• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

911 commission destroys mmoore's F/911

RandFan said:

What was the purpose of detailing the information about the flights in F911?
Click to expand...
Just saw the movie and found much of it hilarious. A Dragnet routine was employed at this part to flesh out the idea that no real police work was done. Nor could it be done because these kin had fled. Were these not dramatic circumstances?

What do you think would've happened to Bill Clinton had he let Timothy McVeigh's family bolt to Indonesia after Oklahoma City? Or to a Vice-President whose son plans dinner with the brother of a man who, that very same day, attempts to assassinate his President...oh, never mind. Such speculation doesn't mean a thing, does it?
 
Grammatron said:
From the Snopes link as quoted by the New York Times:


Exactly where is the confusion here?
Click to expand...
I think the confusion is:

1)You left out the other relevant quote at snopes:

Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counter-terrorism, said that, while the bureau identified the Saudis who were on the plane, "they were not subject to serious interrogations."3

That view also is backed up by this NRO article, which is just one more source on top of the guy used in F911.

and

2)Snopes is answeing the question, "Did the FBI in fact question the Saudis before they left? " Wjousts said they never were given an "extensive interview", which is different.
 
Frank Newgent said:
Nor could it be done because these kin had fled. Were these not dramatic circumstances?
Click to expand...
But according to Richard Clarke, a Bush critic and featured in Moore's film, the "kin" had been thouroughly interviewed and there was no reason to detain them.

I'm still waiting.
 
curi0us said:
I think the confusion is:

1)You left out the other relevant quote at snopes:

Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counter-terrorism, said that, while the bureau identified the Saudis who were on the plane, "they were not subject to serious interrogations."3

That view also is backed up by this NRO article, which is just one more source on top of the guy used in F911.

and

2)Snopes is answeing the question, "Did the FBI in fact question the Saudis before they left? " Wjousts said they never were given an "extensive interview", which is different.
Click to expand...

I did not leave anything relevant out, the FBI said, "We did everything that needed to be done." So I ask again, what about is so confusing.
 
RandFan said:

But according to Richard Clarke, a Bush critic and featured in Moore's film, the "kin" had been thouroughly interviewed and there was no reason to detain them.
Click to expand...
So you liked the movie then?
 
Frank Newgent said:
So you liked the movie then?
Click to expand...
It's actually a pretty good movie. So was Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me. Why?
 
RandFan said:

It's actually a pretty good movie. So was Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me. Why?
Click to expand...
I dunno. Looked for a moment as though you might be reasoning in a circle again, critiquing the film by using something you might be trying to disprove. I will assume this is only temporary on your part... :p
 
Frank Newgent said:
I dunno. Looked for a moment as though you might be reasoning in a circle again, critiquing the film by using something you might be trying to disprove. I will assume this is only temporary on your part... :p
Click to expand...
I have made no claims. I am only asking a question based on something someone else said. The question is simple. I'll ask it again for your benifit.

Why did Michael Moore talk about the planes, Saudi and Bin-Laden families?

It seems straight forward to me. Perhaps I'm wrong. Is there something about the question that you just don't get?
 
Frank Newgent said:
Are you possibly confusing Fahrenheit 9/11 with the movie Memento?
Click to expand...
Memento was a great film. I'll take your obfuscation as meaning you don't know the answer or don't want to answer.

I'm patient. Someone out there is sure to have an answer. Hey this is a skeptics forum and there are some pretty smart people here. Then again, perhaps I'm the only one who in fact did see 9/11. :D
 
RandFan said:

Memento was a great film. I'll take your obfuscation as meaning you don't know the answer or don't want to answer.
Click to expand...
An opinion is never, even if true, the same as the truth, RF.

Do you think that Sammy was really Leonard?
 
Saw the movie. My opinion was that it was mostly funny, sometimes insightful, sometimes off-target.

According to The Snopes article, during the lockdown immediately after 9/11 and before 9/13, the Bin Ladens were being gathered together within the US to exit the country while the rest of us were grounded. So Moore's account seems basically truthful.

Moore's tactic is to cast the Saudi's as a not very worthy ally, except that we want their oil and this motive is behind many of our altruistic sounding actions in the Mideast. The 'money and influence link' in the movie was to the Carlyle group, which seemed less George than his dad.

Moore seems to be playing to an anti-Saud feeling that I'm not sure really exists. Maybe Moore thinks we should be a bit more anti-Saudi than we are, considering that most of the hijackers were from there.

Moore's goal: Educate Americans that the Saud's are allies of the rich oil people, and maybe not so much regular working Americans etc etc.

Clarke worked for his boss George W Bush, the place wherein the proverbial buck is supposed to stop.

The purpose of the movie is to paint Bush as a fool, not merely stupid. A fool can be intelligent and "know lots of stuff" while still habitually making bad decisions. It is a pattern of foolish behavior that Moore is trying to expose, not so much construct a conspiracy theory around the events of 911.

Light treatment: IMHO allowing the twin debacle of prisoner abuse and locking up people "forever" at Gitmo are by far the most foolish things, and must be laid at the feet of the President. Portraying America as lawless abusers of human rights does what to make us more safe from terrorists? How can we NOT conclude that this is a ship of fools?

My complaint about the movie (and other Moore movies) is that Moore will touch lightly on an insightful point, like the concept of 'poverty draft' or the manipulation of fear for political gain, and not really deal with it seriously. "What is a 'condition green'?" is a good question.
 
Grammatron said:
I did not leave anything relevant out, the FBI said, "We did everything that needed to be done." So I ask again, what about is so confusing.
Click to expand...
IF you had said in response to wjousts post "the FBI didn't give the departing saudis 'extensive interviews' because they didn't deem it needed," then you would have at least some sort of reasonable argument, but that wasn't your response. Snopes doesn't even support your claim and you are rather glaringly selectively quoting them.

Why are you are ignoring the comments by the FBI head of counter terrorism at the time of the incident? Did you bother to read the National Review article I hyperlinked to, cause they are backing up wjousts comments. Don't you think it's interesting that the NRO named Justice department source and Moore's named FBI CT guy make very similar statements? Keep in mind, this isn't a case of a lone disgruntled employee as snopes would suggest. Moore is using a different guy then snopes and the NRO is using another different guy.
 
Sibel Edmonds is puzzled...

quote:
According to the Commission Chairman, they have seen "every single document" and have interviewed "every single relevant witness and authority." According to all Commission members, this report should be considered a resounding success, since it encompasses all information relevant to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and very little, almost none, has been redacted, classified, or glossed over. Yet we have heard no one screaming "classification," "sensitive diplomatic relations," "highly sensitive foreign business relations," or "national security implications." This is highly puzzling and curious.

This puzzles me, considering that every investigation by the Congress and the Inspector General (IG) into my issues, every report involving my already-confirmed allegations involving serious lapses within the FBI, and every legal procedure and due process dealing with my case alone, has been blocked, gagged, entirely classified, and stopped. It is extremely curious that while investigations and reports on one case alone has created so much havoc, a massive investigation and a report involving all intelligence agencies and other government bodies, including the State Department, has evoked zero objections based on "sensitive foreign relations," "highly classified intelligence matters," and/or "ongoing intelligence investigations."

This puzzles me...

(snip)

After the many public hearing shows, in which the Commissioners very skillfully played their good cop/bad cop routine and displayed their lifelong mastery of the political art of saying but not saying, and asking but not asking, all parties and all agencies have readily accepted this report. The president apparently considered the report rosy and appropriately symbolized its presentation in his rose garden. The previous administration sighed with relief, having scored a negative 4, compared to the current administration's negative 6, in the blame game. Notorious Attorney General John Ashcroft left his over-secrecy and classification guns in their holsters. In fact, this report ended up being blessed by all those responsible for our nation's security and interests, which were severely violated on September 11. I, for one, am highly puzzled and curious. How about you?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s-edmonds.php?articleid=3151
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 911 commission report destroys mmoore's F/911

crimresearch said:
Nice to see that the *new* JREF forum is so much more civil and honest than the old one.
Click to expand...

I believe the rule of the "new" JREF forum was no name calling. I did not break that rule.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 911 commission report destroys mmoore's F/911

The Central Scrutinizer said:
I believe the rule of the "new" JREF forum was no name calling. I did not break that rule.
Click to expand...

so when are you finally going to get hit by bus ?
 
RandFan said:
I'm patient. Someone out there is sure to have an answer. Hey this is a skeptics forum and there are some pretty smart people here. Then again, perhaps I'm the only one who in fact did see 9/11. :D
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the film. I'm not even sure it's out here yet. Anyway.

It seems based solely on what's been posted already on this thread that the issue is that Saudi bigwigs who were related to bin Laden, and who might plausibly be thought to have some clue about where Osama was, whether he was behind the hijackings, where Osama's money was coming from or other relevant issues were bundled out of the country with all possible speed. They were apparently interviewed, but I'm not sure that the 48 hours between the hijackings and the departure of the Saudis gave the FBI an awful lot of time to talk to them considering everything else that was going on.

Meanwhile some other guy with a less credible link to a less important terrorist was being semi-legally kidnapped and illegally hustled off to be tortured for months.

The contrast, at least on the surface, seems to raise the question of why the Saudis in question weren't hauled off to spend the next six months making naked human pyramids in an undisclosed location. Again on the surface, the answer seems to be that they were rich and important people from a nation the USA wanted to keep sweet, and personal friends of the Bush family to boot, thus they were given a free ride. If you think that pursuing the 9/11 perpetrators should have been a higher priority that looking after GWB's rich friends, then you would presumably not like this.

Without commenting on whether or not this story is the truth (or something close to it), it sounds to me like this was the point Moore was trying to make.

Does that make sense to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom