logo Sign In

9/11 - The Movie — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Possibly. But they'd be branded a lot less than if this movie was released in, say, '02. If the cries of "too soon" simply did not exist, if anybody even remotely said something negative about a movie about 9/11, they'd be roasted alive. After all, that's pretty much what happened to Politically Incorrect, if you recall.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Originally posted by: TR47
Too bad the film probably can't/won't show this as being the staged hoax that it really was.

Believe me, it was no hoax. Those planes really did fly into those buildings. Speculate all you want on the motives or the lack of intelligence, but don't call the actual events a hoax. I know people who died on that day.

God rest their souls.

What happens to the people who give this movies bad reviews? They get labelled as Communists.


Kind of like how anyone who didn't like Brokeback Mountain was homophobic and anyone who didn't give Schidler's List a good writ-up was anti-semetic? That's sort of ridiculous.

But back to the topic at hand, this isn't the first 9/11 movie. Technically it isn't even the second. The best 9/11 movie is 9/11. The documentary shot by two German filmmakers who were doing a bit on one of the firefighters of NYC that day caught the real spirit of the day


God, that's powerful stuff. I've seen it too. It's really a shock to the system. Incredibly potent. The truth.

I haven't seen United 93, but it seems far more respectful of 9/11 than this cheesy cash-in. This looks like something that should go on the shelf beside Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.


With this sort of thing, it is always difficult in film. People died in this horrible tradgedy, and I think that any attempt to translate to film will be, well, film. It's almost impossible to separated the work from the subject matter in cases like this.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Who profited from it? What does it matter who profited from it? Should we punish anyone who got paid to rebuild the site? Should we arrest the security officials at airports who were hired do to the attacks?

Obviously, I'm being ridiculous, but just because someoen profits from a tragedy doesn't make them guilty of anything.

Who planned it? We've already established that it was Al Quaida. Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta. And obviously, everyone who carried it out went up in a fireball with the planes, so it's not like we can punish them.


I was obviously not talking about profits regarding reconstruction of the sites and such. Think about it, what has happened after the attacks. Regarding the way the world has changed, who has achieved the most with the world scenario, who has better profited form it? What country where the attackers - and no they were not from "Afganisthan". Why were those attacks planned, and try to think a little bit out of the "they hate freedom" box. Try to see what relation all these people have. Possibly, when you start to really think about it, you'll most probably discard this whole idea as nonsense, but as you do, please read my signature, below the pic.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Who profited from it? What does it matter who profited from it? Should we punish anyone who got paid to rebuild the site? Should we arrest the security officials at airports who were hired do to the attacks?

Obviously, I'm being ridiculous, but just because someoen profits from a tragedy doesn't make them guilty of anything.

Who planned it? We've already established that it was Al Quaida. Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta. And obviously, everyone who carried it out went up in a fireball with the planes, so it's not like we can punish them.


I was obviously not talking about profits regarding reconstruction of the sites and such. Think about it, what has happened after the attacks. Regarding the way the world has changed, who has achieved the most with the world scenario, who has better profited form it? What country where the attackers - and no they were not from "Afganisthan". Why were those attacks planned, and try to think a little bit out of the "they hate freedom" box. Try to see what relation all these people have. Possibly, when you start to really think about it, you'll most probably discard this whole idea as nonsense, but as you do, please read my signature, below the pic.


What do nazi's have to do with terrorists? It's a whole different ball game than it was in that day, Rik. The Nazis ran a country, had an actual army, and had a clear leader for all of them. Terrorists don't.

No, not all the terrorists who hijacked planes were from Afghanistan, but they were TRAINED in Afghanistan and the organization that planned the attacks was based there, and supported by the Afghani government at the time. (Remeber them guys, the Taliban?)

Obviously 'they hate freedom' is a simplification, but it gets the point across. That hate us because we support Israel. They hate us because we are not Allah-worshiping mindless devotees to their religion, and because we have the freedom to choose who, where, when, and why we want to worship, or not to have any deity at all.

Which is why suggesting negotiations with them is so stupid. Negotiations implies giving them some of what they want, and what do the want but everyone else dead? I'm not going to give them that!

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

What do nazi's have to do with terrorists? It's a whole different ball game than it was in that day, Rik. The Nazis ran a country, had an actual army, and had a clear leader for all of them. Terrorists don't.


No, that quote actually dosen't refer to the "terrorists" themselves. Who has a nation and an army and can put such dogma into practice?

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

No, not all the terrorists who hijacked planes were from Afghanistan, but they were TRAINED in Afghanistan and the organization that planned the attacks was based there, and supported by the Afghani government at the time. (Remeber them guys, the Taliban?)


I've always seen this logic as a flawed one. It was merely a geographical location, it could have been Thailand, it could have been Turkey, it could have been Egipt. They were supported by a puppet Afghani regime mostly because the US backed them up to throw the russians away more than a decade before as mercenaries. Kinda like the Iran-Contra things, but on that specific ocasion the US gave weapons for both Iraq and Iran.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

Obviously 'they hate freedom' is a simplification, but it gets the point across. That hate us because we support Israel. They hate us because we are not Allah-worshiping mindless devotees to their religion, and because we have the freedom to choose who, where, when, and why we want to worship, or not to have any deity at all.


The whole idea that their views on the western world as a satanic villain could be a valid one if you look at the lowest part of this chain, if you look at the guy who straps himself in a bomb. He is obviously brainwashed, right? I mean, no right human being would do such a thing without the proper motivations. Who has motivated him? Who is ALIVE at HOME while those poor losers do this? Who is feeding this propaganda disguized as a religion, actually a distortion of a proper religion, into the minds of these poor people? And why? Who are the masterminds? If they don't martirized themselves yet, is it because they are too afraid to do so? If so, well, that means they don't belive their religious dogma so much, right? So what do they belive in? Why are these people doing this? In order to answer that question, you gotta look at who are the people behind all this, who are in the top of these chains, and what are they profiting from it, and who are they connected with. I rather not name names and explain the whole thing as it would throw this discussion into something I don't want to.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

Which is why suggesting negotiations with them is so stupid. Negotiations implies giving them some of what they want, and what do the want but everyone else dead? I'm not going to give them that!


I agree, that would not be the way, really. But instead of focusing on the terrorists, try thinking about the people behind it and how to stop them. Here's an analogy, and for God's sake let me repeat this loudly, AN ANALOGY: Who approves the Mossad actions that include assassinations?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
No, not all the terrorists who hijacked planes were from Afghanistan, but they were TRAINED in Afghanistan and the organization that planned the attacks was based there, and supported by the Afghani government at the time. (Remeber them guys, the Taliban?)
A terrorist plot to smuggle explosives onto planes destined for the States was foiled today in England. Most of the would-be bombers were British-born, and there are undoubtedly training facilities and meeting places in the UK. Bin Laden went to University in England. Should America attack them too?

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
That hate us because we support Israel. And why do we support Israel? Why is it even any of our business?
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
They hate us because we are not Allah-worshiping mindless devotees to their religion, and because we have the freedom to choose who, where, when, and why we want to worship, or not to have any deity at all.
They also hate us because of the fucked up things we have done to them over the years. Stop buying into the propaganda. I'm not saying I support these fuckers, far from it, but being here in America and listening to the media and (as a result of the media) the average man on the streets views on the situation make me want to scream. Every time I hear George Bush or Tony Blair giving one of their freedom speeches I roll my eyes.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Which is why suggesting negotiations with them is so stupid. Negotiations implies giving them some of what they want, and what do the want but everyone else dead? I'm not going to give them that!
It's also impossible. 'Al Queda', the name on everyone's lips, is not a nice organised gang hanging out at a HQ ready to be negotiated with or attacked or captured or stopped. They are a web of loosely or not-even connected cells ranging from highly organised terrorist groups to groups of 2 or 3 nutcases plotting in their mother's basement. I suppose in a way it's true to call Bin Laden their leader, but he is not a leader in a George Bush ay or even a Hitler way, he is more like a figurehead, an almost mythical scapegoat. Most of these terrorists blowing shit up have never met him, have never been to Afghanistan, have never been trained by anyone, they just took it upon themselves to do this shit. It's a cancer that is out of control. The idea of Al Queda as a tangible and defeatable enemy is an illusion. So they can't be negotiated with, and they can't be beaten either. I think the best offensive would be to tighten up home security, multiply intelligence effots, and basically just defend. You cannot wipe out terrorism.

P.S. Sorry for the double post.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
No, not all the terrorists who hijacked planes were from Afghanistan, but they were TRAINED in Afghanistan and the organization that planned the attacks was based there, and supported by the Afghani government at the time. (Remeber them guys, the Taliban?) A terrorist plot to smuggle explosives onto planes destined for the States was foiled today in England. Most of the would-be bombers were British-born, and there are undoubtedly training facilities and meeting places in the UK. Bin Laden went to University in England. Should America attack them too?

I was specifically talking about the 9-11 hijackers, not all terrorists.

It's also impossible. 'Al Queda', the name on everyone's lips, is not a nice organised gang hanging out at a HQ ready to be negotiated with or attacked or captured or stopped. They are a web of loosely or not-even connected cells ranging from highly organised terrorist groups to groups of 2 or 3 nutcases plotting in their mother's basement. I suppose in a way it's true to call Bin Laden their leader, but he is not a leader in a George Bush ay or even a Hitler way, he is more like a figurehead, an almost mythical scapegoat. Most of these terrorists blowing shit up have never met him, have never been to Afghanistan, have never been trained by anyone, they just took it upon themselves to do this shit. It's a cancer that is out of control. The idea of Al Queda as a tangible and defeatable enemy is an illusion. So they can't be negotiated with, and they can't be beaten either. I think the best offensive would be to tighten up home security, multiply intelligence effots, and basically just defend. You cannot wipe out terrorism.


I agree with you up to bold text. And I do agree that intelligence, homland security, and defense are all certainly paramount in this whole thing. But without active efforts to take the fight to them, we essentially just become sitting ducks, waiting for them to find holes in our security. Terrorism as an action of killing people in order to spread fear is not something you can wipe out, obviously. But the organizations and figureheads can be removed, and the governments that support them deposed. The idea isn't to destroy every last possibility of terrorism but to make sure that they don't have an organized network backing them--and espcially not a sovreign government doing so. If the only terrorists on the planet are ever, as you said, 2 or 3 nutcases sitting in their mother's basement, then we're better off than we are today in which they have organized camps and access to military-grade weaponry.

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
They also hate us because of the fucked up things we have done to them over the years. Stop buying into the propaganda.


I'm not buying into propaganda, YIYF. They say as much themselves. They call us 'the Great Satan' for crying out loud. You say we've done some 'fucked up' things to them, but that logic doesn't hold up to history. France and England and Germany all did some pretty attrocious things to each other throughout their history, but they've learned to move on and join the modern world. That's the problem the terrorists have. They are bound to a past full of bloodshed and violence, and won't, or maybe can't let go of it. They'd rather kill us than let go of the past and move on. And they use a faith (or, as some would say, an interpretation thereof) as a justifcation for their unbridled hatred of us.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I thought the film was incredibly tame, given Oliver Stone's history with JFK and Nixon.

It was a pretty run-of-the-mill film about a not-so-run-of-the-mill day.
Author
Time
Post link
Welcome back Sybe, and thanks for getting the thread back onto the 9/11 movie rather than 9/11 itself. From what you say about the movie I guess we are ready to make 9/11 movies but maybe not yet ready to actually tackle the subject head-on?

To briefly derail again: Chaltab, in reply to your replies, I just want to let you know that I agree with everything you said in principle. I guess you are just a bit more optimistic than I am about our chances of 'victory'. I also think that the one flaw in your well-put argument about deposing supportive regimes etc is that Western governments have ulterior motives so it might not necessarily be in their interest to knock out certain people or governments, but I know you don't buy into the whole conspiracy thing (neither do I - I'm just saying it's no so clear cut black and white as 'take out the key bad guys' because we are in bed with a lot of those bad guys).

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Hmn... Too soon? Although people probably said the same when Casablanca was released, as the nazis were still ocupying France.

I doubt it. Lots of WWII movies were released during WWII. Casablance is considered one of the best movies ever made. Coming out while the Nazis were still in France made the movie more powerful. Many people who lived throught that time would say the WWII movies released during the War inspired the country to come together and defeat the axis powers.

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Originally posted by: sean wookie
What happens to the people who give this movies bad reviews? They get labelled as Communists.

*sigh* the typical anti-American response. I would label someone who gave this movie a bad review unless somthing in the review indicated that they were communists.

Originally posted by: TR47
Too bad the film probably can't/won't show this as being the staged hoax that it really was.

*sigh* again another typical anti-American response.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
do you realize how big, how many people woudl have to be involved for it to be a consipiracy? nobody could keep so many people so slilent for so long, not in the 21st century)...


I agree completely.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
I could go on and explain everything behind 9-11 but if I say what I want here, 90% of you will demand my head in a plate. So I rather stick with the pizza stones, Wii and top 10 films discussions.


have we ever demanded your head on a plate before Ric? We've gotten upset at you. We have had strong disagreements. But I don't ever remember anyone going to Jay and asking him to ban you because of your anti-American views.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
I agree with you, Chaltab, on how the whole thing worked out. The highjackings, the flying into the towers, that's sacred and that is related to the loss of innocent lifes in a way we KNOW that happened. BUT the main point is: who planned it out, who carried it away, why, and who profited from it.


obvously you believe that Bush and the American government was behind the attacks. I could try to convince you otherwise, but I doubt I could sway you.

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father


I remember a when I first heard about this film 5 or 6 months ago the tagline was 'buildings will fall, heroes will rise' or some cheesy bullshit to that effect. Anyone know if they are still using that?


Originally posted by: sean wookie
No the newone is "The World Saw Evil That Day. Two Men Saw Something Else."
IMHO still cheesey bull shit.


now calling those lines b.s. and insulted the heroes the died that day won't get you labeled a Communist, but they will get you labeled as Anti-American in my book. When you talk like that you trivialize 911.
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, I agree that they are somewhat cheesy.

I have nothing but respect for the men and women who gave and risked their lives that day, but seriously, the taglines are a bit cheesy, especially the first one.. "Buildings will fall"? That almost trivilaizes it itself. The second one *IS* much better.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father


I remember a when I first heard about this film 5 or 6 months ago the tagline was 'buildings will fall, heroes will rise' or some cheesy bullshit to that effect. Anyone know if they are still using that?

Originally posted by: sean wookie
No the newone is "The World Saw Evil That Day. Two Men Saw Something Else."
IMHO still cheesey bull shit.


now calling those lines b.s. and insulted the heroes the died that day won't get you labeled a Communist, but they will get you labeled as Anti-American in my book. When you talk like that you trivialize 911.
Are you kidding me? I think this movie and the cheesy over the top patriotism trivialises 9/11 far more than me or Sean calling the tagline of a movie bullshit. Because both of those lines are bullshit, tailor-made by the hollywood machine to tug at the heart-strings and emotions of a certain percentage of the American and world public.

I am not anti-American, and I think what happened on 9/11 was fucking terrible. What I am against is the media in general and the way they manipulate and dramatise stuff (and BTW the English media and government do the same thing, although perhaps on a slightly lesser level). I also think what happened in London on July 7th 2005 when I was on the bloody underground network was terrible too but a great many Americans forget about that one. I just think this whole movie-making flag waving freedom loving fists in the air heroes will rise from the rubble stuff is bullshit. Yes, there were undoubtedly heroes that day, no doubt. But that tagline, and (I imagine the whole movie although I cannot comment for sure because I haven't and won't see it) is basically a Rocky movie set against the backdrop of a factual and terrible event.

And as for my Communist comment, do you know how many times I have heard some idiot throw out the word Communist (not at me BTW) in the 3 and a half months since I have been here when they clearly don't have a clue what a Communist (and again, the media of the 50s and 60s can be partly blamed for this misconception (although the actions of some people claiming to be communist as well as plin old ignorance also have a role). My comment was not anti-American. It was a comment based on personal experience of what people call other people who do or say something that in their eyes is 'anti-american' because in their narrow and ignorant minds anti-american = communist.

And you calling me anti-american because I think the TAGLINE of a MOVIE is cheesy is a bit much IMO.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Hmn... Too soon? Although people probably said the same when Casablanca was released, as the nazis were still ocupying France.

I doubt it. Lots of WWII movies were released during WWII. Casablance is considered one of the best movies ever made. Coming out while the Nazis were still in France made the movie more powerful. Many people who lived throught that time would say the WWII movies released during the War inspired the country to come together


I actually meant that as a joke, I know... It was a joke regarding the "too soon" thing. Although it kind of is. But in a way this movie dosen't feel too ofensive because the characters on screen are ficticious, while that flight movie seemed to be quite offensive to me.

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
I could go on and explain everything behind 9-11 but if I say what I want here, 90% of you will demand my head in a plate. So I rather stick with the pizza stones, Wii and top 10 films discussions.


have we ever demanded your head on a plate before Ric? We've gotten upset at you. We have had strong disagreements. But I don't ever remember anyone going to Jay and asking him to ban you because of your anti-American views.


I am not anti-american. What I'm against is tyranical, corrupt governments and senseless wars. I criticize my own country more than anyone I know, I just don't do it here (even though sometimes I do) because it`s pointless, you won't know what I'm talking about. I've never been anti-american, I'm quite the opposite of that regarding the country itself and its people, and you guys know that.

Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
I agree with you, Chaltab, on how the whole thing worked out. The highjackings, the flying into the towers, that's sacred and that is related to the loss of innocent lifes in a way we KNOW that happened. BUT the main point is: who planned it out, who carried it away, why, and who profited from it.


obvously you believe that Bush and the American government was behind the attacks. I could try to convince you otherwise, but I doubt I could sway you.


No, no, not quite. It was not organized by the US, it was organized by the ones really responsible for it. What I belive is: the people behind this plot is doing it for the profits generated by the industries that benefited from the post 9-11 scenario, and yes several governments do cooperate in making sure the scenario keeps that way.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
ricarleite wrote:
What I belive is: the people behind this plot is doing it for the profits generated by the industries that benefited from the post 9-11 scenario


Ok so the whole Military Industrial Complex of companies like Halliburton who had a short run of the profits until they got sidelined with contract renegotiations. Whatelse you got? Oil companies? Is Colgate or Crest on your list? Do you think the inidividuals at these companies are doing this consciously, or is there a hive mentality which drives them to make decisions which favor actions like 9-11? We're the people who worked in the Twin Towers part of this Economic Cabal? If you don't want to write your thoughts feel free to post links to others who share your opinions.

So how do you avoid giving your earned funds to these corporations since they are capitalizing on activities you don't agree with?
none
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I also think what happened in London on July 7th 2005 when I was on the bloody underground network was terrible too but a great many Americans forget about that one.

I haven't forgetten, my heart goes out to all who were effected by the london underground attack.

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
It was a comment based on personal experience of what people call other people who do or say something that in their eyes is 'anti-american' because in their narrow and ignorant minds anti-american = communist. I am not so ignorant as to believe that anti-american = communist.

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
.

And you calling me anti-american because I think the TAGLINE of a MOVIE is cheesy is a bit much IMO.


Yes, I believe I went too far. sorry. I just get upset at the America bashing that goes on in this forum. However, I just don't think the taglines especially the 2nd one were cheesy. Maybe I'm cheesy.

Originally posted by: ricarleite
But in a way this movie dosen't feel too ofensive because the characters on screen are ficticious.


Huh? I did not know this. Please explain what you mean?

Originally posted by: ricarleite

No, no, not quite. It was not organized by the US, it was organized by the ones really responsible for it. What I belive is: the people behind this plot is doing it for the profits generated by the industries that benefited from the post 9-11 scenario, and yes several governments do cooperate in making sure the scenario keeps that way.


So you believe Oil companies and companies that produce weopons and such are responsible? I disagree. Those companies may have pushed us into war after the attacks and may have been pleased with happened(behind closed doors of course) but I just don't see Bin Laden cooperating with big business to carry out these attacks. I belive Bin Laden and Al-queda carried these attacks out by themselves. Of companies saw the opprotunity to profrit from 911 and took it. But I don't how Bin Laden could or would work with American companies.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I also think what happened in London on July 7th 2005 when I was on the bloody underground network was terrible too but a great many Americans forget about that one.
I haven't forgetten, my heart goes out to all who were effected by the london underground attack.
Thanks. And may I say I never consider you or anybody else here to be the kind of person who is not aware of things going on outside of America. But believe me, there are A LOT of people who are ignorant of (or just don't care about) the fact that America are not alone in this, and I find that quite offensive.

Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
It was a comment based on personal experience of what people call other people who do or say something that in their eyes is 'anti-american' because in their narrow and ignorant minds anti-american = communist.

I am not so ignorant as to believe that anti-american = communist.

Again, I do not include you among the group of people I am referring to here, but they do exist, and are far from rare. And I believe it is in the interest of the government to keep it that way.

Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
And you calling me anti-american because I think the TAGLINE of a MOVIE is cheesy is a bit much IMO.

Yes, I believe I went too far. sorry. I just get upset at the America bashing that goes on in this forum. However, I just don't think the taglines especially the 2nd one were cheesy. Maybe I'm cheesy.

Maybe you are

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
A good tag line would be "On 9/11 the towers may have collapsed but I joined all american hearts together".
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite
But in a way this movie dosen't feel too ofensive because the characters on screen are ficticious.

Huh? I did not know this. Please explain what you mean?


Uh... the character that Nicolas Cage plays is not based on a real person, or is it? If it is, my mistake.


Originally posted by: Warbler

Originally posted by: ricarleite

No, no, not quite. It was not organized by the US, it was organized by the ones really responsible for it. What I belive is: the people behind this plot is doing it for the profits generated by the industries that benefited from the post 9-11 scenario, and yes several governments do cooperate in making sure the scenario keeps that way.


So you believe Oil companies and companies that produce weopons and such are responsible? I disagree. Those companies may have pushed us into war after the attacks and may have been pleased with happened(behind closed doors of course) but I just don't see Bin Laden cooperating with big business to carry out these attacks. I belive Bin Laden and Al-queda carried these attacks out by themselves. Of companies saw the opprotunity to profrit from 911 and took it. But I don't how Bin Laden could or would work with American companies.


Try to find out who were the main investors on Arbusto Energy.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
ricarleite wrote:
Try to find out who were the main investors on Arbusto Energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy
Ok so Bush and part of the Bin Laden family. Got any facts to make this more enticing? and feel free to speculate what this meeting of the minds is going to do with their new found cash supply.

FYI: one of the Bin Laden family members might have a tv show this fall on American TV. She's a singer and has linked up with Madonna, are we to assume that this is part of the conspiracy too?
none
Author
Time
Post link
As far as I know, Osama is the only member of the bin Laden family involved with al Quaida.

President Bush is not the kind of man to make deals with terrorists. His stance on terror is what, for better or worse, got him reelected in 2004 compared the the inconsistent stance Kerry projected, or seemed to. If Bush had believed those people had anything to do with the attacks, then we'd know about it and I'm sure ties would be severed.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I'm not so sure. I'm not saying that Bush had anything to do with the attacks. But I think if the members of the Bin Laden that Bush had ties with had sothing to do with the 911 attacks, I think the ties would be neatly covered up.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Even that suggests too much credit given to our government. Bin Laden is the fucker responsible and he has admitted as much.

Now, whether or not the White House looked the other way at incoming intelligence, allowing it to happen is certainly up for debate. I for one believe they looked the other way, not out of malicious intent but sheer ineptness. This happened on Dubya's watch. Therein lies the difference between Politics and Business. The CEO of a major corporation would have been tossed out on his ass for ignoring warning signs about a malicious attack. Voters were stuck with him another 3.5 years and then were dumb enough to put him back in.

If there were a credible conspiracy story to tell, Oliver Stone would be telling THAT story.

But back to the topic at hand, this isn't the first 9/11 movie. Technically it isn't even the second. The best 9/11 movie is 9/11. The documentary shot by two German filmmakers who were doing a bit on one of the firefighters of NYC that day caught the real spirit of the day.

I haven't seen United 93, but it seems far more respectful of 9/11 than this cheesy cash-in. This looks like something that should go on the shelf beside Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.


Applauds. -_- sorry for your loss and Well said.

I was in school in the bronx that day and well I just don't feel the need to watch a dramatized version of what I witnessed on the news during class and then later at home, the horror of it, live... maybe others want to see something like this. that's their right, but personally it's not something I think is necessary and does seem more like a cash-in attempt than anything else.

i don't need to see this
He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
Author
Time
Post link

Too bad the film probably can't/won't show this as being the staged hoax that it really was.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m80/Blackmage_02/retard3hf.jpg

What happens to the people who give this movies bad reviews?


http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m80/Blackmage_02/monkeystealspeachus3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/Kediredric/inthebutt.png
Author
Time
Post link
I will need to see to see the movie before I can render an opinion on it. As for making movies on real-life diasters. That is nothing new. Movies have been made about Pearl Harbor, Titanic, The Holocaust and tv movies have been made about The Challenger explosion, the droping of the A-bombs on the Japan, and the 1st attack on the World Trade Center. There have been countless war movies. There have been movies and TV mini-series on slavery. I knew right from the start that their would be movies made about 911. I am sure their will be movies about the Columbia Shuttle diaster and the diaster in New Orleans the the attack on the trains in London. It what movie makers have always done. Now, if you don't like that and don't want to watch this 911 movie ok, but don't then sit down and watch Shindler's List. As for being too soon, just how long should we wait? 5 years? 10 years? 15? 100? How long? We will each have our own opinion on how long is the proper to wait, who decides? What if we set the number at 10 years and someone releases a movie exactly 9 years and 364 days after the event? What then? Do we boycott it for being released one day too soon? Deciding how long to wait to make a movie about 911 or othe tragedies is not an exact science. One last thing, how come I didn't see anyone complaining about Fahrenheit 911 being released too soon after the event? Don't think for one minute that Michael Moore wasn't in anyway motivated by money to make the movie(I am not saying that it was his only motivation).