think you can post links by a "composer and guitarist for a violently anti-“smooth jazz” jazz-rock quintet", complain about "ideological blinders" and then absolutely refuse to even consider a carefully documented article simply because the writer works for the National Review?

Do you know that this writer opposes the patriot act and supported Nader in 2000? No, like most zealots you constantly demand evidence that Moore is wrong and then when evidence is provided you immediately reject it because it is from ideologically incorrect sources.

If you are too cowardly to deal with the article, then shut up and let someone else do it.

====================

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/home.html

 

Freedom isn't Freedom if you force it on somebody....

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

this is a free speech sight. i can say what i need to. and so can anyone else. deal with it

 

I saw that on http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm , i read that for a long time . But its basicaly put together by one person with there own point of view ...so yes your right but in some ways your wrong..look at the rest of that sight you may possibly agree with a lot of it ... some of it is very good . Most i think is just doing the same thing as every one else.

 

thanks for the link.

 

that post was not in reference to you maryfairy.

 

You speak of cowardice and yet clearly demonstrate in the post before that you gave no consideration to the many transparently inconsistent and implausible claims of the coverstory. Proving, as you do so often, that you'd rather not do any legwork lest you might have to step outside the comfy mainstream media world you live in and face some frightening liklihoods.

I am curious to know, however, have you seen the film yourself? I at least will withhold my point by point response to the assertions of your preferred pundit until, as i said previously, the film has been released in Brussels and I have had a chance to see it.

As for what I provided. Once again, dismiss all you like. Nevertheless, when even the instructors of the alleged hijackers have acknowledged how incapable they were of flying even fixed wing prop planes without the aid of an instructor, suggesting that the coverstory is to be unquestioned is incredibly disingenuous.

 

Your belief that the 9/11 flights were remote controlled is totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which i remind you is "Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute?"

I have provided a link to a website which disputes many facts in the film and carefully documents the basis for these disputes.

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

Either you are going to address these points, or you just going to try to hijack the thread with your irrelevant conspiracy theories.

 

Dodge and evade and dodge and evade. Obviously you compartmentalise your thinking so much that you are incapable of comprehending that a discussion of clear inconsistencies in the coverstory of 911 itself quite significantly sets the backdrop for the successive string of lies, spin and fabrication in which this administration has been repeatedly caught. Given that the mainstream media has uniformly failed to conduct any real scrutiny of this cabal as is its obligation as the 4th estate, it forces people with sufficient means like Moore to draw it all together.

But no, PB prefers the dismissive quip and any partisan rubbish he can find in order to avoid doing any intellectually honest investigation himself. Good little sheep, just swallow what the daily news chooses to tell you. If ignorance is bliss you must be ecstatic.

 

Moore didn't claim they did, but they did visit a business partner of Bush's.

 

Back to the original topic of the thread..

Thus far, in every direction that I have searched, no one has legitimately been able to dispute his claims. Remember, this isn't about the way he represents his claims, it is concerning the claims themselfes. I'm inquiring about the messages, not the messenger.

So, What is Moore claiming when he goes on that "142 Saudies left the US after 911" and 24 were Bin Ladin family members? Who cares? Did any of them have anything to do with the world trade center? Or was the US government supose to put ant Saudi National in a holding pen like we did to the japanese after Pearl Harbor? Were they interviewed by the FBI? Yes they were, even Moore said so. So what was his point in making that statement?

 

the point is, if you followed the film, they werent even interrogated. They know osama, and maybe they knew his whereabouts, right?? they didnt even ask them, they just allowed them to leave the country. Just like moore said, if Clinton did that with timothy mcveigh's family, there would have been a firestorm.

 

Not true, they were interrogated. My sources? the friggin o reilley factor.

 

And if you truelly want his claims disputed, try 2 things,

1. Wait a while, thigns will surface slowly, the film is brand frickin new.
2. Try visiting a forum that isn't 90% left wing.

 

My pleasure...

 

Despite your vastly inflated sense of self importance, this thread is not about you. It is about mistakes in Farenheit 9/11.

I have provided a link to a carefully documented list of errors in this film.

It's really that simple. Either you are going to respond to it or not.

56 Deceits in Farenheit 911:

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

 

So i am guessing your a 'the glass is half empty' kinda person.

 

Did you read LickHERish link . I read both yours and hers . If LickHERish has not shame on you .