Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Derek Flint witnesses the first flight of Paul Greengrass' UNITED 93!!!

Hey folks, Harry here... Derek Flint has been a spy reviewing features and early screenings of films at AICN for years. If you're in the camp of folks that feel it's too early to see a film on UNITED 93 or the WORLD TRADE CENTER - perhaps it isn't too early for the film to be made, but too early for you to see it. The directors making these two films are not hack directors - but passionate filmmaking artists that have made some absolutely great films. So - it really is of no surprise to me that the first review we get of UNITED 93 is sterling. Paul Greengrass is a powerful director with a strong morale conscience and an unflinching eye for reality and power. I don't imagine UNITED 93 will be quite like any film we've seen about a terrorist take over on a plane. Just as I bet WORLD TRADE CENTER is far more than any of us suspect. Here ya go... There's only spoilers for those of you that don't know a damn thing about UNITED 93. For the rest of us... we know what we think we know. Derek knows the film... and here he is...

There are certain seminal film going experiences in your life… movies that you never forget the first time you see them: “Psycho” or “Jaws,” “The Godfather” or “Star Wars.”

Depending on who you are, the experience of sitting in a darkened theater and seeing a classic unspool before your eyes becomes permanently engrained in your memory.

That’s the way I feel about a movie I've just seen: “United 93.”

We've all heard the controversy about the trailer. People complained and were upset by it. One theater quit showing it while at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood; patrons yelled “Too soon!” at the screen.

The events of 9/11 changed the course of our daily lives, yet you might not know it anymore. Time and everyone’s desire to “move on” tends to do that.

The fact that people wish to forget the events is one of the prime reasons the timing is right for this film.

No one screamed “Too soon!” at Michael Moore’s documentary, and it’s important to view the events depicted in Paul Greengrass’ movie in this objective prospective, as opposed to campaign ads seeking to use 9/11 to justify a variety of agendas.

From what I've read, Greengrass was long considering doing a 9/11 themed movie… but it took the derailment of his adaptation of “The Watchmen” to motivate him to dive in and get this film quickly going. I must say, as much as I would have loved to see his take on “Watchmen,” this is the film he was literally born, not “Bourne,” to make.

Greengrass uses the same pseudo documentary style he employed in “Bloody Sunday” to place us directly into the day when life as we know it changed. The acting and camera work achieves total verisimilitude. Many times during the first half hour of the movie, which depicts air traffic controllers and government officials grappling with the escalating situations occurring in the sky, I literally forgot I was watching a film. It felt totally real. The dialogue is mostly improvised, overlapping, no "Hollywood" clever lines.

The passengers of flight 93 are shown going about their daily lives before embarking on their doomed journey. In a way, the setup is not unlike a classic “disaster movie,” showing average behavior, even mundane conversations, with only the audience knowing the ominous events about to envelop these people.

However, there’s a major difference. Besides the obvious fact that actual human beings are depicted, there’s usually energized anticipation for the “Poseidon” to capsize or “The Towering Inferno” to ignite.

Not here.

In this movie, you dread the inevitable that you know will take place. It’s painful to see a passenger running late and making the flight at the last minute, knowing he would have also avoided his own demise. What a difference one minute can make.

The fact that the actual highjacking takes place so late in the film (about one hour in) makes the tension all the more unbearable.

Seeing the highjackers trying to maintain composure, exchanging furtive glances, is excruciating… you keep waiting and wondering when they will strike. When they do, it’s calamitous and terrifying.

The pacing of the film is preordained, as it unfolds in real time. What struck me about this was how little time the passengers of flight 93 had to grasp the enormity of the situation they were trapped in, as well as unite and formulate a plan.

One of the things I came away with was how these people, under direct line of fire, made better decisions than all the bloated bureaucrats in Washington. Their bravery and resolve is made all the more heroic by the fact that they're depicted, by both Greengrass and the actors who play them, as real people with differing emotions who were thrust into the unimaginable. They're conflicted, scared, remorseful, angry… but, in the end, united.

Previous documentaries and a telefilm on A&E have focused on the heroics of the passengers who are best known, namely the ones who are on record as making phone calls to their loved ones.

One of the many things that surprised me about “United 93” is how Greengrass was able to illuminate passengers whose names you may have heard… but whose voices and personalities remained nondescript. From what I've read, the actors studiously researched the real life people they portrayed and met with their families… so any conjecture about behavior once again carries total verisimilitude (a word I didn't think I'd be using a lot).

To that extent, Greengrass doesn't portray the terrorists as “evil” per se. They are definitely heinous. Seeing their panic at the passenger uprising when the tables are turned does satisfy our need for some small measure of payback, but the instigators are also shown as devout in their mission as well as quite frightened themselves.

Nothing in this film feels exploitative and is rendered with remarkable taste.

That being said, the film is violent when the story dictates that it must be. The brutality of the highjackers is very tough to watch, especially when newspaper accounts tend to sanitize everything for public consumption.

The attack on the pilot and co-pilot is startling, vicious and savage. Seeing the way a flight attendant is mercilessly slain eclipses any horror movie I've ever seen… or most likely will see. (Unfortunately, it’s also why some people will be drawn to this movie… but anyone with a ghoulish fascination will no doubt get swept up by the emotions this film creates.)

What I couldn't get out of my head is how these terrorists could sit amongst people… then suddenly butcher them and instantly go about their business. While I'm certainly aware of what a terrorist is all about, seeing these actions depicted was another thing altogether.

The performances are uniformly excellent. An actor named Cheyenne Jackson portrays Mark Bingham, who’s been written about a lot, and another named Christian Clemenson plays Thomas Burnett. Both essay a complex range of emotions.

Probably the most recognizable member of the cast is David Rasche, famous for his TV role as “Sledge Hammer,” playing a passenger who had experience flying single engine aircraft. He made no phone calls to his loved ones. When you see the film, you will see a theory why.

The intention of the passengers storming the cockpit wasn't just to prevent the terrorists from reaching their target; there was also a slim chance that some key passengers on the plane could have assumed control and attempted a landing.

If this were a fictitious Hollywood movie, we all know how that would have come out… but the ending of this movie cannot be changed. There is no reshoot to make an audience cheer as John Williams’ music booms.

That being said, the moment when the passengers unite and charge the terrorists is rousing and heartfelt to witness, despite the tragedy that is inevitable. The guts and desire to live is overwhelming to watch.

We all have thought of what it must have been like to be on that plane and wondered what we'd do under the very same circumstances.

I have to be honest; I don't know if I could ever do what I saw in this reenactment. It’s certainly easy to say we would, but watch this film and be honest with yourself.

The forty-five odd minutes spent aboard flight 93 is shown as nonstop terror.

Adding to the realism is the way the mockup plane set is rigged. There are no camera tricks or CGI used to make the plane pitch and roll. The actors feel it and you do too. Realizing that the passengers formulated their actions as an aircraft was wildly diving, jerking and banking just adds to their incredible feat.

Paul Greengrass is a unique voice and a superb director. Frankly, I'm not interested in seeing any of the other 9/11 films in the pipeline. To me, he’s made the definitive examination of that day… and if “what’s past is prologue,” then it’s up to us not to allow selfish interests to shape our destinies, as well as the destinies of generations to come.

To anyone yelling “Too soon!” at the trailer for this film, I dare you to see the actual and say that.

To me, it's too soon to forget.

Derek Flint

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 13, 2006, 10:18 p.m. CST

    It's too soon for a review of this movie

    by HypeEndsHere

  • April 13, 2006, 10:21 p.m. CST

    looking forward to seeing it...

    by ao33

    i hope its as good as you say

  • April 13, 2006, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Proceeds

    by Tar Heel

    My only concern with projects like these are that the system is set up to profit the studios more than anyone else. I believe they are donating some ticket proceeds to the families, but there is no adequate recompense for their loss.

  • April 13, 2006, 10:22 p.m. CST

    Well written review

    by drjohnnyfever

    I'm not sure if I'll see this right away, but it's certainly not because I think it's "too soon." I agre: I think too many people have forgotten exactly what we were feeling that day. It's never too soon to be reminded about what's important.

  • April 13, 2006, 10:23 p.m. CST

    I knew it

    by drjohnnyfever

    I KNEW someone would take an oppotunity on this talkback to use this film to insult people of a particular political viewpoint. It figures. Grow up, people.

  • April 13, 2006, 10:24 p.m. CST

    It's not too soon...it's been far too long.

    by DoctorWho?

    First.

  • April 13, 2006, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Anchortite, it's not the liberals who are up in arms.

    by Lenny Nero

    We weren't the ones who tried to rename 9/11 "Patriot Day," even though it represents nothing close to patriotism. Quit trying to start trouble.

  • April 13, 2006, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Fantastic review.

    by Sinisterjim

    I look forward too, and dread seeing this film...I'm definately not in the "too soon" camp. Having seen the docs on this event, I'm aware of what is and isn't known, but seeing the events unfold in a dramatic narative will be downright chilling.

  • April 13, 2006, 10:36 p.m. CST

    This makes me want to see it...

    by seanny_d

    I don't know. I'll probably have to be in a particular mood to check this one out. I don't see myself muching popcorn to this one. I hope it ends up being as tasteful as this review says.

  • April 13, 2006, 10:42 p.m. CST

    A Work of Fiction?

    by DoubleFantasy

    All I will say is that I do hope that was the way it happened. That sounds like a strange thing to say but I hope those passengers fought bravely for their survival and were true heroes as is portrayed in the film. What with films like Loose Change circling the internet I think many people are coming round to the fact that the whole "let's roll" scenario could have been completely made up - and even voice recordings which have been released only this week in the trial of Moussaoui could have been faked - something which has been possible for many years. I think a 9/11 film IS too soon not because it's still too sensitive but because there are hundreds of unanswered questions that day about what really happened - questions that make me feel sick to my stomach. Flight 93 is a modern day tale of innocent men and women fighting ruthless murderers and it is a story to make us all sit up and think - I only hope that this inspirational yet tragic tale really is a true story because it does sadden me to know that 5 years later, that so much of the official explaination of what happened on September 11th was nothing more than a lie.

  • April 13, 2006, 11:12 p.m. CST

    For pete's sake

    by moondoggy2u

    This reviewer is honestly insinuating that those of us who feel the movie was made too soon somehow base our belief on the desire to forget 9/11? Of course, I think we all knew the film maker was going to use the "lets not forget 9/11" approach. Seeing as how the event only happened five years ago, however, forgive me if I remain dubious. The reason we feel its too soon is because this movie is obviously being made in an attempt to cash in on 9/11. Wanna know how much of the proceeds of this film is being donated? The entire gross for the first 3 days of its release. Thats right, only the first 3 days' worth of gross is going to charity. In any case, I still enjoy Harry's typically snobbish stance on us "little people." Its not that the movie is premature, its just that we the sheep are simply too afraid and scared to see a film of such awesome power. Oh, and by the way, the reason that Moore received a pass from liberal audiences concerning his movie was that he was attempting to do was bash bush. This film seeks to simply dramatize the events, not actually say anything that we didnt already know. And I dont know everybody else's stance on the film, but I have a hunch this thing is gonna get booed out of the park in every theater.

  • April 13, 2006, 11:19 p.m. CST

    regardless of your politics

    by Turd Furgeson

    or the amount of money going to the families, if anyone in this world has a heart in their chest, they will go see this movie, or at least buy a ticket and give the families some financial support. thats what all of us as good people should do. If you feel its too soon or youre too cool, or you hate whoeverthefuck you hate, just go get a ticket and support this movie. This movie should get revenues like "The Passion Of The Christ" if everyone has the heart they say they do and theyre not 2 faced fucknuts.... Just go see it, I know I will and I was glued to my tv while this was happening.....

  • April 13, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST

    "The fact that people wish to forget the events"???

    by Flim Springfield

    NO ONE wishes to forget the events of 9/11! Everyone wishes it never happened, but no one is foolish enough to pretend it didn't. The FACT is that for some people, the emotions of that day are still so close to the surface that they feel it's too soon for commercial films to be exploiting and manipulating those emotions for profit. And I'd have to say they're right.

  • April 13, 2006, 11:28 p.m. CST

    Only 10% of the opening weekend goes to memorial fund..

    by Flim Springfield

    If you wish to support the Flight 93 Memorial Project, DON'T see this movie, send the ENTIRE cost of the movie ticket to the charity itself at www.flight93memorialproject.org/

  • April 13, 2006, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Nobody's trying to "cash in"...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...sure people will make money, actors, editors, cameramen got paid. The history of film is full of stories based on historic events and profound moments that shape our world and our views of it. Was Spielberg just "cashing in" on Schindler's List? I'm a bit cynical too...but damn!

  • April 14, 2006, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Political Bashing

    by thatpeterguy

    Can someone explain to me the what good comes from bashing someone for being conservative or liberal. I don't understand how so many people feel the need to align themselves with a political party. Nothing in life is black and white. You can lean one way or the other but to blindly bash someone for being conservative or liberal shows how lowly evolved YOUR mind is.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:11 a.m. CST

    poeple that yell "too soon"

    by Silver Shamrock

    are most likely libs. And isn't every Hollywood movie an attempt to cash in on something? How many gays and victims of homophobia got proceeds from Brokeback Mountain? Didn't micheal moore have a good cash in last election? Putting aside the hot topic for a second, the fact that a movie might come out with depth, meaning and relevance is nothing short of a miracle. Hollywood is so out of touch they think anyone still gives a shit about Edward R Murrow.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:12 a.m. CST

    good bash thatpeterguy

    by Silver Shamrock

    I wish I had a mind as highly evolved as yours.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:30 a.m. CST

    silver shamrock

    by thatpeterguy

    Based on your posts I'd say it's unlikely.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:55 a.m. CST

    really well written review

    by ILK

    .. and obviously filled with passion. Great job. I was going to avoid these films. Not now, at least not this one. You've convinced one.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Asinine post of the day goes to SiverShamrock

    by IndustryKiller

    Congrats jackass. people yelling too soon are most likely libs? the fuck are you talking about. Way to make a completely out of left field remark and do absolutely nothing to substantiate it. In fact yelling "too soon!" doesn't seem like it needs to have any political bias whatsoever. I certainly can't think of any political point of view that has in the past been critical of 9/11 based art. If yout hink its too soon thats just an individual point of view, and not entirely without merit at this point. Time will tell. As for your Edward R Murrow claim, apparently people do care considering the movie turned a profit and was the toast of the town. Murrow was one of our greatest newsmen and deserves remembering, I'm sorry if he attacked a life destroying, anti free speech, opportunist (and you don't have to be liberal or conservative to understand that about McCarthy) lunatic who happens to share your politics. Methinks it is in fact SliverShamrock who is a bit out of touch and bitter.

  • April 14, 2006, 1 a.m. CST

    Shamrock - you putz

    by DoogieHowitzer

    You think no-one gives a shit about Edward R Murrow? You are a prime example of why no-one in this country learns from history - the mistakes made and triumphs of great Americans. It is never too soon or too late to remember these things and honor their importance. That this Administration is repeating so many of the errors of our past is a testament to the need for movies such as Good Night and Good Luck, Flight 93, Lawrence of Arabia and so many others that illustrate the forces - good and nefarious - which have shaped our world in the past and continue to affect it today. The general public is sorely (and probably willfully) ignorant of these things, and open discourse in the form of documentary, fictionalized dramatization and television and radio is the ONLY way most people will ever see a fraction of the complexity of the world around them. I pray that everyone will see this film, that some will despise it and some will praise it and everyone will learn something in the process.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:01 a.m. CST

    understanding

    by ILK

    "I don't understand how so many people feel the need to align themselves with a political party.".... What I don't understand is how so many have such distorted views of what liberal and conservative mean. A real conservative would never let the church dictate his or her policy. A real liberal would never take away your rights so that everyone could feel "ok" under the guise of tolerance. To be clear, I'm not pointing this particular finger directly at you, thatpeterguy. Just an observation inspired by your post.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:05 a.m. CST

    Is this a critic proof movie based on the subject?

    by My Ass Smells

    A bad movie is a bad movie. I hope people have the balls to say this movie is garbage if it turns out to be. I don't care if this bullshit was based on a "true story" It looks like a lame ass tv movie based on the trailer.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:14 a.m. CST

    YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT

    by moto

    It's easy to say that so and so is merely cashing in on 9/11. It's easy to point that finger and make that assumption. That's really the problem with America today. We don't trust each other. Conservatives against Liberals. Dem against Repubs. Blah blah blah. Fact is, there are still filmmakers out there to day that want to make a film for reasons other than money. Sure, it goes into the politics of Hollywood that no matter what, money is an issue. But don't assume the director himself/herself is the driving force behind that. If they have to use the system to make a noteworthy movie reflecting on recent horrific events, then hey, let them play the game. Film has always been about the reflection of various generations and trials and tribulations of said society. It's an expression. It's a chance to vent. A chance to reflect. You can't tell me that Steven Spielberg made Schindler's List to make money. Sure, the studio may have seen the dollar signs on paper, but no, not the filmmaker. Yeah, Michael Bay doesn't make Bad Boys 2 to express himself. But when you take a film like this, it's a whole different ballgame. We've forgotten that there are directors out there, in the mainstream, that still have a passion for telling stories, reflecting on whatever issue, offering viewpoints, offering experiences, etc. I'm glad this film was made. I look forward to Oliver Stone's and anyone elses. As entertainment? No. To see an expression or to reflect or to honor... yes. It's about time some filmmakers step back up to the plate and challenge people to think. The media can't do it. The reporters can't do it because newspapers and tv stations are now owned by corporations. They don't want to lose viewers. That's why we don't see honest reporting of the war. Don't call me a lib or whatever, because I, like everyone else should, do not let a label or political party rule my viewpoint. I'm just saying that we live in a different country compared to the turbulent 60s and 70s, when people were allowed to express their true opinion. Where reporters were allowed to do the same. The very last thing we have is film. Luckily, studios, while they also don't want to alienate an audience with a political risk project, seem to see that controversy can also equal dollar signs. Sad, but if it allows for film's like these to be made... then great. Who else has the balls to do this? Not many. So you can preach about movies being just about money and blah blah blah.. but you have to look at the big picture and see that SOME of the time, the DIRECTORS (including writers, actors, etc.) actually make a film for reasons other than money. It's the real world, and yes, they have to play the game and use the system to do so, but in the end we may just get some excellent and honest films out of it.

  • April 14, 2006, 4:39 a.m. CST

    I'm sorry, but that's bullshit

    by Vern

    9-11, what was that again? Is that Free Slurpee Day, or am I think of 7-11? Come on man. Nobody is "forgetting" what happened on 9-11, and we don't need some British visionary to come make a graphic re-enactment to remind us. I don't think the Fahrenheit 9-11 analogy fits at all, since that was a documentary about policies that happened as a result of 9-11. That's not at all the same as transforming the events and victims of that day into compelling cinematic drama. (And anyway people DID think it was too soon, including Michael Eisner, who wouldn't release it before the election.) Maybe this really is the new Star Wars, as Derek Flint says, and I know I for one plan to buy all the underwear and pajamas and get upset about the prequels. But that's not really the reason why I, at least, am upset. I really don't see a problem with the movie itself, they certainly have the right to make it just like those weirdos that make all the sleazy straight to video movies about the BTK killer and the Green River Killer and everything else that is morbidly fascinating. And I don't blame anybody for watching it. But I do think the fact that they made it and advertised it as a big studio movie "FROM THE DIRECTOR OF BOURNE IDENTITY" is offensive. Because for most people it IS too soon, and to turn it into a crass commercial product, even with the catchy slogan "it's actually more tasteful than it sounds," is a big fucking bummer. If it was just playing film festivals or arthouse theaters with newspaper advertisements it wouldn't be that bad. If I didn't have to see it advertised to death every time I go to see 16 Blocks or Slither, it might not bother me. And if Greengrass and the publicists didn't talk about it as if it was important for all Americans to see it. Yeah, but we can read the transcripts for free, and then maybe you can give us an American flag lapel pin or something. I have no doubt that the movie on its own, although I don't want to watch it, will be well made, etc. But you can't pretend it's not also a movie as product and intended as an exciting cultural phenomenon. What do YOU think? Is it really too soon? Pay nine dollars and decide for yourself! Log on to UNITED93MOVIE.COM to STAND UP for your opinion! I mean come on, if you can't see a problem with that that's cool but don't condescend to people for actually bothering to hold something sacred for once.

  • April 14, 2006, 4:42 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah, and Sledge Hammer is in it?

    by Vern

    I didn't know that. That was a bad move. Now I'm DEFINITELY not seeing this movie because I am NOT gonna be the asshole that starts laughing his ass off in the middle of the movie. Ha ha ha, Sledge Hammer, he had a big gun. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."

  • April 14, 2006, 4:48 a.m. CST

    Where is the plane at the Pentagon?

    by Judge Briggs

    First, there is no debris other than an engine that is too small to fit the plane the supposedly hit the building... the hole is far too small to be that of the plane... it's killing me!

  • April 14, 2006, 6:34 a.m. CST

    The people on Flight 93 were ordinary everyday heroes

    by ol' painless

    They were the flight that fought back. Yet there has been this reluctance to talk about them. I know it is painful to think of the terror they felt, and the despair of their loved ones afterwards. But as per this review, this movie is neither exploitative nor insensitive. Why declare it tasteless? Why would it cause anger and problems? Maybe if it was being directed by a jackass like Michael Bay. But Greengrass is exactly the right person to do this movie.

  • April 14, 2006, 7:11 a.m. CST

    I bet at the end,

    by TheNeth

    turns out the snakes did it. Good point from whoever mentioned not seeing the movie and donating instead - how about everyone just doesn't pay for their imaginary friend to get in and give the whole damn lot. That we, you still see the movie, the fund gets a more deserving amount, and your imaginary friend gets to feel like a movie-sneaking badass.

  • April 14, 2006, 7:12 a.m. CST

    Of course,

    by TheNeth

    I meant "that way", not "that we". I thought I should clear this up, I didn't want to confuse or upset any of you Talkbackers. I know how sensitive you can be.

  • April 14, 2006, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Of course they did world war two films during WW2

    by moondoggy2u

    But I dont think they made movies involving depictions of actual events and people. When was the first film about D-day? When was the first film about Hiroshima? How about the first concerning Patton? Thats why the argument that hollywood churned out war pictures in WW2 holds no water. Those pictures were fictional, the only truthful thing being that there was a war. Schindler's list, one of the very first movies to accurately depict the nazis' attrocities, and depicting real people, was made 50 years after the facts. There are two reasons for making this type of a movie: (1) to gather all the facts so as to better shed the light on a subject and (2) depicting the subject for posterity. Because it takes so long to gather factual data concerning something as compicated events, such as war, and because people have no trouble remembering something that happened within a short amount of time, these sorts of films wait decades. Now, seeing as how this movie will be largely suppositional (No one knows what was going on aboard that plane) and the events occurred only 5 years ago, how can you justify the work? Oh, Im sorry, the "artists" on this site are now contending that the work exists for its own sake and that Im simply not ready for it yet. Well, seeing as how this movie is being advertised as a summer-blockbuster action flick , forgive me if Im highly skeptical. I have said it before in another talkback and I will say it again here: either the director is intensely naive, as well as the producers, or he is a deceitful little manipulator. In either case, he is wrong to think that he is shedding light on an unknown subject or that the heroics of flight 93 (real or imagined) require honor and recognition. If it were fifteen or twenty years from today and we were discussing a movie about 9/11, I would have a different opinion. However, because the the events only occured less than five years ago, this film will pale in comparrison to the ideas and feelings about sacrafice, horror, fear, hate, love, and evil during 9/11 that we hold in our hearts in minds. Those feelings and ideas are still fresh, intense, and very personal, ladies and gentleman; they have yet to mature, let alone wither and rot. In effect, this film will be attempting to shed light on a burning furnace with a candle flame.

  • April 14, 2006, 8:04 a.m. CST

    i appologize for the spelling and grammar

    by moondoggy2u

    I was in the middle of editing the sucker when i hit the enter button. A better metaphor, I think, would be that this director is turning on a flashlight in broad daylight. Oh well.

  • April 14, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Cashing In

    by NeoCon

    This whole "Cashing in on 9/11" logic is BS. If writers can write books about it and singers write songs and poets write poems, why can't a film maker make a film about it? Why is he the only one who is "cashing in". As for the lib vs. con debate let's be honest. The less we show 9/11 footage and the less we talk about it- the stronger the liberal defense strategy of "do nothing" and "don't over-react" becomes. They should start showing the footage of the people jumping off those buildings again if you want to understand what we are fighting for. Oh I forgot, terrorists were in every single country in the middle east except Iraq.

  • April 14, 2006, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Ibiu2

    by NeoCon

    I'm still waiting to hear what the liberals want to do to fight terrorism........................................................... Their only solution is to go to the UN or do what Clinton did: Bomb an aspirin factory on the eve of his impeachment.

  • April 14, 2006, 8:47 a.m. CST

    neocon

    by moondoggy2u

    Ah, the "but everyone else did it" defense. Wanna know my, and others of like mind, stance on those books and songs? Unless they were donating the entire proceeds to charity, they were cashing in on a volatile subject as well (which is reprehensibile, to my mind). I dont care if an artist feels compelled to depict a subject or not. The fact is, we are talking commercial products here, not solely artistic ones (hence the debate). I'm sorry if you feel the argument is bs and that a peson should be able to cash in on every single thing in the entire world, but I for one am glad to see that many people recognize the fact that some common decency in this world is a good thing. Again, I know this flies in the face of laissez faire commercialism and morality (hence, both R's and D's are gonna be mad at me), but I really couldn't care less. Personally, I cant wait for this film to be released so as the public can actually vote the only way we can: with our wallets. Then again, I have a hunch that if this movie receives any more bad press, you can bet your bottom dollar they will delay the film's release, possibly in september.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:07 a.m. CST

    You are too cynical moondoggy

    by NeoCon

    This is a touchstone event of our society. It is part of our collective memory. Why is everyone supposed to leave it alone? "Cashing in" also implies insincerity. If someone did a conspiracy film about 9/11 blaming Bush or Israel or whatever he wouldn't be accused of "cashing in". Oliver Stone was not accused of "cashing in" on JFK or Platoon because he presented an ugly, cynical side of a subject. It's only when you show a more heroic, patriotic side to an event in American history that you are "cashing in".

  • April 14, 2006, 9:10 a.m. CST

    reporting the news

    by prisonrulez

    As a former newspaper writer who was working in the newsroom on 9/11, I feel I have a unique perspective of that day. I was the first in our newsroom to see a report come off the wire stating that a plane had crashed into one of the world trade center towers. I quickly ran it to my editor, we turned on the television just in time to see the second plane slamming into the towers...the entire newsroom went silent...for almost five minutes we stood there in stunned disbelief. Then we realized that we had breaking news and the place became like an anthill that had been stirred up by a child. We had to put our emotions aside and do the job at hand, but I remember later that night...crawling into bed with my wife and breaking down into tears. I've been looking forward to this film...because I hope it can stir within me the emotions that I felt that day...that is what I'm hoping for. I remember what I was doing that day...I remember the chaos...the questions...interviewing people who were confused and angry...I remember the emotions of that day...and I hope everyone else will remember, not the events of the day, but the emotions they felt. Thanks so much for this review!

  • April 14, 2006, 9:18 a.m. CST

    self indulgent garbage

    by Fearsme

    see it, don't see it, love it, hate it. i don't care, but at the end of the day, it really is self indulgent crap, speculation at worst, propaganda at best, solely made for a studio to profit. profit is the only motivation people. don't kid yourselves otherwise.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST

    we'll see...

    by isildur29

    how the movie is the one thing I DO KNOW is that this is the first good review on AICN in months

  • April 14, 2006, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Sorry, but forgetting 9/11 isn't possible

    by chains

    Especially when our leaders use 9/11 as a justification for virtually every controversial move they make... be it illegal spying, pre-emptive wars, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, "Patriot" acts, the diversion of our tax dollars from social programs to the war machine, or anything else that would have been considered un-American prior to 9/11. Now, it's "necessary to fight the War of Terror." So no, we'll never forget... whether we want to or not. And by the way, it's not "too soon" for a movie that's about as historically accurate as Titanic.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Nice Review

    by BobWinters5

    Now the only thing keeping me from going to see the film is the fear that when they let out the "Let's roll" line a large group of overly patriotic hill-folk will start shooting shotguns off in the air and yell "Kill dem A-Rabs!"

  • April 14, 2006, 9:46 a.m. CST

    neocon

    by moondoggy2u

    Call it experience, neocon. The problem with you, neocon, is that you want to turn this whole issue into some kind of blanket statement. Personally, I look at each issue individually. Moore's film was being touted as a documentary about Bush screwing up on 9/11. In other words, it was intended to be purely informative; it would shed new light on a much speculated subject. However, I still bashed his movie because it was blatantly dishonest, manipulative, and mean-spirited. This Flight 93 movie is being made for a completely different reason: to dramatize the events. That's it, end of story. The debate that surrounds this film is the reasoning for dramatizing an event only 5 years old. Its oranges and apples, Neocon. Its not some republican democrat issue. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    pardon me

    by moondoggy2u

    I meant to put down that Moore's movie was a documentary on how Bush screwed up after the events on 9/11 and restricted our freedoms.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST

    I'm intrigued...and I wasn't before.

    by Mahaloth

    Worth a download.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST

    This movie looks awful

    by DAfRk3iN

    I'm not interested in seeing a movie about how big the collective american penis is.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:01 a.m. CST

    DAfRk3in

    by prisonrulez

    are you suffering from some feelings of inadequacy concerning the size of something??

  • April 14, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST

    How's this for an idea

    by Larry of Arabia

    If you don't want to see the movie and think it's too soon, don't see the movie because it's too soon. If you want to see the movie, go see the movie. Liberals are not going to be the ones protesting, by he way. It's going to be those 700Club right wing nutballs (not all right wingers are nutbualls, but some are);

  • April 14, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST

    How's this for an idea

    by Larry of Arabia

    If you don't want to see the movie and think it's too soon, don't see the movie because it's too soon. If you want to see the movie, go see the movie. Liberals are not going to be the ones protesting, by he way. It's going to be those 700Club right wing nutballs (not all right wingers are nutbualls, but some are);

  • April 14, 2006, 10:23 a.m. CST

    by knobjockey

    Dunno why people are getting so het up about this flick, Flight 93 is a fallacy anyway. The passengers all disembarked in Cleveland and the "crash site" was a hand dug trench with debris strewn in it. On site corroners left after 20 minutes because there was absolutely no blood or bodies on the site. It's about as factual as Lord of the Rings, and I imagine Oliver Stone will be up against the same thing with his film. The twin towers - the first two skyscrapers in history to be brought down by fire, followed by WTC5, the 3rd in history - yeah, right...

  • April 14, 2006, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Re: Olie Stone

    by darth kubrick

    Neocon, you seem to imply that Oliver Stone didn't face crticism for his controversial movies like JFK. Then perhaps you are too young to remember, because he was slammed on op-ed pages, nightly news shows, and the like for dramatizing a conspiracy theory in the murder of Kennedy. They called him a traitor and a liar and accused him of trying to propogadize a national tragedy. Honestly he put a lot more people on the scent of the truth about our history. That is, that it isn't always black and white and simple. For God's sake, Stone was accused of inciting a rash of robberies and killings after the totally fictional 'Natural Born Killers' was released. So don't say there's no backlash for a liberal in Hollywood. You guys want it both ways. Don't make a film that explores the dark underbelly of America, but DO make one that depicts, as fact, an event where no really knows what happened. Except, of course, for what the govt has told us.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Moondoggy...Name me ONE freedom you've been denied!

    by DoctorWho?

    Just one. Name one tiny change your life has undergone due to the "evil" Patriot Act or whatever other bogeyman you claim is out there. Anybody?

  • April 14, 2006, 10:26 a.m. CST

    2 Questions

    by NeoCon

    1) Who's going to pay $10 to see a movie where Americans act heroic while facing certain death? Cons or Libs? 2) Who's going to pay $10 to see a movie where Cheney and Rumsfeld order a missle to shoot down Flight93 while an evil Zionist is in the background laughing? Cons or Libs? This is a political issue because libs will be shouting "Too Soon" at anything patriotic that happens during the Bush administration. If you think the debate around "The Passion" was bad, wait until the movie's release. Cable News will have a field day with this one.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Well...I'm assuming you live in the U.S.

    by DoctorWho?

  • April 14, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Re: Ollie Stone

    by NeoCon

    I'm definitely not too young to remember JFK. Stone catches a lot of heat but he was never attacked for "cashing in" for taking on historical, political subjects (JFK, Platoon, Salvador). That particular attack is for the more conservative films. Crazy Ol' Andy Rooney accused Mel Gibson of making money off of JC's crucifixion. Because everyone predicted ahead of time that a gory film in Arameic would make a half billion.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST

    If this is a TRUE representation of the day...

    by Mattapooh

    ... will the film be showing the fighter jet that shot down the plane? Come on, they found debris from the plane miles behind the crash site along with eyewitnesses stating they saw an unmarked jet flying by at the time of the crash. Obviously something was up with that. And no, that opinion does not insult the lives of those people on that flight. I just find the whole situation to be incredibly suspicious as everyone should. This "liberal" vs. "conservative" stereotyped bullsh*t is really beneath anyone with half a brain. If you want to be jammed into a little box like that, that's your prerogative. I'd much rather take in as many facts and opinions as I can and decide what works for me.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Ferasme, to call it self indulgent srap is pretty harsh

    by DoctorWho?

    "Profit is the only motivation"?Really? Is that why the director consulted with every victims family...even in regards to what clothes they were wearing that day...and poured over voice mails and messages made from cell phone calls on the flight? Self indulgent crap at worst? Propaganda at best? You don't think theres some room in the middle there, to piece together a depiction of what happened on that flight? Yes folks IT's A DRAMATAZATION. THAT"S WHAT MOVIES ARE. By your criteria we could call all art self indulgent crap. Sorry, we can't watch a closed circuit video fo what actually happened.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:45 a.m. CST

    unfortunately, the audio tapes played in the Moussawi

    by HypeEndsHere

    trial "shoot down" (yet again) conspiracy theorists. or, wait-- they were fabricated i guess.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:48 a.m. CST

    patriotism

    by darth kubrick

    Once again, Neo, you are following Fox Talking Points. You and your kind claim the mantle of Patriotism with no justification. You said 'anything patriotic that happens...' blah blah blah. You seem to take the 'side' of the victims of Flight 93, when actually there are no 'sides' in this, as if liberals are 'Pro-Terrorism' or something. This is the underlying mantra of people trying to 'cash-in' by gaining political advatage. Demonzing fellow Americans when it's actually only foreign terrorists and our leadership which needs watching. I don't count the fact that the passengers fought back a 'victory' for the Bush administration the way you do. They weren't liberals or conservatives that day. BTW- name one 'conservative' film besides 'The Pasison of the Christ'.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:51 a.m. CST

    as I stated earlier

    by prisonrulez

    I was a newspaper writer at on 9/11. I interviewed 17 different witnesses in Pennsylvania, (I can provide their names and contact info if you would like, mattapooh) and not a single one of them saw a jet or noticed any external damage to the airplane prior to it crashing. But who know..maybe the man in black got to all 17 of them before I did...or maybe they are all just a bunch of Bush loyalist...or maybe all 17 of them were just blind and didn't see everything...after all...they were just a bunch of redneck hicks...except for the doctor...and the CEO....and the air force pilot home on leave...Geez...I wish the conspiracy theorists could actually produce a real piece of evidence!!!

  • April 14, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    and please forgive

    by prisonrulez

    the typos....hit send before correcting!!

  • April 14, 2006, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Passion of the Christ is NOT a Conservative Film

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    It is a RELIGIOUS film. Let's get our religion/political stances clarified before we start labeling every conservative a God-fearing Christian. They should (although at times do) have nothing to do with one another.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Great to see Americans at each other's throats

    by Harker-Writes

    ...and this is just about a movie. Does anyone over there actually have anything good to say about anything?

  • April 14, 2006, 11 a.m. CST

    Harker

    by HypeEndsHere

    strange statement from someone that has never said a positive thing about Americans.

  • April 14, 2006, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Dr. Who

    by moondoggy2u

    I think you misunderstand me. I never said I agreed with Moore's message, ideas, political leanings, or methods, I merely stated his purpose. Whether you agree with him or not is not the point of this discussion. I was merely pointing out the obvious differences between Moore's film and this one. IF its really important to you, I am staunchly opposed to Moore and everything he stands for (including his ideas). But that is an ENTIRELY different debate and holds no purpose in this thread. Again, I'm simply rebutting Neocon's inability to differentiate between two completely different films, motives, methods, and debates.

  • April 14, 2006, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Re: Patriotism

    by NeoCon

    No Darth, Liberals aren't "Pro-Terrorist". They don't believe in terrorism. Zionist blew up the WTC. An american missle shot down flight93. Iraq was terrorist free before we invaded. People that call Pakistan twice a week are just trying to get a new couscous recipe. Terrorists are actually "Freedom Fighters". If you think I'm exaggerating, read the talkbacks or just watch Bill Mahr. Again, liberals don't want to see it unless they show americans in Vietnam killing women and children or giving away small-pox infested blankets to Indians. They definitely don't want to see a movie that shows non-american people doing things to americans that aren't very nice.

  • April 14, 2006, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Yes, Harker...

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    When trying to gauge the present pulse of America, just visit the AICN Talkbacks. They are a wonderful tool for measuring the US "weltanschauung".

  • April 14, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Sounds like a great work of fiction

    by Hjermsted

    Loose Change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 ) is a must see documentary on the events of 9/11. I don't necessarily agree with the film's explanation of flight 93, but its examination of the pentagon and twin towers bombings is very thought-provoking.

  • April 14, 2006, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Re: Moondoggy

    by NeoCon

    I didn't bring up Michael Moore.

  • April 14, 2006, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Moondoggy

    by DoctorWho?

    I did misinterperet. Sorry. I've been enjoying your back and forth with him. The question still stands for anyone else out there...

  • April 14, 2006, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Hjermsted, It would be thought-provoking

    by AGE IIX

    but they won't take the time to watch it... because fox news explained what happend that day. And it doesn't matter how many times you explain to them why it is STRANGE that WTC7 came down that day. In the end they only make fun of peoples gramer (when they probably only speak and write one language)

  • April 14, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    hey Doogie and industry, you're the idiots...

    by ChileanSeaBass

    I bet you mastrubate to pictures of Micheal Moore while sticking a John kerry finger Puppet up your rectums...freakin Pinko ass wipes..

  • April 14, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Fox News?????

    by NeoCon

    What's with all of these Fox News references? When did the little cable channel become the bogey man? There is one channel amongst the kool-aid drinking, all saying the same exact thing, liberal media that offers an alternative. Obviously one alternative is one too many. And down with Drudge and Limbaugh too!!! More Katie Couric and Starr Jones!! BTW AGE IIX, you spelled "grammar" incorrectly. If only I could spell "ironic".

  • April 14, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    AGE IIX

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    I found a website for you. Let me know what you think of it: http://www.911myths.com

  • April 14, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    yes, Hjerm. we're all familiar with the bullshit that

    by HypeEndsHere

    is "loose change". people see what they want. and won't see things if they don't believe it. why does EVERY news organization including Fox believe nothing about WTC7 was fishy. i don't know. that's the problem in this day and age. a video on the internet is deemed by some to be just as valid as the overwhelming evidence (including common sense) to the contrary. by the way, does Harry know that Fox NewsCorp. owns MySpace?

  • April 14, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Loose Change isn't thought provoking

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Because it is full of lies and poorly construed arguments. It conveniently ignores evidence when necessary to further its argument. It's a bogus propaganda film. Please, AGE IIX, tell me what you think of the tapes played during the Moussauoi trial. Faked?

  • April 14, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Hjermsted, Loose Change is FICTION.

    by Snuffles

    The author LIES about the "hole in the pentagon", and he ignores actual photographs which show the damage that the wings cause (they just didn't penetrate the building and make that big hole the way the wrecking ball engines did).

  • April 14, 2006, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Typical LOOSE CHANGE apologist response:

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    "Fine, don't believe it. Just look into WTC7 for me, will you? That's all we need to focus on. Forget everything else."

  • April 14, 2006, 11:45 a.m. CST

    NEOcon.... how predictable!

    by AGE IIX

    I have explained my lack of grammar skills so many times... Maar we kunnen het ook in Nederlands doen als je dat wilt... Denk het niet want ik kan me niet voor stellen dat jij ooit de moeite zou doen om een andere taal te leren...

  • April 14, 2006, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Apology to AGE IIX

    by NeoCon

    Sorry my Dutch friend, I wasn't aware of your background.

  • April 14, 2006, 11:53 a.m. CST

    Typical, Kung Fu Hustler response.

    by AGE IIX

    I could have a go at the tiny hole where the plane (with wings and two 6 ton engines) flew in to. Why they had dumptrucks pour sand on the lawn within a few hours. Or why the wont show the plane flying into the building (the have the hotel, gasstation and highway Tapes) Or that engine that they found at the site is to small to have been part of the supposed plane. but I guess you won't go into all that.

  • April 14, 2006, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Gosh, I sure wish we could all just forget about 9/11

    by Halski

    "The events of 9/11 changed the course of our daily lives, yet you might not know it anymore." ----- Sorry, I'm not disputing this statement, but how exactly is it qualitatively different from saying, "The Smurfs changed the course of our daily lives, yet you might not know it anymore"? Frankly, I don't think it ever changed my daily life. It just hasn't. I get up in the morning, eat my breakfast, check under the bed for terrorists (OH, THAT'S HOW!), and I go to work. Maybe if that phrase, "9/11 changed everything" isn't used by Bush EVERY TIME he wants to cut benefits for the poor or invade another country, or avoid some important question from a journalist or citizen ... then I wouldn't be so irritated by this review. ----- "The fact that people wish to forget the events is one of the prime reasons the timing is right for this film." ----- Um, I also wish to forget the time I got punched in the face last week. Should I instead make a dramatized version? We've also forgotten the Haymarket Rebellion ... guess it's time for a reenactment, because it CHANGED OUR DAILY LIVES!!! No, if it's a good film, it's a good film. That's my criterium. All "too soon" (or "too late") means is that YOU the audience viewer needs to wait before you see it for personal emotional reasons. It has nothing to do with the merit or quality of the film. And if you want to say that "people want to forget" about 9/11 or anything, PLEASE offer one solid example of anyone (ANYONE!) saying, "9/11? Pssh, ancient history. Personally, I'm trying to forget."

  • April 14, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Kung Fu Hustler. Nice site I just took the time to

    by AGE IIX

    read the stuf on the WTC 7. Ok I believe that a corner was damaged, and that their was fire. But personaly it still doesn't explain why it would come down IN THAT WAY. (I'm going to forget the freefall time it came down in for a moment) Why did it not topple to one side if the corner was weakend, why if the fire was so hot to weaken steel from top to botom, why are the window not melting and letting us see the raging INFERNO. And why wasn't WTC7 mentioned in the 911 report? the site doen't explain these things... but I'm going to keep on reading.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:12 p.m. CST

    AGEIIX

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I knew it was only a matter of time until you chimed in here. How goes it my worthy opponent?

  • April 14, 2006, 12:27 p.m. CST

    I fine Gaius, thank you.

    by AGE IIX

    ok forget all the weird stuf like No planes and buildings coming down on their own... What do you guys say about the investigations they did (or actualy didn't do!) At the Lockerbie crash the took the time to drag up all the pieces from the sea and piece the thing back together again. they didn't do anything of the sort whit the remainders of the 4 planes... They didn't do anything with the WTC steel, except ship it to asia. I don't know the numbers but I've seen and read that the money that was spent investigating if clinton stuck a sigar in to his intern was ALLOT MORE THAN the investigation of 911 (I'm trying to find the numbers now) And you must admit that the 911 report isn't realy compleat.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Impossible to make a cell phone call from HOW high up?

    by Snuffles

    The "Loose Change" video doesn't mention the fact that the terrorists were flying LOW. And I just heard a local show that deals with phone and computers, which pointed out that when you are flying over an area, you actually can contact more than one cell phone tower at once, so it's quite possible to make phone calls. Not to mention that when the stewardess uses the in-flight phone, that's connected to a SATELLITE, so it doesn't need cell phone towers. Does "Loose Change" mention any of that? No, because it's a LYING bunch of crap.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST

    You can't piece together plane parts that aren't there

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    I'll let you interpret that in your own way...

  • April 14, 2006, 12:37 p.m. CST

    AgeIIX, How could they assemble the planes?

    by Snuffles

    The planes were basically melted by the fires they were imbedded in, then ground to pieces by the collapsing pancaking floors, then cooked at steel melting temperatures for a few months afterwards, AND the sites were contaminated by asbestos, making it incredibly dangerous to hang out investigating the crushed, mangled, melted debris. People investigate and piece together planes where they don't know the cause of the crash, in places where the debris isn't mingled with tons of steel and concrete to pick through, like in Lockerbie, where it was spread out over countryside. They already had an explanation, the terrorists, the phone calls, the fact that the planes flew into buildings, and people saw them flying into buildings. So not assembling the planes is a bogus reason to keep believing in the ridiculous.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Quote from a fireman on the scene at WTC7

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o

  • April 14, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Dr. David Ray Griffin

    by chains

    This man is a Professor of Theology who is currently writing his third book about 9/11. Please take the time to read this article. His approach is everything "Loose Change" is not. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

  • April 14, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST

    aaaaahh! but it is you that keep on showing me

    by AGE IIX

    pictures of plane parts on the lawn! they could do something with those pieces! and What about the steel of the building? and what about the incompleat 911 report (forgetting a whole building) and about the phonecalles! I can't even make one when I'm in a train half the time let allone in a plain and how high where they flying than snuffels?

  • April 14, 2006, 12:46 p.m. CST

    Plane composition

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    One item regarding the planes is that they are literally a tin can. Planes flying into solid objects (i.e. buildings, earth, immovable objects) are described as sausages being ejected from their skins. Basically, the kinetic energy and temperatures reached by the explosion (coupled with fuel)causes the plane to essentially liquify. The structure disinegrates into a shower of silver, liquid metal. This is something that was eyewitnessed by people within the building who saw the shiny, silver material rain down. One woman eyewitness in particular testified to this on a documentary on one of the cable network Discovery/A&E/History channels the other night.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Conspiracy!!!

    by NeoCon

    What is it the conspiracy theorists think really happened? And what would be the motivation?

  • April 14, 2006, 12:51 p.m. CST

    i'm a fan of ghoulish kicks!

    by reckni

    But I'll wait until video to realize them.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:52 p.m. CST

    The issue with the phonecalls

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    The people who don't believe the cellphone calls were made: who were the relatives of the victims talking to??? Are the familiy members part of the conspiracy? Were the victims chosen from a secret Government roster to have their voices monitored and copied, then trailed so that when all of them would be on the same plane at the same time the Government could finally use their phony, fabricated cellphone calls to the families???

  • April 14, 2006, 12:53 p.m. CST

    ok once again....

    by AGE IIX

    if the fire was so intense hot that it evaporated a plane (come on how stupid does that sound?) why is the lawn infront still nice and green and those pieces that were found are torn to shreds but have no scorch marks those tings don't add up... and why don't we ever see any photo's of the 93 crash site? o yeah that plane evaporated aswell, but that one didn't have a indisstructable fortres to crash into... so strage that their wasn't any pieces to be found.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Didn't "Loose Change" say 30,000 feet?

    by Snuffles

    And from what I heard they were flying a LOT lower than that, to try and avoid detection and interception. And I wouldn't trust "Loose Change" to get the facts right at the height at which cell phones stop working. And when you are on the ground, cell phones cut out because of buildings in the way. In the air, if you are flying low, you have a better chance of finding a cell tower because there are no buildings in the way. Thought the network may be confused because it tries to route your call through more than one cell tower at once.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:55 p.m. CST

    BUSH PLANT

    by CMDR. STRAKER

    The filmmakers can't know what really happened on that plane. It's shameless to fabricate a story and make money off of this tragedy. The reviewer demonstrates the problem of the American public - lack of critical thinking skills or understanding fact from fiction. It's all

  • April 14, 2006, 12:58 p.m. CST

    eat shit conspiracy theorists

    by blue7

    Especially you knobs who say that people didn't make calls from the plane. Whether it was the skyfone thingy in the back of the seat or a cell phone, people obviously received calls from the people on that flight. I suppose the tapes from the cockpit recorder are wholly faked, too. You douchebags who would dare to make an overwhelmingly horrible thing like 9/11 even more fucked by claiming it didn't even happen are totally fucked. Get back to your soapbar hash and autoerotically asphyxiate yourselves before you say anything even more stupid. Yeah, you're just that clever that you've sussed out that the whole thing was a fake. Brilliant.

  • April 14, 2006, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius you are funny

    by AGE IIX

    I realy enjoy the posts where you explain that modern day buildings and now planes arn't realy built that well and it is actualy logical that the come down for no reason (wtc7 that is) "One item regarding the planes is that they are literally a tin can" ahaha this cracks me up!

  • April 14, 2006, 1 p.m. CST

    Dr. David Ray Griffin

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Interesting read, but I noticed he makes the same mistake as Loose Change -- he ignores vital points that would challenge the foundation of his argument. He states it's absolutely possible for the government to keep this secret and not leak anything, but ignores the families who received phone calls from hijacked planes that day. Are these random families in on the coverup?

  • April 14, 2006, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Snuffles

    by AGE IIX

    "And I wouldn't trust "Loose Change" to get the facts right" "from what I heard they were flying a LOT lower than that" and who told you that... "In the air, if you are flying low, you have a better chance of finding a cell tower because there are no buildings in the way" wow you are realy smart,

  • April 14, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    AGE IIX

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    He never said planes aren't built that well. But if that's what you took from his post, then I have to ask myself why I bother...

  • April 14, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    "how stupid does that sound?"

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Look it up, AGEIIX! Why don't you try looking into some of the facts that get presented to you by other people instead of force-feeding it back with only your theory. Seriously, I think you would have to conduct and experiment where you fly a plane by remote control, turn it into a steep nosedive and crash it into ground of the same consistency as Flight 93. This way, you may be able to gauge whether or not a crash site like that could hold up to your kind of scrutiny. As for the lawn - are you talking about the Pentagon or Flight 93? If it's the Pentagon, how many times do I have to tell you that I know people who SAW the plane hit the building?

  • April 14, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Still nobody explained why 93 crash had no plane

    by AGE IIX

  • April 14, 2006, 1:08 p.m. CST

    OOPS!. wreckage?

    by AGE IIX

    ok so the pentagon plane evaporated because it hit the indestructable wall! But their aint no wall at the 93 crash site... so that would mean that their should be pieces (like you normaly have at plane crash sites) to be found.... never seen any and you never hear anything about them...how conviniant!

  • April 14, 2006, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Here's a pic of Airplane debris on the Pentagon Lawn.

    by Snuffles

    http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-flight77-lg.jpg ... how come that "Loose Change" lying ashole never shows that picture, only pictures from way up in the air? What, did he expect it to come apart like a plastic toy, lying in recognizable pieces?

  • April 14, 2006, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Flight 93 wreckage

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Funny, I just saw photos a couple of days ago, during the Moussaoui trial. There was some wreckage. It's amazing what they can do with Photoshop these days, I guess!

  • April 14, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    and I have seen plenty of pictures of planes crashing

    by AGE IIX

    even in to buildings (it happend in the 90s in Amsterdam and that looked ALLOT different than the pentagon crash) JET FUEL isn't some magical elixer that makes plane parts dissapear on impact...

  • April 14, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST

    What about the Satellite Skyphones, AgeIIX?

    by Snuffles

    Why doesn't Loose Change mention that the Skyphones don't use Cell Towers, they use Satellites? So it doesn't matter how high up they are. The "Loose Change" video just says "30,000 feet", not actually saying how high the planes were in the first place, and then scoffs at the Stewardess getting a call through, when she was likely using the Satellite Skyphone.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST

    SNUFFELS you are SAD

    by AGE IIX

    becaus that is ONE of the photo's loosechange911 shows! GO AND WATCH IT FOR ONCE!!! and that is for me the picture that shows NO FUCKING PLANE if the plane evaporated than why all the small pieces ? on the ground ?

  • April 14, 2006, 1:19 p.m. CST

    did all those people have access to a satalite phone?

    by AGE IIX

  • April 14, 2006, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Here's the thing, Kung Fu...

    by chains

    Dr. Griffin acknowledges that there are many facts that he cannot explain. His point is that there is such an enormous body of evidence that conflicts the official story, that there needs to be a truly independent investigation. Phillip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, has co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice and served in the first Bush Administration. That is a very big conflict of interest if there is any possibility this Bush Administration was involved. Skeptics don't understand the phone calls, and we don't know what actually happened to flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon. However, there is so much evidence of a coverup, we'd like to see an investigation headed by someone who didn't have ties to those being investigated.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:24 p.m. CST

    AgeIIX, most plane crashes are trying NOT to.

    by Snuffles

    So they don't crash as hard as when terrorists fly into buildings as fast as they can, on purpose. Even when planes crash on runways, NOT on purpose, they come apart pretty easily. What happens when they fly into buildings on purpose, at 400 miles an hour? Disintigration, into tiny pieces, that's what. Use your own brain, AgIIX. Look and think for yourself, stop letting the conspiracy assholes think for you.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    The Loose Change mentions the Skyphone.

    by Snuffles

    But doesn't mention that it uses Satellite, just pretends that it's a cell phone device, like the OTHER passengers were using. So 1. The Stewardesses could use the Skyphone which uses Satellites, no matter how high up, and the passengers could use cell phones, (though unreliably) because the terrorists were flying low to avoid radar and interception. Especially, they were flying low when they got in over Manhattan, because they were looking to crash into buildings. And the Twin towers aren't close to 30,000 feet high.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Snuffels... you are right

    by AGE IIX

    I am not going to let the onspiracy assholes think for me anymore! My god how wrong I have been... planes do evaporate when they are being crashed! Buildings do come down to fire (but why is it that my oven doens't collaps...ah who cares) The laws of gravity are a Joke! the 911 commision report is a fine piece of investigation. Thanks for opening my eyes to the TRUTH!

  • April 14, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST

    chains...

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Unfortunately, I don't think an "independent" investigation is possible. Those calling for one already believe the Bush Administration is at least partially responsible for that day, so you can't really start an impartial investigation from that point. Are there people involved in the Truth Movement that don't condemn Bush? I'd be more willing to listen to them than everyone screaming about Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's "obvious" involvement.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:38 p.m. CST

    AGE IIX

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Please, please, stop saying things like "Then how come my oven doesn't collapse?" They do nothing but make you look foolish and make it very hard for anybody to take you seriously.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:42 p.m. CST

    It's not worth it Kung Fu Hustler

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    You can't really debate ol' AGE. He doesn't attempt to answer or discuss any ideas presented to him. All he does is laugh people off and throw out a series of questions which he expects you to have no answer for. Therefore, the conspiracy remains unchallenged and he feels vindicated. Before too long, I'm sure he'll discover the "Nuclear Glow" theory... (FLAME ON!)

  • April 14, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Gaius

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    I'm waiting for the "Ozymandias" Theory. Do you really think it's a coincidence that Greengrass dropped out of that film to make this one?? Conspiracies everywhere!!!!

  • April 14, 2006, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Really, anchorite? "Patriot Day

    by Novaman5000

  • April 14, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    "Ozymandias Theory", huh?

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I'll have to look that one up!

  • April 14, 2006, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Really, Anchorite? "Patriot Day"? Need I remind you..

    by Novaman5000

    Of that ABSOLUTELY ABSURD idea that your republican friends had about changing the name of french fries to "freedom fries" because France didn't want to go to war? That was a fucking embarassment to this entire county.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:55 p.m. CST

    This dude sounds like a plant.

    by Billy_Batts

    And AGEIIX, you are an idiot.

  • April 14, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST

    I'm a liberal and even I wouldn't call...

    by Novaman5000

    "Farenheit 9/11" a "documentary". It was a chance to get some facts out there that people might not have been aware of, and had it been more objective, it could have been really effective. Instead it turned out manipuative and reeks of missed opportunities.

  • April 14, 2006, 2 p.m. CST

    Cashing In

    by blackwood

    Like we all do every time there is an opportunity to spout our own opinions on 9/11, terrorism, the aftermath and war. Like to have an opinion is remarkable, to defend it is noble, to kill for it/die for it is the great good. And we tear at each other's throats; and we rail against plurality; and we do our damnest to eliminate any trace of common ground between us. We do not listen. We do not grow. We do not care but for our own voices, heard, in the hopes that we will be hailed as Right; and we silence the fear than no one ever is. On and on.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:01 p.m. CST

    And in addition to the ridiculous name changes you...

    by Novaman5000

    and your rep friends endorse, I must agree with whoever said it up there that it's not the liberals who are up in arms about this film. It's the conservatives, and it's typical.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST

    "Why doesn't my Oven Collapse"

    by Snuffles

    Because it doesn't get HOT enough, idiot. I just saw a local report about a new tool local fire departments are using to fight fires, a blanket they hang over open windows on windy days, to prevent wind from superheating the fires, which can cause the steel in the building to melt and cause collapse. This was the fire department talking about normal apartment fires, not huge skyscrapers, in which everything was set on fire at once by a fuel explosion. Real fires get hot enough to melt steel, you jackass, which you would know if you did research on real fires, instead of just believing what lying conspiracy morons MAKE UP.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Oh man

    by gopherkhan

    Terribly written review. Next time put down the thesaurus and double check that your sentences make sense.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:11 p.m. CST

    There is a difference between...

    by Novaman5000

    holding something sacred and making something completely off-limits for any sort of media representation. What is this, Muhammed? 9/11 was a tragedy, but we can't pretend like it's the only bad thing that's ever happened, and we also can't pretend like it's somehow more important than alot of other tragedies that have happened throughout history and the world.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Kung Fu...

    by chains

    Those of us in the Truth Movement who are educated and rational refrain from drawing conclusions based on limited evidence. However, if Bush was involved, you can be sure that he would not appoint a team that would investigate leads pointing to his administration. Our hope is that, if enough people are made aware of the vast number of inconsistencies in the accepted story, they will demand an independent investigation. When I read all these posts of people ridiculing anyone who questions the truth about 9/11, it is really unsettling. It means that many people have already made up their minds without looking at the evidence. Keep an open mind. There are evil people in every country's government. Ours is no different.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:48 p.m. CST

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

    by HypeEndsHere

    i don't know why people focus on WTC7 so much when the report barely mentions the other buildings. the commission focuses on the causes and suggestions in the aftermath. suggestions which have been wholely ignored.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Novaman

    by moondoggy2u

    I dont think anyone is calling Moore's movie a documentary (at least, the factual kind). Personally, I'd call it a propaganda piece for certain liberals, but thats another debate. Now, novaman, I'm not saying, and I dont think anyone else is, that 9/11 is off limits to media representation (whatever that means). I'm simply saying that there are such ideals as respect and decency. Like Neocon, you wish to turn this into a left/right debate (as though conservatives or liberals act as one mind concerning every single event). My wife is a democrat and I am a republican yet we both agree that this movie's timing seems disrespectful and unnecessary. Gadzooks, novaman and neocon, the world just split open! A democrat and republican agree on decency and respect! This is why idealogues who see everything in republican/democrat, liberal/conservative terms cant seem to understand that there are ultimately higher, more base things in life. That is why I made the remark that the ideals of respect, restraint, and patience usually mean that both democrats and republicans come at you, each one convinced you are a member of the opposing partyBut hey, dont let that stop you guys from flaming about the liberal commie bastard or the conservative nazi asshole debate.

  • April 14, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Chains

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    No one is disagreeing with you on that point. We all want to know "The Truth". But is it the truth as you, me, he, or she want to hear it? There is a level of paranoia that drives certain people to look for things that simply are not there. I realize how tempting this can be for either side and I'm sure you and many others can, too. Inconsistencies do not necessarily mean lies and, therefore, cover-ups. Perhaps the evidence just isn't there from the perspective that it's being viewed from. Forensically, a lot of questions still have to be raised. But along with that quesioning, a caveat must remain that "conspiracy theories" are open to scrutiny as well. And if it's an independent investigation you want for 9/11, fear not! The government of Venuzuela is going to do just that. Awful nice of them.

  • April 14, 2006, 3 p.m. CST

    NovaMan, what if the "Truth Movement" is designed ....

    by Snuffles

    ... to make critics of Bush look ridiculous? Perhaps those conspiracy theories are planted by the CIA, so that anyone who dislikes Bush, and starts repeating those theories will be laughed at. I've already seen that "Loose Change" idiot on Air America, invited on by that airhead Janean Garofalo (thank god for Sam Seder who took the idiot's theories apart). People ought to be focusing on the true crimes of the Bush administration, not making up silly shit that make the critics look like ignorant buffoons. It hurts the "Truth" movement by filling it with lies.

  • April 14, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Conspiricy, Profit only, etc. Give me a break...

    by moto

    God this talkback just got totally dumbed down with this conspiricy bullshit. You guys watch too much TV. You get sucked into these websites and quasi "fact oriented" books that are really just trying ot turn a profit themselves. You can take ANY frickin event in the history of mankind and spin it this way and that. As far as movies just existing to make profit? I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Sure, the movie industry is a profit driven business... you are no genius pointing that out. However, there are many filmmakers that plainly just have to play the game and work the system in order for them to get their artistic expression/viewpoints/reflections out. Saying that movies are just for profit only is such a HUGE generalism. Then you have to say that the musicians, artists, etc. are in it for nothing more than money. No... they too have to work through the system. But that doesn't mean that their projects don't have meaning, emotion, etc. It doesn't mean that the sole intention was to make money. It's a factor yes, but don't generalise this shit so much and stand on your false podium condeming other people's work when you haven't even seen the frickin' movie, and you no virtually nothing about what went into it, in regards to the filmmakers... not the execs, the filmmakers. Spielberg didn't make Munich to make a huge profit. He made it because it was something he was passionate about and wanted to tell the story. Same goes for his Schindler's List. And yes, same goes for a film like this.

  • April 14, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    conspiracy theories

    by moondoggy2u

    The problem I have with conspiracy theories, the major problem, really, is that they dont allow for coincidences, accidents, or luck. As everyone above the age of 30 can attest, life is full of random events. Nothing is airtight. Not ever. But conspiracy theorests cant accept coincidences, everything must have a purpose; there are no accidents. I'm sorry, but life just isnt that neat. I think thats the main reason why I never even attempt to reason with CT; its impossible to debate with someone who's positions are based on circular reasoning. Speaking of conspiracy theories, why is this site going down the toilet fast?

  • April 14, 2006, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Cons and Libs...

    by moto

    By the way... it is spelled conspiracy... oops. Anyway, as far as this Cons vs. Libs shit. Why can't people think for themselves? Why the labels? Why the seperation? Problem with this country is that we have that division. Cons will vote for republicans. Libs for Democrats. What a waste. My dad is a republican, and I often make jokes about Bush, and I know that he knows that Bush is just a terrible leader,diplomat, and public speaker. But he's a staunch republican, so he votes for him, side with his viewpoints/policies, and disregard anything having to do with a democrat. Ridiculous. Republicans even think that this whole "green house effect" is some liberal movement. Give me a break. This seperation is turning our country blind. You can't tell me that every Con agrees with each and every Con/Repub policy. But the fear of swaying from your party causes things like the Iraq War. Politics... you just can't win. If only a candidate would have the balls to step up and address this... but it won't happen until the government enacts a same budget program for any presidential candidate. Force each candidate to only have a certain equal amount of budget to campaign with and you will see changes. I'm no lib. I'm no con. I'm no Repub. I'm no Dem. I'm a frickin' American. Okay, that was really a tangent. Better than this conspiracy bullshit going on here, with guys talking like they understand the physics of aerodynamics, explosions, metal, etc.

  • April 14, 2006, 4:08 p.m. CST

    moto

    by mocky_puppet

    okay, then why don't you just vote for the "American" candidate since you're just an American. Or the one from the "Good People" party. The point is that you have view on how the country should be, so you have to choose the candidate closest to your philosophy. "Closest" may still be pretty far, but that's the two-party system we all know and love. So lay off your dad. He's between Scylla and a hard place.

  • April 14, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by chains

    Since by definition a conspiracy is a crime involving two or more people, and a theory is an idea as to what happened, the official version must also be viewed as a conspiracy theory. The question is: which conspiracy theory stands up to the evidence? Their conspiracy theory is that these 19 arab hijackers were able to defeat our trillion dollar defense system without any outside help. Other theories include the hijackers, while also including those within the US government who have imperialistic goals. As for the question of paranoid individuals who *want* to believe in conspiracy theories, they are indeed out there, but they do not comprise the heart of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Please look into the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization including many well-respected physicists, structural engineers and academics who have taken the time to study the available evidence while we have been perusing AICN talkbacks. You'll see that all the skeptics cannot fit conveniently under the label of paranoid conspiacy theorists.

  • April 14, 2006, 5:39 p.m. CST

    I was watching tv when 911 happened

    by Ridge

    And I remember watching this on the tv as well, hearing about it. And I swear on my own son that they said on Television, that a fighter jet had shot down this plane. The next day when I turned on the television, they were talking about the heroic uprising of the passengers that had led to them crashing the plane? Now, I am NOT in ANY way demeaning the memories of these people, I don't doubt they did rise up against their attackers, however, I also remember, and I know this for fact, a declaration that Flight 93 had been shot down by a US Fighter jet. I'm guessing personally that the passengers managed to wrest back control of the plane but at a point that was too late and were probably taken out by the jet. Like I said, I'm not demeaning them, I'm just sick of a media propoganda machine that spews out cover stories to cover up their own fuckups.

  • April 14, 2006, 5:40 p.m. CST

    People who believe 9/11 was an inside job

    by chains

    Do a Google search if you'd like to check for yourself. Steven Jones, physics professor at Brigham Young University; Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst during the Reagan and Bush 41 regimes; Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant of the Treasury in the Reagan administration; Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the US Department of Labor under George W. Bush; Andreas Von Buelow, former German Defense Minister; Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF(ret), flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, currently running for Congress in Florida. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. I suppose that some of you will say that all of these men are paranoid conspiracy theorists. For the rest of you, look into what these men have said about 9/11.

  • April 14, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST

    It's too soon to have films about King Arthur

    by ElPaw

  • April 14, 2006, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Moondoggy-

    by Novaman5000

    The usage of the term "documentary" (as relating to Farenheit 9/11) I was referring to was in the article itself, not the talkback. He actually DID call it a documentary.

  • April 14, 2006, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Also, I am 100% for the questioning of our government..

    by Novaman5000

    I don't think it's smart to just ACCEPT what the government says happened when there are inconsistencies present, however there is also a point when the theories get so outlandish that you just have to say, ok enough. I'm not for the conspiracies, though they do make for an interesting read. And snuffles, i think you might be mixing me up with Mr. Nice, as I don't remember saying anything about the "truth movement".

  • April 14, 2006, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Good review

    by 900LBGorilla

    Well I haven't read the talkbacks yet....so have yet to be disgusted....thus in a vacuum- I say what an excellent review. I hate Paul Greengrass who I think flat out sucks, and I am pretty conflicted about Hollywood -the home of the patronizing and exploitive bringing this story this soon...but I tell you, this review has made me think again. Maybe this is the type of project that fits Greengrass's style... given that he seems to treat the material with respect and reality...and in that context I think Flint made a few great points about how maybe we NEED to rememeber MORE than we have-not less.... and certainly to see a realistic portrayal of what the Terrorists actions would be like when viewed rather than via a sanitized news report, or some theoretical ivory tower college discussion that misses the reality of the evil and horror the acts of a terrorist represent. In a day some cluless media whores label people who purposely target women, babies, and the innocent "freedom fighters" and the like, and when many in this country seem to do their damndest to view thier home through shit colored glasses... maybe more of visual of these acts- both the evil, and the noble... is warranted. I will probably now watch the film- something I had certainly not planned on doing as late as 20 minutes ago.... Well done review Derek.

  • April 14, 2006, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Novaman

    by moondoggy2u

    Oh--sorry about that, then. I thought you were talking about me cause your message was a few posts down the line. i appologize.

  • April 14, 2006, 6:40 p.m. CST

    gorilla

    by moondoggy2u

    I understand and share much of your frustration, Gorilla. However, I dont think this film has a chance in hell of convincing anyone of anything. Hell, you've already heard the more liberal minded among us dismiss the subject material as jingoistic. See, gorilla, its not that anyone has forgotten, its that people are such idealogues (on both sides) that they will only see, read, hear, what they want to. Besides, the very first retort that people would have, on either side of the fence, concerning this movie, would be to say that this movie is purely suppositional. And would they be wrong?

  • April 14, 2006, 7:18 p.m. CST

    blah blah blah blah

    by zikade zarathos

    Greengrass has been saying that he's made this movie so that people "don't forget," like that's even REMOTELY possible. I don't think it's ever 'too soon' to do something like this, my objection is what I believe the motives are. Advertisements, trailers, fucking Flash-web sites with Enya-rip-off music all inherently don't carry the respect I think Greengrass is trying to convince us all he has for the subject matter. I've seen the trailer a bunch of times now with audiences, and NEVER has anyone responded positively. I'm with the crowd on this one.

  • April 14, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST

    I already see the outcome

    by WolfmanNards

    This movie is going to make as much money as the support the troops car magnets did. Because all of the same suckers are gonna go see it.

  • April 14, 2006, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Paul Greengrass isn't going to make it to the premiere

    by WolfmanNards

    Because his dick is lodged behind my shoulder blade. Somebody get the butter!

  • April 14, 2006, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Thanks Derek...

    by blessedsloth

    I'm sending this review to all of my friends who have said "too soon" to this movie. It's not too soon, in fact, it's TOO LATE!!! Look where we are as a nation, half a decade later, we've made no progress towards the dreams of efficient and effective homeland security we talkd of after 9/11; look at the Katrina response... anyone think it would have been any different if it were a terrorist attack?!? People HAVE to be reminded of what that day was like and your favorite 24 hour news channel (cnn, fox, etc) isn't going to the do the job and neither is George "Freedom Fries" Bush. We NEED a powerful telling of this story in the national consciousness. And if even some of the families of the people who died on that flight can stand to sit through this film, nobody else has a valid excuse to miss it. Fear and anger are the first two steps down the path towards the dark side my fellow geeks... don't be afraid of this film, don't be angry at those who made it... give it a chance... it sounds like it's going to be good for all of us. (ok... ranting preachy tirade over... resume party).

  • April 14, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Ridge

    by pdiddy

    Honestly not meaning any offense here but with all of the bullshit I've seen on this talkback and others like it, you last post is the most ridiculous I've seen. I remember them saying that there were REPORTS that it was shot down. The also were quoting numbers like 10000 dead too. It's because the news media has a hard on for being FIRST rather than RIGHT. Lots of chaos that day and a lot of bad info put out because of a lack of professionalism and editorial standards, not because of any conspiracy bullshit. Here are some examples from days that weren't as fucked up as 9/11. The media had no problem screwing them up as well: DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN, Dan Rather citing "confirmed" reports that Reagan was dead and that Iraq had attacked Israel with chemical weapons in the first Gulf War. Just three that came to mind. This says more about a world where the vast majority of people are shitty at their jobs than some grand conspiracy. Speaking of which (general observation not directed at you), if no plane actually hit the Pentagon, where are all of the people? Witness protection? If Ted Olsen allowed his wife to be carried off, don't you think he'd have held out to be Attorney General or a Supreme Court Justice? The beauty of being a whack job is that reality never has to enter into your argument. Instead of taking part in conspiracy nonsense, pick up some trash off of the sidewalk or hold a door open for an old person...you'll make yourself a much more happy and productive person and be more fun at parties to boot.

  • April 14, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST

    yes, there were reports on 9/11 of a plane shooting

    by HypeEndsHere

    down a plane. but there were tons of conflicting reports that morning. at one point there were reports of 8 missing planes. everyone in the press AND the gov't were caught with their pants down. i'm confused as to why you don't accept the truth as the facts settle into place.

  • April 14, 2006, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Freedom Fries

    by pdiddy

    Oh, and while that was a childish and ridiculous reaction, it can't come as a surprise to anyone that Congressman are WHORES and will say anything that will get them money or votes. That, and that France is a parody of a country and getting worse and is worthy of any scorn and ridicule that comes its way. They just lost the last best hope to save their economy to a bunch of 23 year olds who are to afraid to compete in the workforce. Doesn't bode well. As far as the current war goes, principled opposition is one thing but it's hard to hold onto that when it comes out that everyone in their government is raking in dough from Iraqi oil vouchers.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:17 p.m. CST

    9/11

    by Batman_9

    its time to let this go. on 9/11/01, Osama Bin Laden, the self-rightous coward that he is, successfully carried out one of his many plans to send the USA into economic disarray. its really that simple. there is no conspiracy. there is no cover up. we failed to protect ourselves and we got sucker-punched. end of story. as for UNITED 93, it is to damn soon. no one who loves this country and wept over the events and the loss of that day will pay to see this hollywood crap. you want to help the family, send money to their families through the damn donation website. don't line the studio's pockets. fuck hollywood, wait 20 years and make your money off this shit.

  • April 14, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST

    vote LIBERTARIAN

    by frank cotton

  • April 14, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST

    to finish what i was saying

    by frank cotton

    or admit you are part of the problem.

  • April 14, 2006, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Chains WAKE UP!

    by DoctorWho?

    You marvel at how "...that these 19 arab hijackers were able to defeat our trillion dollar defense system with no outside help.". COME ON! Do you think the U.S...even with all it's high tech advantages...is OMNIPOTENT! Just 19 regular looking guys catching a plane armed with box cutters is almost IMPOSSIBLE to detect! IT'S LOW TECH for a reason! It was so SIMPLE! These guys will never have a chance like that again! It was a sucker punch and it worked brilliantly. Cut and dried. But you want to involve elaborate time tables, dozens of sadisdic co- conspirators... from the President on down... all orchestrating what was about to happen. Now THAT is ludicrous. Did Laura bush and the kids know too??

  • April 14, 2006, 10:28 p.m. CST

    hey anchortite

    by decfx

    Fucktard

  • April 14, 2006, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Doctor who

    by moondoggy2u

    I used to be in the military (army, to be exact), and I can honestly attest that you just stated the reason so many intelligent people fail as military strategists. The first rule in warfare is keep it simple, stupid. The fact is, most people overcomplicate things. Take the events of 9/11, for example. Everyone wanted to turn airport security into government employees. The problem is, the security members were doing their jobs in the first place. They were already following Federal guidelines! All the government had to do was change the guidelines and call it a day. But no, we had to complicate it by turning them into federal agents. Another issue is concerning this dirty bomb/nuke business. Everyone is so scared and worried that someone will cross our border with a bomb and set it off. The sad thing is, and most people dont seem to realize it, is that this is totally unnecessary. All a person has to do is enter the country and get all the materials you need from the US itself. You doubt it? I know what you all are thinking, "But gosh, moondoggy, thats too simple. Why, if it were that easy, people would have already done it years ago!" The answer is easy: people have tried, and occasionally succeeded, in getting ordinance and biological material. There is a reason why the feds wiretap the international calls and strive to beef up our ordinance security: cause its much easier to grab the stuff than advertised. It never ceases to amaze me how many people always believe in the infallibility of government (whether democrat or republican). The fact is, the system is a beauracratic mess. Let me put it to you guys like this: most of you are pretty smart guys, right? Well, what makes you think our elected officials (and certain commanding officers I've known) are any smarter or wiser? Sleep tight, ladies and gentleman!

  • April 14, 2006, 11:19 p.m. CST

    The only thing thats in our favor

    by moondoggy2u

    is that the terrorists are brown people. Honestly, if they were white guys (like in Chechnya), we would have an even bigger problem.

  • April 15, 2006, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Moondoggy

    by 900LBGorilla

    You have a point about ideologues, though I would normally say these extremists are never malleable, and thus they are irrelevant...one cannot convince someone who is either too entrenched or too stupid to distinguish valid points from invalid points or seeks every pock mark and irrelevant question which surrounds every complex situation in life. Despite this, The reason I think you have a point is that we seem to have a higher percentage of ideologues in our society than we once did... (on a sidenote- funny thing is, I no doubt on the surface come off as one... as you will see from my next post ...but am far from it.). In any event, what the movie likely will do (assuming the review is correct) is put a brutal visual out- and those who are not ideologues will be effected by the sight of these acts in a way not possible by a mere decription of the events. We have all become quite used to descritions, but seeing /experiencing something is an entiely different thing than knowing via theory or description that it exists (Hence the cluelessness of many professors who live in theoretical worlds as they don't have to make it in the real one, and who also mostly compete in the arena of ideas with relatively ignorant kids). On your last point, the film will obvioulsy have quite a bit of obvious supposition, but I argue that the main theme of the film is not supposition -it is history. Does this mean there are no questions of certain details? Of course not. Does this mean the History is 100% withuot a doubt true? Again, Of course not... there is a small chance that wacky conspiracy theorists have pulled the broken clock theory...but then again all history has this issue, and indeed so do even the hard sciences as well etablished scientific theories are also disproven fom time to time...the lesson here is, one has to approach all subjects the same way- base your opinion on the strongest and best correlated set of facts, have a healthy skepiticism for everything -especially those issus with weaker evidence, and go foreward with your opinion based on same. (note "healthy" herein is NOT defined by anything approaching what is generally seen on the far left, which is an insane skepticism founded in an unwavering contrarian attitude toward any bad situation which happens at the same time a guy with an "R" after his name is in power- andthe lengths to whih they go to make themselves feel good about this make them a huge source of humor to those who pay attention).

  • April 15, 2006, 12:43 a.m. CST

    For some, it will always be too soon.

    by Ktak

    I have to say that I really want to see United 93, but my wife refuses to because it strikes too close to home for her. She was a New York-based United flight attendant who was working a trip to South America when the event of 9/11 happened. In fact, until the news reports actually identified the flights, I didn't know if she was alive or dead. Believe me, those were the longest hours of my life. When all the flights were grounded, she ended up having to spend several days in South America before she could come home. For her, there will never be a good time to see a film like United 93. While I respect the opinions of others who think that it's too early to do films based on 9/11 events because all the evidence may not be in, I disagree in the case of flight 93. Because of the nature of the crash, conversations with victims families and flight recordings are probably the only evidence we'll ever have to work with. There's little in the way of physical evidence that could shed more light on the subject, so historians, writers and film makers will aways have to rely on conjecture. As long as they don't try to represent their work as anything more than that, I don't have a problem.

  • April 15, 2006, 2:03 a.m. CST

    Uh Oh

    by 900LBGorilla

    Now I have read further and am a bit disgusted, Liberals lecturing Shamrock about conservatives "Forgetting history" you GOTTA be shitting me. Liberals seem to avidly avoid LEARNING history in the first place, and you guys are talking about "forgetting" it? Go study the debate bewteen Chaberlain and Chuchill (the results of which make Gore and Kerry's stances on dictators seem downright ignorant); the history (and results) of Communism Vs Capitalism, and actually read the Consitution & Declaration of Independence....an understanding of these 3 issues alone will tend to make one conservative (As defined in US terms). I'm sorry, but really.... (As a sidenote, Bush is only 1/2 a conservative, so yeah much of what he does is crap...). And while you guys keep whining about "Citizen Rights" being taken away by evil republicans such as (for example) my recent inability to call Terrorist operatives on a secure line from the sanctity of my home without government interference (what a bastard Bush is!), maybe you should take off your blindfolds and turn your white hot hatred for stolen civil rights towards an actual area of theft exists...ohhhh say perhaps towards the Liberal Socialists on the Supreme court who recenty ruled that you don't even own your own PROPERTY if the government decides to steal it for some other private citizen (or corporte campain contributor) because they feel like it. Back to the posts that inspired this rant....though I actually agree with Industrykiller's comment that those complaining "too soon" and "Liberals" probably have no direct correlation whatsoever, I think perhaps he should direct his free speech killing angst where it belongs in THIS century- against the hard left who seem to think shouting down and drowning out the opinions of those you disagree with somehow exists on the same plane as free speech and intelligent debate.

  • April 15, 2006, 3:44 a.m. CST

    Sounds like it's made tastefully...

    by Kampbell-Kid

    Unlike other films based on real life tragedy with a fictional love story and music ballad tossed in for good measure. >.>

  • April 15, 2006, 5:01 a.m. CST

    I reckon we should all call the MYTHBUSTERS

    by BendersShinyAss

    Those two fuckers will put an end to the debate. They set a building on fire and see if the metal melts, and the building collapses. they'll do it again regardless of the results. and they'll repeat it every week on TV. My over collapsed one time. but it was turned off. when it was turned on it smelled like cat piss.

  • April 15, 2006, 5:08 a.m. CST

    By 'over' i was speaking of my 'oven'

    by BendersShinyAss

    you can make the nessessary ajustments.

  • April 15, 2006, 7:08 a.m. CST

    What's this "9/11" everyone keeps bringing up?

    by jrcash

    A long-distance calling plan? All I know is, a witness from pennsylvania called into Howard Stern that morning and said he saw two fighters shoot the plane down. This review doesn't mention if that is portrayed. This better not be propaganda for the government.

  • April 15, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    DoctorWho...

    by Fearsme

    No, i'm a cynic, in the classical sense. i believe that something like United 93 was created solely for the purpose of profit, as all moves are. Universal thinks they can make a buck. it's the only reason this film was made. so what paul greengrass did for the movie, by making some calls and checking on wardrobe is rather irrelevant. he's working for a studio trying to make a profit. everything else is semantics.

  • April 15, 2006, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Too soon?

    by Immortal_Fish

    Too soon to cash in on what will surely be more speculation, perhaps. A portrayal of terrorists that are "quite frightened themselves?" Yeah, I'll buy into that only if they also devote some footage to Atta and the boys having a night out on the town just before their mission. But too soon in general? I think every nightly news broadcast should open with footage of the buildings. Each and every night, serving as a reminder that we should avoid blind, partisan vitriol and try to stand united against a common enemy that stands united against us.

  • April 15, 2006, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Buy what you're sold.

    by jalfredprufrock

  • April 15, 2006, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Charlie Sheen is smarter than all you idiots

    by Bari Umenema

    http://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/150406defiantsheen.htm http://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/150406sheentv.htm

  • April 15, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Hi there, Bari Umenema, or should I say Age IIX !

    by Snuffles

    You frigging jackass.

  • April 15, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Seriously, folks...

    by jalfredprufrock

    Can we get over this liberal vs. conservative thing sometime in the next decade or so? It's getting ridiculous.

  • April 15, 2006, 3:44 p.m. CST

    It's too soon to have films about the Crucifixion...

    by newc0253

    i can't believe this many AICN talkbackers are conspiracy nutjobs. perhaps it's a conspiracy? also, United 93 looks like a good movie but the reviewer was so far up his own ass, it was painful to read: e.g. the passengers "made better decisions than washington buereuacrats"? as far as i can tell, buddy, United 93 crashed with everyone on board. perhaps they were heroes, but it's hard to hold up United 93 as an instance of superior decision-making. are we somehow meant to believe that the planes that hit the pentagon and the WTC did so "because of washington buereaucrats"? i've read some pretty whackjob stuff on this talkback so far but we seem to be overlooking the fact that the reviewer is a bit of a loon hisself.

  • April 15, 2006, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Fearsme

    by DoctorWho?

    I respect your honesty. But keep in mind... directors are creative animals. They usually take on projects (if they're lucky enough to be able to select)that they have some INTEREST, PASSION or BELIEF in. It's not like a plummer or grocery store mngr who goes through the same drudgery every day...you know unrewarding work with very little, if no creativity involved whatsoever...just to cash a weekly paycheck. Question: Is Greengrass completely ambivalent and neutral about 9?11? No one is!His "Directors Statement" on the Movie website states that he has very deep views on this story. All I'm saying is: Don't write him off as a cold automaton with nothing but dollar signs in his eyes and no opinion or spirit invested in the material he's working on. Of course money has everything to do with it also. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE...that is, both artistic AND monetary motivations CAN and DO exist in the business of art (film, music etc.)and we still get entertainment out there do we not. I think most talkbackers would agree. These are very creative, passionate people...alot of them who frequent this very site...who are motivated by artistry AND want to get paid for there efforts. Take away the creative aspect and you might as well just bag groceries.

  • April 15, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Loose Change idiot

    by mascan

    Corey, the guy that made Loose Change did a radio interview last week. He claimed that WTC7 was brought down by demolition explosives that someone had somehow managed to plant in the building while nobody working in the building noticed. An NYPD officer that was on the scene on 9/11 called in to say that the building had been hit by debris from the falling towers and was leaning to its side for hours before it fell. Corey said that this person who had actually been there and seen it was wrong and he was right. After being torn apart for half a hour, Corey actually accused the radio hosts of being affiliated with the Republican party, and thus in on the conspiracy. This tells you all you need to know about this guy and his film.

  • April 15, 2006, 5:06 p.m. CST

    this review's.....

    by thebearovingian

    versimilitude is beyond all others ever posted on AICN and dost rawk my world. It's vigorous, vehement, and vast vaginal vivaciousness veers me toward this vapid controversial vehicle. I want to see it but I'm hesitant and also don't want to see it. I am thebearovingian and I wrote this post in 2 minutes w/o a dictionary or a thesaurus or a reason to live.

  • April 15, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Scary Movie 4

    by Titus05

    saw Scary Movie 4 last night...there's a War of the Worlds re-enactment scene right before the alien tripods emerge...as all the electricity has been turned off and people are wandering around on the streets...a middle eastern terrorist jumps out of a van and screams "Death to America" and presses his bomb ignition trigger...after a few seconds he realizes that it's not working cuz of the electric outage and says "Oh shitte"...right then about a dozen white guys jump him and beat his ass down...funny scene

  • April 15, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST

    You guys are actually arguing with mental patients?

    by JUSTICE41

    Here's a test for you reality adverse morons, Did planes hit the Twin Towers? Yes or no. Did a Valujet plane slam into the marsh in Florida leaving not much debris? Did a Plane slam into a neighborhood in New york New Jersey after 9-11 killing all on board? Hold up your hand and tell me what your looking at. I love how it's always people far far away from where things happen that formulate these wacked out ideas. Ignore these idiots because we all know anything can be made to look like anything especially when you have time to screw around with video and find wacko's who'll go along with your wacky ideas. Now take the tinfoil hats off kiddies and stagger back to the padded rooms everything will be all right your dosage is just low is all.

  • April 15, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Near the end of the movie

    by still_RuSTeD

    who wants to bet that there will be some concerned air traffic controller looking at the radar, and suddenly the airplane blip disappears (the plane crashed) but the atc dude still keeps looking at the screen in shock/disbelieve?? DRAMA! In all seriousness, whatever the fuck happened to that anthrax-letters-in-the-mail episode which was touted as the next big terrorist thingy? Oh did they found out the guy who was doing it unfortunately was not arab but a jew?? I'd pay $100 to watch a movie made on that

  • April 15, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST

    I worked on the movie for a couple of days...

    by JimboLo

    It was based at Pinewood and the main thing I remember about it (it was a pretty dull two days) is seeing Greengrass dancing around like a five-year old that's eaten too many skittles, as he watching the "action" back on his video monitor. Quite a sad thing to see.

  • April 15, 2006, 10:19 p.m. CST

    You know a conspiracy theory is officially a joke when:

    by Flim Springfield

    Charlie Sheen is it's spokesman.

  • April 15, 2006, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Sheen/Kimmel & Coke...where does the merry-go-round go?

    by 900LBGorilla

    Well I watched the Sheen video (and listened to his unedited radio conversation a month or two ago), and here

  • April 15, 2006, 11:13 p.m. CST

    There's No Coverup Of 9/11?

    by pockybot

    ...and I guess Bush and the CIA told us the truth about why they went into Iraq. Why is it so hard for the average liberal or Bush lover to accept the fact we were lied to about 9/11, and there is indeed a coverup. People think it's just a tinfoil hat fringe group believing we have not been told the full truth... that's funny, because it was the 9/11 families themselves who started asking questions. Recently David Lynch, my favorite director has been openly questioning the official events of 9/11. Charlie Sheen aint the only one. Forget the Tower and Pentagon theory stuff. The fact is the FBI was told to back off from al Qaeda, even as the CIA was following the 19 hijackers. They knew, and they covered up Pakistan's financial role in it. All Michael Moore did was let Bush and the neocons off the hook. One big 'whoopsy'. Of course a lot of the theories are FAKE. Flight 77 hit the pentagon, brave passengers had a hand in Flight 93's demise, etc. I aint gonna argue with that. But this whole 'we were caught off guard/incompetence' excuse is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

  • April 15, 2006, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Right

    by Dark Knight Lite

    Anyone who thinks that 9/11 was a US conspiracy is a fool. I teach at a university in VA and one of my students attended EIGHT funerals of family and friends killed at the Pentagon, one of which was her Godfather. I saw firsthand her grief and anger, and it sickens me to read the disinformation spewed forth by useful idiots. Also, my Wife's Uncle perished that day at WTC, a firefighter killed in the line of duty. The enimies of freedom are laughing as we lull ourselves back into complacency. What will it take for us to truly unite against this enemy? The distruction of Israel at the hands of a nuclear Iran? Or the total destruction of an American city? World War 3 has begun, and you don't even realize it. 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor, and we better get serious, or it will be over for the US, and the rest of the free world. This country is not perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than what passes for civilization in the minds of our enemy. Does your girlfriend wear a veil in public? Are your gay friends in mass graves? Are you persecuted for your religious beliefs if they go against the ruling class? That's what's in store for the survivors if the enemy wins the day. Now you can go back to your Xbox.

  • April 15, 2006, 11:23 p.m. CST

    When Did Questioning Become Unpatriotic?

    by pockybot

    A big FUCK YOU to anyone who ridicules people for merely asking questions. Both liberals and conservatives seem so quick to clal someone a tinfoil hat wearing commie or terrorist or unpatriotic for merely questioning the official account of 9/11. What would happen if Monday's headline news was top millitary officials coming forward with unrefutable proof there was direct US complicity in 9/11? Would everyone still bury their head in the sand? I said Bush lied about Iraq in 2002/2003, and I was called a paranoid schizophrenic. Oh! Oh, but now these same liberals all agree Iraq was a lie. Trust me, it will only be a few years before people start waking up to the fact 9/11 was not exactly what we were told. But hey, continue to give up your civil liberties so Chimperor Bush and Lord Cheney can keep us safe from the Islamo boogeymen. Meanwhile, ask yourself if Osama was the only one who stood to gain? The full truth behind 9/11 *WILL* come out, and unfortunately it might be a little too soul crushing for people to accept. Til then the neocon criminal thugs in power and their oil partner countries and companies will do everything they can to make sure the truth never comes out. Bravo Charlie Sheen...and while I dont fully accept the 'inside job' theory, its the duty of everyone to do their oqn investigations of 9/11 and start asking questions.

  • April 15, 2006, 11:33 p.m. CST

    The 9/11 Victims and Families

    by pockybot

    Does the Bush regime really give a shit about the survivors and families of 9/11? Bush did all he could to stall an investigation for over a year, and made sure the 9/11 families questions were not answered. This isnt a 'conspiracy movement' started by fringe idiots...the 9/11 movement was STARTED by the victims families and survivors of 9/11 who simply wanted to ask questions. It's absolutely horrible what happened to the 3000 people on 9/11...but look at the tens of thousands of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis etc killed by American defense? What about those families? Is invading Iraq and Afghanistan with white fospherus, depleted uranium and daisy cutter weapons making the US safe? Are any of you people aware that "al Qaeda" was named by the CIA, who fueled fanatics like bin Laden, Zwahiri and Islamic extremists to do the dirty work in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Serbia? Bush had the Taliban over to the White House months before 9/11, and funded their takeover of Afghanistan in the mid 90's. But noone wants the truth. They just want to wave their flags, kill some 'ragheads', and bury their head in the sand. But people are speaking out. Yeah, Osama and his pals are pretty evil sons of bitches...but were they the only ones behind 9/11, the only ones who *wanted* 9/11? Do all terrorists wear turbins and talk about jihad? FOR the victims of 9/11, the survivors, and to the 2300 American soldiers killed in action, and tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed...the FULL TRUTH of 9/11 must come out. Question is, if the truth is painful, do we really want to know? I am sickened by FALSE "theories", but I am equally moved when the real truth is staring us in the face. "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."-Mark Twain

  • April 15, 2006, 11:34 p.m. CST

    A plane can fly thru the holes in 9/11's official story

    by TJ50

    There's so many ludicrous inconsistencies in the 'official' 9/11 story, one could fly a plane through it and that's why both of these two current 9/11 cinema dramatisations both feel like a fraud. Any AICN readers who may have missed some excellent 9/11 conspiracy reality docos like 'In Plane Sight' can watch them on this great website. http://www.heartbone.com/various/RedPillVideos.html#D50

  • April 15, 2006, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Pockybot (cue the twilight zone music)

    by 900LBGorilla

    I have no desire to educate you on Iraq, what

  • April 16, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST

    9/11 was a hoax! Now watch my movie about it.

    by Freakemovie

    Or read this article. Or follow this link. The deniers/Bush-did-it guys are idiots, so why don't you all collectively shut up. It's fine to question official statements, but I find it very telling that the only people who have ever been doing that are internet freaks. (And please no replies about how some genius who figured out the conspiracies is not an internet freak at all but rather some mentally insane but highly logical and unbiased disgruntled government official. Or whatever.) It's very seductive to believe in a conspiracy -- everybody wants answers, and if the answers are juicy, well that's even better. But can you please get over it and at least focus on the victims and families and healing instead?

  • April 16, 2006, 1:37 a.m. CST

    by Ridge

    Pdiddy - a few points for you : 1. I do not believe the pentagon theory at all. 2. I do not believe the WTC was an insider job, I don't believe the government blew up it's own people just to invade a country. 3. I DO believe the jet was shot down in a response to the two that had already hit when it was revealed terrorists had taken control of it. I'm sorry, but you have your opinion and I have mine, like I said, I remember they said that, I remember it clearly. And the term 'conspiracy theory', doesn't always have to connotate a moron sitting there thinking aliens shot jfk or something, I personally think a clusterfuck of a situation happened beyond their control and tragedy coursed them to declare a false story. That's about it. As for more fun at parties? Grew out of them when I was 21, only parties I get to go to are at Macdonalds when my son attends lol.

  • April 16, 2006, 5:28 a.m. CST

    The Conservative war against Jesus!!

    by Psychobilly

    Since its Easter, allow me to quote the Master of Ceremonies. These are quotes the Neocons loved overlooking in the prelude to war: Matthew 5:43 You have heard that it was said,

  • April 16, 2006, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Great review

    by adrianmole

    but I'm sure glad I don't get my news from people with names like My Ass Smells

  • April 16, 2006, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Sentimentality

    by ZooTrain

    I'm reminded of George Carlin's comment on one hour photo developing..."How do you feel nostalgiac for something that happened an hour ago?" First of all, with our short attention span culture, five years feels like an eternity. I, personally, don't understand why you would want to go in and be entertained by something that is still so close and recent in our memory. People justify it with "Schindler's List" or other historical dramas. For the GENERAL PUBLIC, there was still a remote sense of distance. You might cite Vietnam...but only "Platoon" was the first movie to be made by an actual Nam veteran. People justify the film because they've watched documentaries on 9/11. Once again...why? What don't you know that we didn't see on the evening news that night? It comes down to crass voyeurism. Liberal, conservative...I really don't care. I think both the democrats and republicans are shitheels. As for "Flight 93," it could be the most beautifully crafted film ever...it's still crass and cynical. Because that's how it will be marketed. Doubt me? Look at the poster with the manipulating image of the Statue of Liberty in the foreground. I see no reference to the "people who lost their lives." Pure manipulation.

  • April 16, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Snuffles Believe it or not but that wasn't me...

    by AGE IIX

    so that makes you the jackass!

  • April 16, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Dark Knight Lite, You are realy scaring me!

    by AGE IIX

    You teach at a university? ----"What will it take for us to truly unite against this enemy? The distruction of Israel at the hands of a nuclear Iran? Or the total destruction of an American city? World War 3 has begun, and you don't even realize it. 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor, and we better get serious, or it will be over for the US, and the rest of the free world."---- Wow and they say that I'm wearing a TINHAT! Please don't say anything about a culture that you know nothing about... what you said is steriotypical I bet you don't even know any muslims. You probably think your a good American spewing you hate.... It's because of people like you that America isn't that popular at the moment.

  • April 16, 2006, 11:48 a.m. CST

    I see America plans to Nuke Iran

    by GingerTwit

    Just so we're clear, this is not tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. This is in your face reality. The nightly news is reporting this. American politicians are talking about it on shows like 'meet the press'. Condi Rice is roaming the planet telling everyone it's going to happen. When Bush starts talking about it on TV..... be worried. Do we have no concept on such an act? Nuclear destruction of a Country. Cities. People. any idea the aftermath? You think the good name of America was shit after what you guys did to Afganistan & Iraq? Wait til you unlease a nuclear haulocaust. It's not going to be pretty. Not for 1 damn person. seriously, how safe do we all think we are? have a look at some images of the earth from space. take note our thin atmosphere, effected by everything we do - cars, planes, industy, bombs, warfare. actually take a look at pictures of mars. there's a barren planet that might fit the bill of a landscape ravaged by war. you never know.

  • April 16, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    ginger, i appreciate that you watch the news

    by HypeEndsHere

    but pay FUCKING attention. it is Iran that is pursuing nuclear capabilities at a quickened pace. never-- not ONCE-- has any American official brought up the notion of using nuclear weapons against Iran.

  • April 16, 2006, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Gingertwit may watch the news...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...but not often, and certainly doesn't really listen. Not once have you heard Condi, bush, et al. say "we may have to nuke Iran". You are are a moron. they do however talk about a strike against they're nuclear facilities...gee, quite a difference eh? BTW, Blair today says he will not back a military strike against Iran. If you DID watch the news, would see how Iran's "whack job" president Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be...and I quote "wiped off the map"...and that it's destruction is "inevatabile". But your right..the U.S is the BIG THREAT to the world going aroun making reckless statements. Tsk tsk...poor misunderstood Iran, how could I be so blind?

  • April 16, 2006, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Iran isn't going to do shit!

    by AGE IIX

  • April 16, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST

    so they are going to nuke ISRAEL so that they than

    by AGE IIX

    can get invade by the "goodguys"? Iran knows that the do not stand a chance against the "Western forces" So their president might talk though but he is never going to do it... Why help America take over the place? Condi Rice is just on her campain to persuade the world (yet again) that we must stand up against the "evil Forces of the world" Kind of sounds like the "we are going to bomb Afganistan to get that evil Bin Laden" did they get him? are they still doing their best? or the time they said Irak had WMD's... We still don't have them... THE IRAN IS GOING TO NUKE US ALL THING IS JUST ANOTHER FEAR CAMPAIN!!!

  • April 16, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    okay, fun is fun but let's remember...

    by HypeEndsHere

    this is intended to be a movie website. AgeIIx, i have yet to see you comment on anything but 9/11 stuff. you're on the "ban list" i'm sure.

  • April 16, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Iran! We are coming to kill you into "freedom"

    by Psychobilly

    Let's see, North Korea who we are certain has nukes threatens the United States and we push them down on the priority list but Iran with only a handful of nuke materials, which they'll launch by camel, threatens Israel and they become public enemy number 1? Trust this folks; if Israel truly thought Iran is a threat, they would be in and out of there in no time. The Israeli Air Force isn

  • April 16, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST

    So you know exactly where the Nukes are hidden in Iran?

    by JUSTICE41

    Because as far as we all know most f the secret stuff is underground in Iran. So how are we to find them? How would Israel? I wish we had already nuked Iran. Eh no big loss. What's one more wacko country gone in the Grand scheme of things. Anyways enjoy your gas prices folks because as the threat goes higher so will your gas and petrol costs. Your whining now about America going to war for oil well just you wait till Iran Cuts off Europe. Then we shall see how favorable you look at them after that. And for all you wackos in this country who wouldn't allow us to drill in the Gulf and Alaska I hope your all happy. I also hope that when Gas hits 5 bucks the angry citizens string you people up and open your guts to the birds to feast on. You idiot environmentalists are going to be the death of us all. Hell Mexico just found a huge reservoir of oil in the Gulf and Cuba announced the will be Drilling 45 miles away from Florida for oil with the help of Venezuela. Why aren't you wacko's down there protesting, because they'd shoot you in the head or jail you that's why cowards. Geez I wish that Traitor John Kerry hadn't tipped off the world that we had Tactical Bunker Buster NUkes, but then again the only good lib is usually a dead one.

  • April 16, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Indiana Jones and the Undisclosed Location

    by Doctor_Sin

    Didn't the families of the passengers on U93 consult with the filmmakers? I believe so. It's not too late for them, it's not too late at all. I anxiously await the eventual Oliver Stone "9/11 was a conspiracy" film.

  • April 16, 2006, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Happy Zombie Day!!

    by cyanide christ

  • April 16, 2006, 3:59 p.m. CST

    psychobilly

    by moondoggy2u

    I see we have no comprehension of urban combat, huh? Its pretty easy, with out military might, to take out massive armies and the like, as was evidenced by the speed with which we were in Baghdad. However, as good as we are, gorilla tactics make massive firepower obsolete. When you compound the problem with bad guys' tendency to hole up in civilian areas and the fact that every citizen in iraq is armed and loaded, it makes maintaining peace in Iraq a bit difficult. But hey, I dont expect you to understand, you seem to want to shout out uninformed opinions and generalities just to support your position rather than base your position on informed fact. As for the threat of Korea, its not as high as Iran. "But moondoggy,"you say,"why isnt Korea being invaded? They're launching missles!" Well, N.K. is also checked by China, Japan, Australia, and, of course, the US. Iran, on the other hand, supports terrorists, sends terrorists into Iraq to interfere with our security, intends to build nukes (and we are right next door), and is thus a much more militant and necessary threat. Oh, and one more thing: Israel was able to take out Iran's nuclear facilities in an ultra risky maneuver (with a little help from our intelligence). However, dont think for one moment it would work again--Iran's facilities are now subterranean and their radar is much more sophisticated. However, I do enjoy the fact that you acknowledged that Iran is indeed a threat and wish someone else to fight them but us. While I understandt he sentiment, the U.S. is often the country that has to deal with this crap because other nations realize we will, and thus save money, lives, and relative safety by not aiding us. In any case, now that I have answered/countered all of your relatively simple questions/allegations, you can continue talking out of your ass.

  • April 16, 2006, 4 p.m. CST

    Oh, and that is Our military might, not with OUT

    by moondoggy2u

  • April 16, 2006, 4:30 p.m. CST

    This guy knows the truth behind 9/11

    by darthflagg

    It's all in his blog: http://cup-on-a-table.livejournal.com/ Oh, and there were no terrorists in Iraq before the coalition invaded. Saddam was a dictator, not a terrorist.

  • April 16, 2006, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Half of these talkbackers ignore, or are unaware

    by DoctorWho?

    ...of the news comming out of Iran. So far the Iranian president has posed as someone 90-percent crazy and 10-percent sane, hoping we would fear his overt madness and delicately appeal to his small reservoirs of reason. The 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad thinks appearing unhinged offers advantages in nuclear poker. He believes he speaks wth the "Hidden Imam",(the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941) and is chosen to basically create the instabillity in the world to hearld his return. Nice huh? It is time for the Iranian leaders to snap out of their pseudo-trances and hocus-pocus, and accept that some Western countries are not merely far more powerful than Iran, but in certain situations and under particular circumstances, can be just as driven by memory, history, and, yes, a certain craziness as well.

  • April 16, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Iran is a threat.....

    by chavee

    and lets make no bones about it. Iran will retailiate. Whether though terrorist proxys or by closing off the straits of Hormuz. This notion of nuclear attacks on Iran's nuclear installations is insane. If we were to use nukes on an Islamic country, the political as well as moral consequences will haunt the U.S. for decades. It's time we started being smart about it...not like the hacks in the WhiteHouse do it. Negotiation is the only option. Period!

  • April 16, 2006, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Ridge

    by 900LBGorilla

    I agree that a jet being shot down is not a flat out crazy nut theory like the rest- and hell it would be an understandable action given the circumstances

  • April 16, 2006, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Chavee

    by 900LBGorilla

    A) The US is talking about bombing Iran

  • April 16, 2006, 6:39 p.m. CST

    900lbgorilla

    by Ridge

    It seems you understand my point then, unless I didn't make it clear earlier, which would be my folly. What I am essentially saying is that could've happened and that I'm open to the possibility that it was shot down in a fucked up situation which in essence WOULD be 100 percent understandable. If that's not the case, then it doesn't really change anything, as I said, I believe the heroic acts on board took place, I believe the calls were made, I just also think its possible it was brought down out of safety reasons or whatnot? So thanks for clearing the fact I'm not a conspiracy nutjob better than I could lol.

  • April 16, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    chavee

    by moondoggy2u

    The US isnt going to nuke Iran! Thats such a silly, absurd notion, that I'm not even going to bother posting all the reasons why we wouldnt drop "the bomb." In any case, that doesnt mean the US armed forces will fail to run strategies and scenarios in which we DO use nuclear weapons. To give an example, when I was in Germany, in the mid eighties, we ran war drills in which we would train to fire nuclear bombs/shells from via artillery. Now, obviously, this isnt a desirable stage in warfare, particularly since i would be a casualty from my own shell via fallout, but that doesnt mean we dont train for it so that we will be capable for the worst case scenario. To put it in the simplest terms possible, just because you plan for a possibility, doesnt mean you will do it. Simple enough?

  • April 16, 2006, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Give to the right cause...

    by santoki22

    I didn't read all the posts because I'm not interested in left vs. right arguments. However, Flim Springfield's post at the very top made a fantastic point: If you really care about helping the Flight 93 charity, don't see this movie, just send them the $10 that you would have spent on a ticket (it's not like you need to see this movie to know what happened). Personally, I don't like the idea that this movie was made, but that's not the point. The point is that the makers of the film are really not putting much money into the charity compared to what it will make from box office revenue and DVD sales. If you really care about what happened to these people and you really care about supporting their cause, then how could you possibly say that seeing this movie is the best way to help?

  • April 16, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST

    What I love is...

    by darth kubrick

    People anywhere who believe exactly what they see on TV. How can any of you say that is impossible that a missle hit the Pentagon OR that one shot down flight 93? The problem with the government, as it has always been, is that they may not know the truth and they may not be involved, but they won't tell the American people what the fuck they DO know. 'For the protection of the families' is not a good enough reason anymore. There were a few thousand who died on 9/11. There are millions of us in the country and billions around the world who deserve to be able to sleep at night without wondering what is really going on in this country! I know that's what I'd want if I had died on 9/11.

  • April 16, 2006, 7:30 p.m. CST

    900llb. Gorilla

    by chavee

    Leave it to you apologists for the failed policies of this administration to revert to the lowest common denominator of personally attacking anyone who disagrees with a your point of view. Because we all know how well those policies have succeeded in Iraq. You want to talk about history? How about the fact that no one has been able to "democratize" the Middle East much less Iran. Our notion of democracy is alien and anathema to everything they are bred to believe. And once again if you think the Iranians are going to roll over then you have no clue. Iran was an empire long before the notion of "Superpower". Maybe if we tried some tact we might get somewhere.

  • April 16, 2006, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Quite a talkback.

    by Evil Chicken

    IMHO, the film had to be made

  • April 16, 2006, 8:55 p.m. CST

    chavee

    by moondoggy2u

    I've heard the same thing said about the japanese, the russians, and every other country that we happen to be enemies with at any given time. Yes, I understand that political leaders SAY we're going to create a western-style democracy, but in REALITY, what we want is SOME kind of democracy. Heck, at this point, I'll take a sympathetic ruler over something like Iran. Oh, and is it a personal attack to say that you are uninformed? Is it a personal attack to show the fallicy in your arguments? If thats the case, you need to grow a thicker skin, I think.

  • April 16, 2006, 9:03 p.m. CST

    fallacy, as well ;)

    by moondoggy2u

    Oh, and I must also add, i find it interesting that when you have little to to say concerning our rebuttals, the best you can do is snub us and say,"Quite picking on me, you appologists!"

  • April 16, 2006, 10:44 p.m. CST

    unbelievable

    by GingerTwit

    Justice41, you honestly think that gas and oil prices are high now because of Iran? whats even more amazing is you think a couple Nukes on Iran will bring the prices down. I recall the same things being said about Iraq before the invasion there, and look at the price of fuel now --- higher than it's ever been. This idea that a coupleNukes, wipe out the evil in the world and everyone will be dancing under rainbows is absurd. think before you post, you and your kind are traitors to the human race. Oh, and nice view on the environmentalists too. So sorry they put up a fight to keep millions of acres of wilderness free from being raped so the corporations could get even fatter. what are you going to breath when there are no more trees? hm? What are you going to eat when the soil and animals are all but sterilized. Doctorwho. I did see what the Iranian president said that about Israel. Yes it's true, he said that it should be wiped off the map. But I also saw why he said it. Because Israel was calling for America to invade, and if she didn't they would take the bombing initiative. You know between Israel and Iran is this little country full of American soldiers. Thats not a good thing for them -as if it ever was. Also, you say the Iranian president is 90% crazy and 10% sane. What does this mean? Is it like being 90% Pregnant? Maybe 90% fat while you're 10% skinny. Don't support any Nuclear war. dont.

  • April 16, 2006, 11:23 p.m. CST

    No one "supports nuclear war"...

    by DoctorWho?

    History is FULL of moments where we face bad options and much, much worse options.

  • April 17, 2006, 2:52 a.m. CST

    by Psychobilly

    Moondog, I don

  • April 17, 2006, 2:54 a.m. CST

    sigh.

    by samsquanch

    Sometimes I think that the only way to really solve the problems of racial/cultural/religious conflicts is to just let all the fucking macho morons willing to kill and die for their beliefs/causes/idelogies do so, and be done with it. The only thing that will wake anybody up to what's really going on is honest-to-goodness catastrophe... kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out. Bring on the nukes. I just hope that me and my family and friends will survive the subsequent zombie holocaust.

  • April 17, 2006, 8:18 a.m. CST

    psychobilly

    by moondoggy2u

    Who said N. Korea wasn't a threat? I think you had better go back and reread my post, billy, because there isnt a chance under the sun you could infer that I said N. Korea isn't a threat. I simply stated that Iran is a bigger threat than N. Korea right now. Now, I understand that flies in the face of your idealogy, and thus you are going to feel ultra defensive and start pointing out to me your "resources." However, you arent telling me anything that I, or any other member (either former or current) of the military anything we didn't already know. Sweet Jesus, you are complaining about our light-handedness in dealing with N. Korea! You tell me that some sub buddy of yours says there were nukes in N. Korea in the late 90's. You then tell me that Recruiters fudge their numbers to make box. Let me put it to you this way: No shit. You arent telling me, or any other vet, anything new. Further more, let me get this straight, you needed confirmation for your buddy's nuke story in the late 90's (and the fact that N. Korea shipped weapons) Why? N. Korea having nukes was confirmed to the public ever since 1996/97. Thereafter, we begain seeing Pakistan start up their programs. Hell, most people suspected it a few years before then! As for your recruiting "revelation," that is nothing new: recruiters OFTEN fudge their numbers so as to make box (quota). Why? Cause they get paid bonuses every time they meet their quotas. I used to work in recruiting, Billy, and I could tell you all kinds of stories, but it wouldnt be anything different from what they have always done. "Gung ho tactics!" Sweet Jesus, Billy, really? You mean, recruiters lie and say anything to kids to get them to sign up? I never knew that! No one who's ever served knew that, either. Its all a big secret that we keep so as to brainwash other recruits. And as far as suicide rates go, I must say, Im totally shocked, Billy. You have evidence that during wartime, soldiers' suicide rates go up. Unbelievable, Billy! I cant believe I, or any other human being, didnt realize that before! Im sorry for being so sarcastic, Billy, but its like your some little kid who informs me that you have evidence that proves the sky is blue or that politicians lie or something. It also seems like the military is some sort of alien thing to you, because you site to me facts that EVERYONE who is even remotely informed on these subjects have already known for years and you tell me it all comes from some buddies of yours. It just seemed like you had a series of talking points/info from a bunch of websites and just SAID that your friends confirmed them for you. Oh, and as far as my knowledge of Israeli armed forces go, I have friends too, Billy. My brother in law is a sniper in the israeli army. More so, nearly every member of my wife's family (she was the only daughter among 5 children) have served in the Israeli armed forces. Being that as it may, that has nothing to do with the fact that israel can't bomb a subterranian target in the same fashion they bombed their above ground targets all those years ago. I could give you a whole list of reasons, but you'll go back to shouting out a bunch of decade-old (hell, some millenia-old) facts and then say your "friends in the military" confirmed them for you. I have to admit, I'm still laughing at how you are shocked, honestly shocked, at recruiters deceiving people! I mean, as though it were some kind of secret! You have deffinitely cheered up my day. Hope you have a nice one, Billy.

  • April 17, 2006, 8:26 a.m. CST

    And I appologie for laughing at you, Billy

    by moondoggy2u

    I understand that this topic is important to you, and I probably shouldnt be laughing at you. Let me just reiterate: N. Korea is a big threat. But, in the current situation, Iran is an even more immediate threat due to their interference with Iraq. Now, you can say who's fault is it all live long day (and you would probably be right in many respects), but the fact is, Iran poses a bigger threat to our national interests RIGHT NOW. Again, I'm sory for making light of your opinion, its just that, well, it seemed to only prove my point about you needing to be informed more: you are just shouting out facts that have been in the public domain a few years before your friends have confirmed for you.

  • April 17, 2006, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Just to scare the hell out of you, billy

    by moondoggy2u

    In the mid to late 90's, well into the beginning of the millenium, we not only knew that N.K. was shipping ordinance to terrorist groups, we let them. The reason being that we could simply follow the shipments to their recipients and send a few bombs/teams their way. Now, this is public knowledge, I know, but its just seemed that you would find it surprising, is all, given your other foolish comments.

  • April 17, 2006, 8:35 a.m. CST

    HypeEndsHere.

    by AGE IIX

    I have only posted 911 stuff in the 911 movie talkbacks.

  • April 17, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    anchorite

    by moondoggy2u

    You have a stalker, anchorite;) They say cloning is the highest form of flattery...

  • April 17, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Defeating Terrorism

    by malcolm_mccallum

    ONly when you have found a way to stop schoolkids from attacking their schools and then killing themselves, husbands from murdering their families and then themselves, or people from taking bulldozers to their mayor's house and then killing themselves, will you be a step closer to stopping terrorism.

  • April 17, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Saw a Tv spot last night

    by clockpolitiks

    During Family Guy there was a tv spot, and I was surprised because I had no clue that this was rated R. I just hadnt thought about it. For some reason I thought it was PG-13. Should be really intense.

  • April 17, 2006, 2:18 p.m. CST

    I still love you for who you are, Anchorite

    by samsquanch

    you crazy, crazy man.

  • April 17, 2006, 3:33 p.m. CST

    So, no Twin Towers shot?

    by thegreenvortex

    In this one or in Stone's movie either. Two big budget movies about 9-11 and not one frame of the WTC towers? Are we really such hyper-sensitive pussies? If you are too scared to show the towers in your movie, then you aren't ready to make an honest film on the subject. Get lost for a few years until you are ready to do so.

  • April 17, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Why would the WTC towers be in this movie?

    by jim

    There probably won't be a shot of the Pentagon either. It's not a movie about 9-11 as a whole but about the events that took place on one of the 4 airplanes (and the one that was not crashed into a building).

  • April 17, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Dick Cheney is a great role model, right anchorite?

    by Max Meanie

    You can come up with a better insult that what Dick says. He's supposed to be the 2nd in charge of the free world and he curses like a 12 yr old who can't grow up on the floor of the Senate - a place you would respect if you were there. Or are you =GASP= unpatriotic?!?

  • April 17, 2006, 5:20 p.m. CST

    fuck.

    by samsquanch

    i wonder what's on TV

  • April 17, 2006, 5:22 p.m. CST

    You know, maybe we are fighting for freedom...

    by Childe Roland

    ...after all. In a world as thoroughly fucked up as the one we have made, death is probably the only real freedom. And we're liberating folks of all races and creeds in impressive numbers these days. This movie is completely unnecessary. Does anyone honestly think anyone else has forgotten the horrible fucking images from that day? Did I seriously fucking read more than one person in this talkback suggesting we start showing those images again at the beginning of every fucking newscast? Are you so sick with withdrawl already that you need that image to rekindle whatever passionate hatred you once had in your hearts? Do you really think the administration will need another wave of "patriotism" to justify hopping the border into Iran if that's what it wants to do? Sorry, but the same trick rarely works twice on so many people, let alone three times. We're off to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. Well, we didn't find him, but since we're here...we're off to Iraq to find WMDs...um...to liberate the Iraqi people...um, to fight terrorists! Yeah, that's right! It all comes back to terrorists. And guess what, good people? Those terrorists are coming from Iran where, as fate would have it, we're pretty sure they're developing WMDs. It's like a two for one sale plus the crazy dictator angle! How fucking stupid does the administration think we are? Now I'm not talking conspiracy here. That's a bullshit word, anyway, when we all know the government will always tell us exactly what they want us to hear first, then what they absolutely can't deny second (if at all) no matter which party is in the White House. It's that whole "need to know" thing, which gets smaller and smaller the more apathetic people become and the lazier our journalists (now mostly TV spokesmodels) grow. Fact is fact. Regardless of whether the current administration had a role in orchestrating or allowing the events of 9-11, no one can argue that they didn't take the fullest advantage of the events and wave them like a flag (or a baton) to rally folks behind their cause (invasion of the Middle East) while beating the opposition into frightened silence with accusations of "anti-Americanism." No one can argue that the contractors (all campaign contributors) didn't feast and grow fat on the carcasses of the victims of 9-11 (and the subsequent military actions), while the administration made political hay of a situation that so curiously fit the profile they stated they had outlined years before: "A modern Pearl Harbor to unite people against a common perceived enemy." This Dear Santa list existed. Rumsfeld and Cheney both endorsed it. Whether they made it actually happen or not, this is exactly what they wanted and it makes me sick to hear folks echoing that ghoulish sentiment here. Since we're no longer laboring under the falsely fostered assumptions that there are WMDs in Iraq and that the Iraqi people are crying out for American-style democracy, anyone care to illuminate what our real interests in the region might be? And what might our national interest in Iran be (I know...they're a threat to Israel and the fledgling democracies we've founded in Iraq and Afghanistan...but why did we found those and fund Israel again)? Let's just be fucking honest with each other. It's clear that there will always be people willing to support the might-makes-right/take-what-you-can-get approach to international diplomacy, so what's the point in lying about it? I think most of us are grown upas and can take the truth without the obligatory spoonful of sugar or manufactured patriotism. Since this movie doesn't have access to any information we haven't all seen and heard (all of which remains inconclusive) there can be no point to it. At least not an honest one.

  • April 17, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST

    anchorite - Iran's president & Bush very similar

    by Max Meanie

    Ahmadinejad & Hamas should never have been elected in the 1st place. Those people reacted out of fear which was how Bush was elected. Those elections were a reaction to the Iraq war. The majority of Iran's population is under 30 due to the war they had with Iraq - a war we supported. If Bush had not invaded Iraq & instead went after Al-Qaeda & Bin Laden in Afghanistan, we could've supported a regime change within Iran peacefully & possibly could've had a young youth-oriented arab society ripe for a new market of US goods. Now we're stuck with a madman who at the moment is more bluster than threat.

  • April 17, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Don't get me wrong, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...if we truly have intelligence suggesting that the "madman" du jour is a credible threat, I'm all for a quick and clean covert assassination. Sure, that might plunge their system into temoporary turmoil, but what part of the world isn't in a bit of turmoil these days. So long as we don't try to adopt, colonize or occupy the country, that's fine by me. And here's an idea: Keep it covert. Don't let us find out about it if you aren't prepared to own up to it. Now that's all if we determine he can, in fact, get a suicide bomber into the U.S. with the components of a bomb. If he's merely threatening Israel? That's another story. I've got nothing against the people of the nation but, as a nation, they tend to come off a bit threatening themselves. There's a whole lot of swagger in Israel's step and, while they are some of the world's most formidable fighters, part of me can't help but wonder how tough they'd talk if they didn't know the U.S. would likely back any play they made in the region simply to keep a tough-talking, swaggering ally in place. See what I mean about real motives? We support Israel because they are seen as potential protectors of our interests in the region. What are those interests? Can anyone just lay that out honestly without resorting to the "We should be scared of these people because of what they say they could or will do" argument? I know I can, and I can do it without passing a moral judgment because, although I can't personally condone the placement of material wealth or resources above the value of human life, I can understand how some people (our own government included) would. And as for the UN, since when do you care what they think? I thought they were part of the problem in your eyes? Regardless, as a general rule, if the UN asks us to the dance, I'm FAR more inclined to accept the invitation. But that hasn't happened yet.

  • April 17, 2006, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Ridge

    by 900LBGorilla

    No problema, I don

  • April 17, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST

    re: unbelievable

    by Azure Tyger

    >What are you going to eat when the soil and animals are all but sterilized. < Would it be too much to ask that we start with the environmentalists?

  • April 17, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Chavee Still clueless

    by 900LBGorilla

  • April 17, 2006, 7:07 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - failed policies puts it lightly

    by Max Meanie

    Rumsfeld said the Iraqi campaign would last less than 6 months. We&#39;re on our 3rd year. Wolfowitz said we would be greeted as liberators with chocolates. Instead there&#39;s an insurgency with 2700 US deaths. The original cost of the war was 2 billion, we&#39;re up to 1 trillion with no end in sight. Instead of making this a liberal vs con fight which is limiting and gets us nowhere, do you think the war policies of Iraq under Rumsfeld are sucessful?

  • April 17, 2006, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Moondoggy

    by 900LBGorilla

    Great posts, I

  • April 17, 2006, 7:39 p.m. CST

    can we please, once and for all-

    by samsquanch

    collectively call BULLSHIT on any and all comparisons between WWII and present day military actions? I mean, please. We&#39;re not that dumb, are we?

  • April 17, 2006, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Max Meanie

    by 900LBGorilla

    OK, I

  • April 17, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Dstrbo

    by 900LBGorilla

    Yes you are indeed apparently that dumb (or more appropriately ignorant)

  • April 17, 2006, 8:01 p.m. CST

    Did anyone know that The Iranian president respects

    by JUSTICE41

    Bush? He does. he saw that Bush unlike Clinton will strike back or before if given the proper reasons. Bush is like that good old dog on the porch who just wants to be left alone, but fuck with him or his and your gonna get bit and bit good. The wackjob in Iran is hoping and waiting for a New Prez who&#39;s as limp wristed as Clinton was. How many slaps across the face did Clinton have the USA take? WTC in 93, Saudi Arabia, Embassies in Africa, The Cole. All those without any strong response is why we got 9-11. The reports from bin Ladens captured men was that the strikes by Spec-Ops guys in Afghanistan was a complete surprise to Al Queada, as it was to the Mullahs in Iran and Saddam in Iraq. They hadn&#39;t a clue Bush would push back this hard. Now Iran sits and waits for a weak President like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton so that they can go about doing what they want as their people play delaying tactics in the UN and other Diplomatic centers. Just, by the way, as they are doing now. $70 bucks per barrel of Oil has been passed feeling the gas pinch yet hmmmm? Wait till the news of more Uranium being Enriched comes out of Iran and watch the oil Prices spike up and the gas prices as well. How long will the rest of the world wait and how much money will they finally balk at paying for gas before the demands for some solution raises the roof in the Governments around the World? Tick Tock tic tock your gas prices are going up past 3 dollars by summer how much higher before the American people demand a fix? BWahahahaahahahaahahaahahahaaha!!!!

  • April 17, 2006, 8:01 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - nice speech but you didn&#39;t answer

    by Max Meanie

    In the interest of a discussion & not an argument I asked if you think the war policies in Iraq was successful (I should&#39;ve added "do you think they should continue") but you went into the reasons for the war including: ties to terrorism and the potential of WMD. You would&#39;ve had a point for millitary force if that were the case BUT if you go by the current reasoning - "bringing democracy to the region" - then the statement "Rumsfeld did not say Iraq would have a peaceful democracy in 6 months" is not valid because that implies he has failed in his mission. It is 3 yrs later & we still do not have a gov&#39;t in Iraq. As far as the $ issue goes perhaps it would&#39;ve been easier & cheaper with less bloodshed to just give every Iraqi citizen $1000 to overthrow Saddam themselves. Again regardless of your ideology, do you think the war polices are successful?

  • April 17, 2006, 8:09 p.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - that doesn&#39;t make any sense

    by Max Meanie

    Why would the Iranian president flaunt that his country has joined the nuclear community under Bush&#39;s watch if he&#39;s waiting for a weak president like Kerry or Hillary in your juvenile fantasy? And the reason gas is $70 a barrel is because speculators predict gas supplies may be affected by the threatening talk of retaliation against Iran by the US. What started the rise in prices was the Iraq war instigated by Bush.

  • April 17, 2006, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Say now just how many Nukes does N Korea have?

    by JUSTICE41

    We don&#39;t know do we, we don&#39;t even know if they have any yet we are dealing with them as if they did because we know a nuke exchange would go badly for our allies in the area like Japan, Taiwan and even (blehh China) By keeping the Europeans guessing Iran also keeps moving forward in hopes to have something in the next few years. Dealing with the Europeans is perfect for the Iranians because they can use them as blockers like a Running back behind a fullback. The Us will hold it&#39;s powder while hoping and waiting for the Europeans to get somewhere with Iran. Iran knows full well it has no intention of Backing off making Nukes. Remember what it&#39;s Pres said. along the lines that we will keep making nukes because you don&#39;t have the right to tell us we can&#39;t have nukes. Or some such nonsense. Iran is doing what N. Korea did but unlike N. Korea, Iran has independent wealth. Just like the Us is building up china&#39;s military by buying goods from there the Eu is funding Iran by buying oil. The UsS doesn&#39;t Buy oil from Iran. Max don&#39;t be naive. Iran is playing a game of Russian Roulette but they are using an Automatic. People like you Pacifists will get us all killed. Besides Which Party in this country is more likely to use a nuke on Iran? Once upon a time it was the Dem&#39;s who dropped Nukes on Japan not sure now if they have the guts to pull the trigger. If Israel tries to hit Iran&#39;s Nuke facilities it will not be by planes but by covert ops and may not work. israel has Nukes so if Iran is stupid enough to use on directly or indirectly Iran will be Nuked by Israel. Better to nip this in the bud don&#39;t you think or should cancer be allowed to spread from your colon to the rest of your body?

  • April 17, 2006, 8:55 p.m. CST

    A few question for you libs

    by JUSTICE41

    Do you have any kind of Insurance like health car or Home? If so why? Or do you have Health Maintenance insurance to insure your health stays... well healthy? Again why/

  • April 17, 2006, 10:54 p.m. CST

    Try this...

    by DoctorWho?

    From the chicago Sun Times.....You know what&#39;s great fun to do if you&#39;re on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you&#39;re getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I&#39;ve got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It&#39;s OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn&#39;t got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it&#39;s highly unlikely he&#39;d ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That&#39;s just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it&#39;s entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew." Sounds like Max Meanie.

  • April 17, 2006, 11:08 p.m. CST

    Max Meanie 2

    by 900LBGorilla

    Thanks

  • April 17, 2006, 11:16 p.m. CST

    hey moondoggy- you&#39;re supossed to be a history prof,

    by samsquanch

    or something, right? could you please illuminate for the kids how convenient comparisons between WWII ( a noble, defensive, necessary world war) and the current (and potential future) conflct(s) in the middle East have nothing in common? Unless of course, your argument is weak and you need to invoke something real to superimpose some justification. I&#39;m too tired of this, but you seem to have the energy and the book learnin&#39; to compete with these disingenuous spinmeisters.

  • April 17, 2006, 11:30 p.m. CST

    I really think JUSTICE41 is insane from his posts

    by Max Meanie

    Could someone tell him that Iran supplies oil to China & Russia and while they are nowhere near building a nuke (they only have 16 centrifuges & they require over a 1000) threatening to nuke them will only antagonize everyone against us for no reason. Unless the oil companies want even higher profits for 2007 by causing the market to raise prices on crude due to instability in the Mid-East by talks of war. Even Pat Buchanan said this last Sunday on the news shows. He ain&#39;t even a lib.

  • April 17, 2006, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Time and again...

    by lindyboy

    I want to comment as to the emotional content of 9/11, film making, and what we should consider "opportunism" when it comes to judging "United 93". _____________________________________It has been argued by some that you must be at least 50 years away from a historical event to full view its impact in a forensic, historical sense. Given the rather harsh tone of this talkback, I would tend to agree. However, when we talk about a 9/11 film, we&#39;re talking about both and art form and an historical event through which all of us lived (and of which the majoirty are still in our prime to remember clearly). With this in mind saying "films invoke our emotions" may seem too simplistic but nonetheless true, esp with this project. We should however, not allow that to cloud our judgement when watching United 93, which arguable will be a gutwrenching film. We should judge it for its artistic merit and more importantly whether it does history justice._______________________________As to the point over whether we have forgotten, I think the bickering as to just why any facet of this war is being fought is proof enough we have forgotten the grief that held us at the very least.___________________________________As one who wasquite literally just across the Potomac River that day and watched, as the Pentagon burned, I can say it was very much a personal event as it was a public one, for so many of us in the District. If I gain nothing else, in watching United 93, I will at least have those emotions brought forth again and try remember the clear resolve to fight terrorism so many of us had in the days and weeks thereafter. I suppose such proclaimations will make me as guilty as NeoCon, for recognizing who are enemies are. Time and again I have watched as far too many have forgotten that. So be it.

  • April 17, 2006, 11:51 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - insanity means to continue a course...

    by Max Meanie

    ...of action & expecting a different result. There was no reason to invade Iraq. Containment worked according to General Zinni - "So to say containment didn&#39;t work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there. It disintegrated in front of us." Saddam was not a threat. And to address your statement that burden of proof was on Saddam is a joke because no one would believe him anyway. He did release 1200 pages of documents about the WMD&#39;s but the Bush administration disregarded them & invaded the next day. Did anyone bother to read them in 1 day? Nope. And the "Democracy" reason is not a liberal talking point, it&#39;s a Bush Admin one. And why, because they cannot fall back on their original claims - Al-Qaeda links, WMD&#39;s, etc. Bush is always backing off saying he never said Saddam didn&#39;t have ties to Bin Laden but that didn&#39;t stop him from mention them in the same sentence ad naseum in State of the Union addresses. And now your inability to admit that the Iraq war is a failure and not just mistakes (how many people died needlessly on both sides?) and has cost us any credibility in trying to gain assistance against real threats. Honorable men admit mistakes and learn from them. Fools repeat them & pat themselves on the back. Which is Rumsfeld & which are you?

  • April 17, 2006, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Not forgotten man they just don&#39;t care.

    by JUSTICE41

    The people who don&#39;t want to fight don&#39;t believe we have any enemies they believe we provoked them into defending themselves. Really Max, You know that for absolute certainty that Iran only has the equipment to make small amounts of Uranium? You believe the intel says they don&#39;t have the equipment do you... then why don&#39;t you believe the intel when it came to Iraq. Did you also believe North Korea was years away from Nukes too. Sorry my friend but your mind is way too simple to grasp anything not spoon fed to you by the media. If you want go back to sticking your head in the sand, Real men and women will take care of yet another crisis in the making while you shit yourself while your heads buried in the sand. Enjoy your shit as it runs down your back and stomach and pools around your buried head You blithering idiot. I bet if someone smacked you across the face you&#39;d respond eh but would you take action if someone looks like they may smack you after verbally abusing you. Would you have the guts to commit yourself to pre emption? Gutless coward. Oh and this movie will be al fantasy as it takes way too long to get the real facts. Just like the initial reporting of any news item it&#39;s usually wrong and time needs to pass before enough of the facts and details are known to come to a clear enough conclusion. That&#39;s why it&#39;s too soon for movies like this.

  • April 17, 2006, 11:59 p.m. CST

    DoctorWho? - guess who I&#39;m talking about?

    by Max Meanie

    Y&#39;know that guy that nobody could say anything good about? Because he failed in every business he ever had? His cocaine habit & drinking didn&#39;t help. In fact he had to put off a military physical because he knew he&#39;d fail it. Never mind that he never finished his tour of duty in the National Guard. And everybody had to be quiet and not snicker because the Bin Laden family had to save his ass every time his was about to lose his shirt. Y&#39;see Daddy wouldn&#39;t support him but the Saudi&#39;s would because they knew they could get favors from pop. So one day he gets propped up with Dick Cheney&#39;s hand up his ass telling him what to do and say because he can&#39;t string a cohesive thought without saying crap like "human-animal hybrids" in public. Even though he was elected President of the US and his country was attacked all he could do was sit in a grade school class for 7 minutes because HE DIDN&#39;T KNOW WHAT TO DO. Do you know who I&#39;m talking about? Any excuses for his cowardice on 9-11? Or do you have any other bullshit you want to spout instead of talking fact?

  • April 18, 2006, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Hey Dstrbo

    by 900LBGorilla

    Listen my little student, I can explain this to you without Moondoggys assistance (though if he is a 20th century history Prof, I will bet his answer won

  • April 18, 2006, 12:04 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - what proof have you got?

    by Max Meanie

    All your childish insults mean nothing because I already you do not watch the news. If you did you would&#39;ve noticed on all the Sunday news programs opinions and statements from conservatives, liberals, neo-cons, military men, ex-Bush advisors and newspapers saying that Iran does not have the capability to produce a bomb because of the lack of cetrifuges and enhanced uranium. Any more fecal matter comments you want to make or do you want to pull your head of the sand and listen to the world around you?

  • April 18, 2006, 12:08 a.m. CST

    Max short version

    by 900LBGorilla

    I just glanced at your post and it is filled with misconceptions which unfortunately I will have to answer tomorrow...

  • April 18, 2006, 12:13 a.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - hopefully you&#39;re open-minded

    by Max Meanie

    Because what&#39;s happening Iraq cannot continue. Even you must see that. Idealogy oftens blinds one to reality and in this case innocents are dying.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Max Meanie

    by DoctorWho?

    Sounds like Michael Moore has his hand up YOUR ass. Puppet.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:21 a.m. CST

    It&#39;s alright Maxipad The men in white will be along.

    by JUSTICE41

    Soo if it&#39;s convenient to your cause then you&#39;ll believe what a so called conservative says eh? Those people are just political opportunists looking to either gain power cash in on the speech circuit or are hawking books. Oh and listening to people say what you want to hear doesn&#39;t make them correct. Any moron can pander if they believe it will gain them money. Zinni is a tool and a scumbag who is just trying to hoist himself up because he got wind that a scathing book about him and the other Generals is being written that will castigate and humiliate them and him, so he&#39;s out ..ehem... preemptively striking out so his legacy can be kept intact. Scrape the crap out of your ears and stop parroting people who are just out to make a name or bucks for themselves and this includes Hagel and Insane McCain.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Only wrong thing the military is doing in Iraq is

    by JUSTICE41

    Not blowing the fuck out of everything and everyone. War is about breaking stuff up and killing people. You don&#39;t win by fighting a PC war were people are spared. I just watched an ex Cia Guy on Book tv hawking his wares inform the audience he and his buds had eyes on Zawhahiri as well as others quite a few times in Pakistan and Afghanistan but because they were in Hospitals or around regulars they didn&#39;t take em out. What kinda pussy ass way is this to fight a war? I don&#39;t give two craps how many regulars gets killed as long as the mission is completed and the mission is to kill or capture all Al Queada. This is the only thing I don&#39;t like about these missions the restraint on our guys by a buncha lawyers and politicians. Man I really can&#39;t stand the cowards in the Senate and Congress.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:28 a.m. CST

    DoctorWho? & JUSTICE41 - maybe you should date

    by Max Meanie

    because you have nothing intelligent to say unless the RIGHT people tell you what to say. But now you&#39;re not even sure who that is - the milltary, Newt Gingrich, John W Dean, Colin Powell, etc. Who is ok to critique the Bush Administration? Nobody?

  • April 18, 2006, 12:31 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - it&#39;s ok to kill innocents?

    by Max Meanie

    If the CIA found out Bin Laden was in your basement apartment hiding in your closet, is it ok to blow you up as long as he&#39;s dead?

  • April 18, 2006, 12:35 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - the book is JAWBREAKER...

    by Max Meanie

    ...that you&#39;re talking about. It&#39;s all about the operation to get Bin Laden when he was cornered in Tora Bora. The CIA actually captured aa Al-Qaeda walkie-talkie and heard they were scared. But Bush pulled all millitary out of Afghanistan leaving a small force while he concentrated on Iraq who never attacked us while Al-Qaeda killed over 3000 Americans. Why?

  • April 18, 2006, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Me Max

    by JUSTICE41

    Me as an individual tax payer registered voter citizen is the only qualified person to question the government, Me. You too if you are also a voter tax payer citizen. I wouldn&#39;t trust a politician if he told me the sun was hot and fiery. I have my own beliefs formed many moons ago before the names Powell ,Bush, Gingrich, Tip O&#39;neil, Kennedy was even known to me. I don&#39;t need any talking head on TV to point me to what I should believe. I live in a 3 bedroom Condo in Ft Lauderdale and therefore have no basement to speak of unless your talking about the Parking garage. I also don&#39;t accept such a silly premise. A premise that silly bed wetters like you come up with. Try again and keep it to the real world an not your silly fairy world ok champ.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:46 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - so where do you get your info..

    by Max Meanie

    ...if you don&#39;t believe politicians? Why even vote? Where do you get your information on Iran & Iraq? Do you have family there? Seriously, if you don&#39;t believe the millitary, newspapers, the gov&#39;t, how do you know what you know? Without insults if possible.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:51 a.m. CST

    Read the book again Max and pay attention to the

    by JUSTICE41

    Timelines. When was the attack on Iraq and when was Tora Bora?

  • April 18, 2006, 12:54 a.m. CST

    And you wonder why US has so many haters...

    by voxmortis

    The only solution is to breed peaceful human-animal hybrids and populate the US with them.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:56 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - you didn&#39;t answer my question

    by Max Meanie

    Where do you get your info? Why are you so pissed off at Iraqis? They didn&#39;t attack us on 9/11 so why do you say "Only wrong thing the military is doing in Iraq is Not blowing the fuck out of everything and everyone." Are you such a nutcase that you want an entire nation of people to pay for something they didn&#39;t do? Are you that insecure & racist that you want all arabs to pay? Or are you upset that I suggested you should date DoctorWho? I was just kidding but it seems you are not.

  • April 18, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST

    nice solution, voxmortis!

    by Max Meanie

    Everybody is so angry and so ready to point out who to hate that sometimes they forget to laugh. Good one!

  • April 18, 2006, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Heavy Duty Maxi pads it&#39;s all about cross referencing

    by JUSTICE41

    You read enough differing sources about the same subject and eventually you&#39;ll sift out the closest to the real truth any person can. One mans facts is another mans opinions. statements of facts must be verified. There are plenty of ways to do it. Listening to the talking heads on the news chat shout shows aint gonna cut it. Those people have been practiced and ready to deliver that specific talking point. The media has it&#39;s own weird daily mantra that they spout. You may hate the man but sometimes he nails it. Even someone above used a quote from him about being on a plane and shouting you have a bomb. That was a Limbaugh gag to explain absurdity. Rush just played a series of quotes from all the talking heads on the news shows and they all said the same thing. he&#39;s done it quite a few times and it&#39;s funny as hell. You&#39;d think these supposed bright people could at least do a check and make sure they aren&#39;t using the exact same words as everyone else. C-span is a great source for unfiltered un biased news, the BBC, Canadian news, newspapers, online and at your doorstep. Read as much listen to as many as you can stomach and the truth will eventually show itself. Read books from both sides about the same topic. It&#39;s not that difficult but does take time but being lazy just makes you go off half cocked full of yourself.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:07 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - C-Span tells you to blow up Iraq?

    by Max Meanie

    You&#39;re not making sense. First you make a ridiculous bloodthirsty statement like all Iraqis should be blown up, then you say you don&#39;t believe politicans, then you say you get your facts from C-Span? Do you even know what C-Span 1 & 2 are? Do you retract your vendetta? Perhaps with a cooler head you see that not all arabs are the enemy. Right? And you do know that Limbaugh is a drug addict who is deaf in one ear who didn&#39;t register to vote during the Reagan years? He was shamed into regsitering.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Hey man, in war thats the way it goes

    by JUSTICE41

    That&#39;s why wars suck and the quicker you get them finished the better it is for everyone involved. Having this war drag out because the military is tip toeing around Government lawyers is just stupid. You either fight to win or leave. If your going to fight to win hardships need to be brought down on the citizens until they capitulate or turn against those in their midst that&#39;s causing the strife. Victory is the only goal and it must be achieved wholly and not a cease fire or some half assed measure like we have in Korea and Bosnia, Kosovo and some other places. Fight and win or come home losers.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:12 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - but what is the goal in Iraq?

    by Max Meanie

    You seem confused by what "winning" means. Bringing "hardships..down on the citizens" only furthers the insurgency against the troops. The tribal conflicts between the Shia, Kurds & Sunnis are centuries old. How you expect we bring them together and form a gov&#39;t in their best interests?

  • April 18, 2006, 1:14 a.m. CST

    And Mxi Pad I mean everything i said

    by JUSTICE41

    Take it any way you please. twist it call me racist whatever man I accept it all and am not bothered in the least. Besides Black people can&#39;t be racist, being Black myself and not from this country, I heard Jessie Jackson and Rev Al say Blacks don&#39;t have political or any power to enforce racist views so they can&#39;t be racists. Bigots maybe but why quibble eh. So you go right ahead and try to twist me little man as your grope around for something to win this argument with. Don&#39;t care if Limbaugh was snorting coke off a dead hookers pussy as long as he entertains me you get me boy.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:18 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 - if you wish death upon a people...

    by Max Meanie

    ...just because they happen to be in the same area as your enemy then you are a racist and not capable of thinking rationally.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:21 a.m. CST

    Let them at each other for all I care...

    by JUSTICE41

    We just need a base over there to keep our eyes on Iran. Hey Maxi-pad if it was up to me, Iraq would be black glass. The Insurgency was allowed to foster and fester because of the Lawyers and all the PC crap we shackled the military with. In the old wars we shelled whole cities till we were sure we took out as many hidey holes as possible before we went in. Even the it was slog. The Iraq people were given fair warning, anything that happened to them after that is not my problem. But unlike in WW2 the politicians aren&#39;t warriors. They don&#39;t have the guts to do what needs to be done to finish the job.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:24 a.m. CST

    That&#39;s alright Maxpads That&#39;s why your a Coward

    by JUSTICE41

    and I&#39;m off to bed catch you manana&#39;.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:30 a.m. CST

    I just saw this great movie and it makes me want to...

    by jdean

    Kill every Muslim on this planet. Time for a crusade on those biatches.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:45 a.m. CST

    I went too far....

    by jdean

    Just deport them all and keep them out.

  • April 18, 2006, 2:21 a.m. CST

    JUSTICE41 you are a MONGALOID!

    by AGE IIX

    Just read all you posts and it Boggles my mind how DUMB you are... You go from -----"Only wrong thing the military is doing in Iraq is Not blowing the fuck out of everything and everyone." to ---- "Read books from both sides about the same topic." and "C-span is a great source for unfiltered un biased news, the BBC, Canadian news, newspapers, online and at your doorstep." and the crown jewel----- "Read as much listen to as many as you can stomach and the truth will eventually show itself." ahahah you are a LOON!

  • April 18, 2006, 2:52 a.m. CST

    Brilliant!

    by Son of Batman

    I love famous "you call me a racist? I am black man so can not be a racist" defense. It am used over and over and never wins. You can not prove you is black so why even state so? You are not black, you just state so so you can feel you win argument. But is so stupid. You are anonymous on BBS. Only white man pretending to be black man would ever attempt such foolishness. Here in Brunei, you would be called fool and retarded. JUSTICE41 is perfect example of Ugly American. There are no terrorists here, only very rich Muslims, but we can understand why so many hate the American. Thank Allah you are not all, not even close to half, like JUSTICE41. His name is ironic, yes? And is spelled "mongoloid." You are on Internet, for fuck&#39;s sake, use it.

  • April 18, 2006, 3:43 a.m. CST

    Actually Justice41

    by GingerTwit

    War isn&#39;t about killing people and blowing things up. Thats an offensive. A slaughter. War is about DEfence. Protecting people and things from being blown up - by wiping out the souless invaders. Tool.

  • April 18, 2006, 3:44 a.m. CST

    IRON SHEIK

    by AGE IIX

    Thanks for correcting me...but it is very childish to do so, this is the internet after all and that means people from all over the world use it and not all those people write PERFECT english... And now its time for me to be childish: it is ---- I love "THE" famous defence ---- It "IS" used over and over --- You can not "PROOVE" that you "ARE" black ---- win "THE" argument ----called "A" fool ----- JUSTICE41 is "THE" perfect example of "AN" Ugly American ---- hate the American = HATE AMERICA or HATE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ---- You are on "THE" Internet, for fuck&#39;s sake, use it...... the last one is great advice.

  • April 18, 2006, 4:13 a.m. CST

    Well, that was a very..... interesting read.....

    by GingerTwit

    I&#39;ll say one thing, if the magority of Americans are actually of the mind Justice 41 is atune too, We&#39;re all dommed. He is actually the biggest terrorist I&#39;ve ever seen. He&#39;s also the biggest whining pussy I&#39;ve ever seen too. "Oh, I&#39;m sofucking terrified of anything walking out side my lavish 3 bedroom condo that I will sit on the internet with cock in one had wacking off to pictures of Bush and the other hand typing &#39;death to everyone who is not american&#39; on Aint it fucking cool news. Bravo Justice 41. Bravo. For you have come across this day as the most pathetic piece of spoof ever to stick to a keyboard. I&#39;ll say this for the Bush Administration - not even I for 1 second believe they are as frantic and terrified of the middle east as you. They&#39;re in some whole other class which I&#39;m not to interested in elaborating on right now. I&#39;m actually quite facinated by you. I&#39;ve never met ANYONE in reality who thinks int he same manner as you do. Shit, why don&#39;t you get up out of your rich daddy&#39;s 3 bedroom condo, borrow his bmw, drop the roof down, and drive on down to the nearest military enlistment agency and tell them why you want to join up and fight for America. Be sure to sprout everything you&#39;ve said here this day. they&#39;ll love you. They might even put you right in the front line as a reward. So what say you Justice41? Will you be a hero and go fight for your country, or will you be the dumb fuck pussy I suspect you of being (&#39;Ugly American&#39; the gent from Brunie put well) If not, Well, shit. words can not describe my bewilderment at the likes of you. oh, just a Q... do you jack off to pictures of dead iraqi children on the gore web sites? You sound like the type. Actually, no I think you&#39;d squeel if you saw blood on a grazed knee. geez, your a fucking champion. i look forward to more of your bile.

  • April 18, 2006, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Moondoggy knows more than Bush??

    by Psychobilly

    BUSH ADMITTED THEY WERE "mistaken" ABOUT.....their pre 9-11 intelligence, WMDS, Jeff Gannon, knowing about leaks and prewar planning. How do we know they are correct about Iran? Moondog is certain! Sorry Moondoggy, but apparently you give the American people more credit than even the current administration does. If NKs nuke capability was such common knowledge, then this administration would not have acted as if NK

  • April 18, 2006, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Holy shit...

    by Childe Roland

    ...if half the posts from JUSTICE and 900lb Gorilla are for real and not some Andy Kaufmann-esque exercise in humor (like anchortite clearly is) then I weep for the fucking future. Seriously...the hook&#39;s in so far on these guys they&#39;re already crapping the line. Neither of you has honestly answered the question repeatedly asked: what is America&#39;s national interest in the Middle East? We are attacking nations there based on what they might do or what we think (but can&#39;t prove) they&#39;re up to. We&#39;re accusing governments of supporting terrorism or developing WMDs based on intelligence from the same people that have given us three different reasons at different times for invading Iraq (and the administration itself has called its intelligence gathering skills regarding Iraq and 9/11 into question). These nations we accuse (Afghanistan and Iraq, so far) say they aren&#39;t doing what we accuse them of doing, but we don&#39;t believe them and we invade anyway. There&#39;s a reason for this glaring deviation from our approach to any other kind of enforcement or problem solving. We are treating the middle east like a bone if we were a starving, half-mad dog -- shaking it violently and refusing to let go. Why? Do you even know? Do you even want to? Sounds like you don&#39;t care so long as the reports of brown bodies piling up keep rolling in to the tune of God Bless America. That&#39;s fucking fantastic. You&#39;re real patriots. Heroes, even. You should be proud.

  • April 18, 2006, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Billy

    by moondoggy2u

    Its not a question of deception as much as it is salesmanship, Billy. Every industry/group/faith/organization likes to advertize its best face when recruiting (whether lawyer, doctor, or mechanic). Positives are displayed with much fanfare and negatives are deemphasized. Would I like recruiters to be mroe honest? Sure, but as long as you have dishonesty in the world, you will have dishonesty in every profession (its part of the human spirit). The problem is, you seem to act as though this is something new or a symptom of desperation when its in actuality an ongoing problem (that is why drafts were invented). You seem to want to derrive something politically or idealogically significant from basic military facts/situations (suicide rates, recruitment, etc) that have nothing to do with the reasons you are posting and is a deductive misstep. Just because all apples come from trees doesnt mean all trees grow apples. Now, back to N.K. I dont recall any speech given by Bush where he acted like N.K.&#39;s nuclear power was something new; he simply said it had to stop. However, I think you are confusing administrations, billy. It was Clinton&#39;s administration that was attempting to ascertain N.K.&#39;s nuclear weapons capabilities in the late 90&#39;s. Remember, terrorism, especially middle eastern terrorism, and N.K.&#39;s status as a hostile country is nothing new. During the 90&#39;s, however, we seemed to have gotten complacent in our security; it took 9/11 to wake up this government (in my opinion they still arent awake enough) and its people. It seems apparent to me that you are against war of any kind as the reasoning you use for leaving iran alone can apply to N.K. as well. Again, it just seems like you are all over the map and simply dont want a war against terrorism and/or N.K. of any kind and are largely anti-us concerning our national interests, and pro middle eastern securities, hence you dont see the threat of Iran. Just so everyone else doesnt get mad at me, because you dont like the idea of a war with iran doesnt mean you dont like america. It just seems to be the root of this guy&#39;s arguments/ideaologies. This is, of course, your prerogative, psychobilly, but in my opinion, it is naive and ill-informed, and frankly, dangerous.

  • April 18, 2006, 9:39 a.m. CST

    oops. hit enter in the middle of editing

    by moondoggy2u

    I meant to say that you seem against war of any kind and that the reasons you are against a war with Iran can be applied to N. K. as well. Oh, and you are aware that our government was paying N.K. not to use build a nuclear facility in the early to mid 90&#39;s correct? In fact, they renigged, after receiving the money, of course, twice. This was the subject of many a nightly news report throughout the 90&#39;s. I&#39;m surprised you don&#39;t seem to remember.

  • April 18, 2006, 10 a.m. CST

    Max Meanie

    by moondoggy2u

    Ahh, I love the pressure you apply to me: agree to call gorilla an unlearned zealot or be forever known as a hack. Although you will probably not like the answer and at the risk of being branded a heretic, Gorilla is quite correct about the parallels between our current war against terrorism and world war two concerning the arguments of pro and cons. Chamberlain did in fact sign the Munich Agreement in 1938, to say nothing of his earlier appeasments and faithless treaties he signed at the behest of "preserving the peace."

  • April 18, 2006, 10:45 a.m. CST

    One of these days I&#39;m going to persuade harry

    by moondoggy2u

    to provide a spell checker/edit button for out talk backs. I always feel so stupid every time i post with spelling errors. Oh sure, I know how to spell the words correctly, but I start typing so fast and am in the middle of structuring my thoughts, my brain just hits the auto pilot button. Anyone else have this problem?

  • April 18, 2006, 10:57 a.m. CST

    everyone please ignore JUSTICE41

    by Max Meanie

    As you can see he&#39;s only interested in posting racist statements. It doesn&#39;t further the discussion. It only drags us all down.

  • April 18, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST

    moondoggy2u - I think you meant someone else

    by Max Meanie

    I didn&#39;t reply to you (at least I don&#39;t recall). And I didn&#39;t get involved in the above debate about WW2 and pre-emptive strikes. Perhaps you were referring to someone else?

  • April 18, 2006, 11:05 a.m. CST

    meanie

    by moondoggy2u

    oops, you are right. It was Dstrbo. I appologie. I havent talked to you in a while, maxie, so I guess it was a subconscious cry for attention. How have you been doing?

  • April 18, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    anchorite - good points but not really another Crusade

    by Max Meanie

    I agree with most of what you said especially about Iran, N Korea & Israel. But this is not an external religious conflict but an internal one. There hasn&#39;t been a jihad or terrorist attacks on Christianity despite claims made by the right. The eons old hatred against Israel aside (no one disputes that) the internal struggle is within Islam between the 3 factions within Iraq. By the way, that idiot signed on again as "anchortite" last nite. It&#39;s best to ignore him too.

  • April 18, 2006, 11:12 a.m. CST

    moondoggy2u - best to spell check before posting

    by Max Meanie

    I&#39;m fine. Thanks for asking. I always write my responses in a text file and scan for errors before copying & pasting to AICN. Lord I hate typos as well. When is this movie coming out again? And have you seen Loose Change? I saw a lot of posts about it here but is it worth seeing?

  • April 18, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    max

    by moondoggy2u

    You know, I never even thought of writing it some other place and pasting it to the comment box! Well, now I dont have any excuses, I guess. I think the movie is coming out within a few weeks. No, I havent seen loose change (nor am I interested in doing so). I&#39;ve heard enough about it from both sides of the conspiracy "issue." No offense, I just cant sit through another conspiracy documentary/film. Thats why you never really saw me comment one way or another on conspiracy debate (save for a single comment reguarding my problems with conspiracies in general). I&#39;m still not even sure how I got suckered into this whole N. Korea v. iran debate. I think it started with my correcting a few misconceptions and then it promptly snowballed. I guess thats the way it always starts...

  • April 18, 2006, 12:54 p.m. CST

    anchorite - primary conflict not Islam vs Christianity

    by Max Meanie

    It&#39;s a bit simplistic to say this is a religious conflict. With all the declarations of violence called for against US the Great Satan or Bush there aren&#39;t any against the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church or any other major Christian organization. If you know of any I would be interested, seriously. In fact the prior pope voiced his opposition to the war. The only statement I know of that mentioned a religious stake was Lt General Boykin who said

  • April 18, 2006, 2:17 p.m. CST

    anchorite - we&#39;re agreeing today more often than not

    by Max Meanie

    You are absolutely right that fanatic fundamentalists are capable of anything including mass violence. But there are 1.2 billion muslims worldwide. You cannot project the image of a violent terrorist on an entire religious group. As far as current Islamic contribution to civilization I&#39;ll leave that to muslims. Anyone want to chime in?

  • April 18, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Although you and I often disagree, anchorite...

    by Childe Roland

    ...I applaud your willingness to speak plainly on the topic at hand and to acknowledge the factors surrounding America&#39;s current crusade that many seem intent on downplaying (if they acknowledge their existence at all) or covering up in favor of spun philosophical rhetoric. You are absolutely correct that nations have been looking out for their own interests (and often acting in morally questionable ways while doing so) throughout history. And obviously the U.S. is no exception. History shows that plainly. My criticism is of the hypocrisy -- the unwillingness to acknowledge this base and common motive when discussing the current situation or making plans to continue the campaign. The administration wants it both ways...to be able to act like the very barbarians it condemns while still being perceived as somehow in the objective and universal moral right (an elusive concept if ever there was one, particularly where geopolitical matters are concerned). So the administration doesn&#39;t plainly lay out the pros and cons of these crusades for economic and political position. Instead justifications are fabricated...some from existing innuendo or misconceptions ("bad intelligence" and some from whole cloth. These are unnecessary to securing support for the planned actions because, as Bush I showed us in 1990, you don&#39;t need anyone&#39;s authorization to send troops anywhere when you&#39;re the president (congressional approval is only required for an official declaration of war) and it&#39;s damned difficult to call those troops back once things are in motion. It&#39;s the dishonesty that bothers me most, not necessarily the action itself (like I said, I wouldn&#39;t have supported invading Afghanistan or Iraq even if the administration had been honest about its motives, but I know lots of folks...some even right here on this board...who would have -- and I can understand where they&#39;re coming from even if I don&#39;t agree). You are clearly one of the people who can justify what we&#39;re doing regardless of why (although, as you&#39;ve deminstrated, deep down you know why). I&#39;d be very curious to see how the election would&#39;ve turned out if the real plan for the Middle East had been outlined in plain speak instead of in terms of fear and religous responsibility for those uninformed on the history and current dynamics of the region. It&#39;s possible Bush might still have won, given that dissenters would&#39;ve probably been split between any number of independent candidates. So your position would still be the perceived majority mandate and we&#39;d probably still be where we are today. But I&#39;d be much less pissed about how we got there. I can understand and respect your position as you&#39;ve laid it out here. Holding it is your right. Where I will tell you you&#39;re flat-out wrong, however, is in your presumption to know how I would react under any given circumstance, specifically claiming I would cry out for Muslims or Buddhists or anyone else but Jews to be protected from their enemies in various countries around the world. This is simply you knowing not of what you speak. I&#39;ll give you this much insight into my stance on foreign policy so you don&#39;t repeat your mistake. I don&#39;t advocate U.S. Military action on any foreign power&#39;s behalf unless it is 1.) specifically requested and 2.) is defensive in nature. Hence my point about taking requests from the UN more seriously than some of that body&#39;s more vocal critics. If we are called upon for aid by a country or people besieged (or a conclave of countries like the U.N.), then by all means we should answer that call. No one asked us to Afghanistan or Iraq this time around. As for Israel, even you cannot deny that nation is as aggressive as it is defensive (see its position toward Palestinians), so no I don&#39;t believe we should rush out and invade any nation that looks crosseyed at Israel unless we know the context and background of the conflict and honestly believe that Israel&#39;s highly trained and skilled military can&#39;t deal with it using the state of the art technology we&#39;ve already supplied them with. Israel is not a defenseless lamb of a nation. They are a proud, competent and downright ferocious people when they need to be. They can also be stubborn and even more ethnocentric in their perceptions of international relations than America has been of late. Keep that in mind...and keep from making such wildly erroneous assumptions about my mindset in the future and you and I can discuss this (or whatever you like) the livelong day. Thanks.

  • April 18, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST

    If the UN sent a coalition to mitigate an...

    by Childe Roland

    ...Israeli/Iranian conflict, I&#39;d definitely support U.S. involvement -- but I think it goes without saying that such a move would necessitate immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It would be ludicrous for us to try and invade/occupy multiple Middle Eastern nations simultaneously. Anyone who&#39;s ever played Risk (or fought in the current Iraqi conflict while fellow soldiers maintained a presence in Afghanistan) could tell you that. I do have to take issue with your assertion that "Any attacks Israel makes on the Palestinian territories are defensive in nature and are reprisals for deadly attacks made on their own soil." First, there is the inherent contradiction wihtin the statement. A reprisal can never be defensive as it connotes a planned attack in retaliation after the fact. That&#39;s an aggressive action, creating active conflict in a situation where it otherwise did not exist (unless the Israelis only took action against the specific Palestinians who committed those attacks while said Palestinians were committing said acts, in which case it&#39;s not a reprisal but an act of self defense...and we know not all Israeli actions against Palestinians fit this bill). Reprisals are kissin&#39; cousins to pre-emptive attacks, which I don&#39;t endorse either. To say the Israelis simply want to co-exist is to paint that nation (and the Palestinians) with a very broad brush and discounts years of intolerance toward Palestinians under various Israeli leaders. The situation over there is pretty complex, dating back to when the land was assigned to Israel without regard for the people living on or immediately around it. It&#39;s not a simple case of Israelis good/Palestinians bad any more than the U.S. is simply fighting to find WMDs/liberate the people of Iraq/combat the influx of terrorists to an embattled region (and that last argument still dizzies me with its ridiculousness...terrorism in a war zone is about as much of a threat as a fart in a hurricane, which is why terrorists target non-combatants in peaceful areas where those civilians wouldn&#39;t otherwise have good reason to fear being killed by a stray bullet from the massive firefight going on nearby -- if any foreign national butting into Iraq with weapons, looking to influence the development of the new government during this time of turmoil is a terrorist nation, the U.S. has to count itself among their number).

  • April 18, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Max Yes I am reasonable but.... Part A) On War

    by 900LBGorilla

    I like your style- seriously- but I have to go point by point as you are simply incorrect on most of this stuff (I wish we could separate paragraphs on this site): A>>> No reason to invade: This is just flat out incorrect, you can quote one source of intelligence and 20/20 hindsight all day long, but the fact is no one but Saddam KNEW what he had- and most intelligence agencies DISAGREED with Zanini- so in the real world you go on your best information. As indicators, some of Saddam

  • April 18, 2006, 6:50 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - cool discussion

    by Max Meanie

    Glad you appreciate that I&#39;m trying to engage others in a discussion rather than a right/left argument that gets us nowhere. Re: foreign gov&#39;t intelligence agreeing, it&#39;s been well documented that Germany did not agree once they learned the Bush Administration source was an Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball whose info was not credible. It was Curveball that said Saddam had a fleet of mobile labs to produce chemical weapons. That claim was false. But I would be interested in seeing those UN Resolutions. I&#39;ll do a search on the web for that info. Thanks.

  • April 18, 2006, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Part B) On politics/policies

    by 900LBGorilla

    A>>>> The

  • April 18, 2006, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Max- On Politics cont- sorry

    by 900LBGorilla

    I got carried away- that came off harsher than I meant it- I should really proofread

  • April 18, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Germany

    by 900LBGorilla

    I actually do still feel bad about the last post - sorry again, I got a bit fired up on the way you worded a couple things and ran with it a bit

  • April 18, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - War on Terror is a myth

    by Max Meanie

    You cannot declare war on a tactic because there is no clear enemy or goal. To say that you can eliminate the use of fear by your enemies is ridiculous. What you do is use your foreign policies to address whatever problems you have with millitary options as a last resort. Regarding Al-Qaeda & Bin Laden you attack back because they were a legitimate threat - they attacked us. Saddam was no threat, the UN inspectors did their job, Al-Samud missiles (probably spelled that wrong) which were bulldozed because they went outside the prescribed limitations imposed by the UN was an example of inspections working. Saddam was a secular dictator with no ties to Waabiast Islam. Bin Laden & Saddam were enemies. Sorry but there was no immediate threat. And the sad part is we need to build back alliances we lost during the last 3 years to deal with Iran. We can&#39;t do it alone. Lastly I was not referring to myself about the "honorable man admits mistakes" line. I was referring to the generals & commanders who are speaking out including Major General John Batiste who commanded forces in Iraq. His opinion & others must count for something.

  • April 18, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - agree on united front against dictators

    by Max Meanie

    Unfortunately there are interests that go beyond gov&#39;t&#39;s and borders that prop up dictators because it&#39;s in the interest of greed. Saddam used to be our ally against Iran when it suited us. He was the best buffer we had against them which is now gone. Sorry I have to cut out for errands. Talk to ya tomorrow. Thanks!

  • April 18, 2006, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland

    by 900LBGorilla

    What a fitting name, I have answered the question you ask many times over the last few days

  • April 18, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Moondoggy and spelling

    by 900LBGorilla

    I used to have that problem, so when I type something I know will be large, I often do it in Word, and copy/paste

  • April 18, 2006, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Sigh- so many silly, tired old arguments.

    by DoctorWho?

    "Saddam was a secular dictator with no ties to Waabiast Islam"...says 900lb gorilla...So What, Saddam worried little over the agendas or ideologies of these diverse terrorist groups, only that they shared his own generic hatred of Western governments. Nor did the president EVER claim that Saddam himself planned the Sept. 11 attacks (and I dare you to find the quote)..."Saddam was no threat"...sigh again, 900lb Gorilla: Saddam had a history of war against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and the United States, destroyed the ecology of the Mesopotamian wetlands, gassed his own people, and relented in his massacres only to the degree that the United States monitored him constantly. Should we continue with the shameful litany? WMDs were NOT the problem, rather the tyrannical regime that stockpiled them! Thus the clich

  • April 18, 2006, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Opps! Sorry 900lb Gorilla...I meant Max Meanie!

    by DoctorWho?

    Sorry sir...I attributed HIS quotes to you! You are a well reasoned and coherrent thinker. Again, my apologies.

  • April 18, 2006, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Hey Max

    by 900LBGorilla

    The war on Terror is most certainly not a

  • April 18, 2006, 11:52 p.m. CST

    check this out:

    by crazyeyezkillah

    http://www.stillfree.com/

  • April 19, 2006, 2:04 a.m. CST

    X3 news

    by samsquanch

    anyone else notice that AICN has pretty much stopped reporting on anything related to X3? Why the fuck is that? Can anyone with a more intimate knowledge of how this site operates shed some light on this mystery? There are downloadable tv spots, a new website with tons of shit, and not a peep out of what should be a dork&#39;s best friend over here. Oh yeah- and cheers to Mark Ecko, he&#39;s got balls and I&#39;m glad he didn&#39;t get shot.

  • April 19, 2006, 3:05 a.m. CST

    except that..

    by samsquanch

    it&#39;s fake.. heh, heh. I knew that.

  • April 19, 2006, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Nuking Iran is still an option...wait a minute!

    by Psychobilly

    04/10/06: The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran&#39;s underground nuclear sites."I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend," Bush said. "It was just wild speculation." (Yahoo News) 04/18/06: Asked on Tuesday if his options included planning for a nuclear strike, Bush said: "All options are on the table." (Yahoo news)In other words, wild speculation is still an option! I know, I know! This is where everyone who heard him is accused of not being able to understand the President&#39;s inability to articulate himself and we have to rely on his interpreters.

  • April 19, 2006, 5:23 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah

    by cornolio55

    that&#39;s true

  • April 19, 2006, 6:27 a.m. CST

    "Too soon" is a stupid argument...

    by Darth Bono Jr.

    If you find the material too insensitive, that means that you are "merely" too sensitive to see it. So don&#39;t see it. Even if your loved ones were KILLED in the event...this is just part of dealing with the tragedy. This whole issue stems from the fact that MOVIES IN GENERAL are taken too seriously. Even the most interesting, humanity-driven films...pfft...these are JUST movies. People on film pretending to do things that try to simulate life to varying degrees. The whole "art" aspect of film should augment your life, sure, but for crying-out-loud at the end of the day this are "just" projected, fictional entertainment. They should NOT matter as much as the entertainment business and the media have convinced you all that they should matter (with awards ceremonies, professional film criticism, etc). From this perspective, a movie made tomorrow about the murder of my mother shouldn&#39;t impact me anymore than the actual event! You need to separate what is truly making you upset from everything else in life. No one should have a SERIOUS EMOTIONAL STAKE in whether or not a PRETEND movie gets made. Whether it gets watched--and the outcome of watching it--is a completely different issue. Everyone needs to own up to their own emotions. It ain&#39;t the film, folks!

  • April 19, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST

    No Gorilla...

    by Childe Roland

    ...you haven&#39;t answered that question honestly even once. You&#39;ve spouted the same spun rhetoric over and over as though the more times you repeat a thing, the truer it becomes (why don&#39;t you pick up a book and look into brainwashing techniques to see where that concept comes from). Feel free to continue wallowing in your willful ignorance while the rest of the world wakes to the reality that we&#39;ve all been played for the last several years by an administration that severely underestimates the intelligence of its constituents...except for you, of course. You, they&#39;ve got pegged.

  • April 19, 2006, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Politics schmolitics...

    by morGoth

    ...geopolitical or otherwise: Going into Afghanistan was absolutely necessary and there was never any mention of alQueada or the Taliban having WMD&#39;s as a justification. Iraq, on the other hand, was a strategic blunder and played right into alQueada&#39;s hands, WMD&#39;s or nowt. All you history wonks know that so just admit it and move on. Then, to make matters far worse (see: Iraq today), this administration has almost completely dropped the ball in Iraq due to their arrogance and hubris. I daresay our military (both the US and NATO) has enough to chew on for the next decade with keeping both the Taliban and their puppet masters in alQueda from reinvesting Afghanistan and having it serve as their prime base of preparations...again. ** I don&#39;t plan on seeing this movie as I too think it&#39;s just a crass commercialized way to cash in on others misery and tragedy. But then, this is America where unfettered capitalism holds sway. "The free market that the economic conservatives champion undermines the moral character that the social conservatives desire."

  • April 19, 2006, 5:45 p.m. CST

    anchorite - on the money!

    by Max Meanie

    I agree totally with your points about a united coalition forming to deal with Iran, yet not even Adumb-a-duh (easier to say) would use nukes. Unless he&#39;s drooling from the mouth with the button in front of him even he & his gov&#39;t understands that they would be wiped out immediately. For all the talk of terrorism & fear of nuking Israel, don&#39;t you think it would&#39;ve happened by now? But I digress. This could just be a ploy for recognition - for a nut to play big man in the international arena. At the very least hopefully this can be handled diplomatically.

  • April 19, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    DoctorWho? - one question

    by Max Meanie

    Why not go after Osama Bin Laden first instead of Saddam? One more question - you said "Saddam had a history of war against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and the United States." When did he attack the United States? He invaded Kuwait after US Ambassador April Glaspie said the US didn&#39;t care. And previously he attacked Iran with our backing. Please answer these 2 questions.

  • April 19, 2006, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Hey 900LBGorilla - wish we could do this over a beer

    by Max Meanie

    ...because we&#39;d find more in common than not. Besides around 7pm I could use one! *** The reason I call "War on Terror" a myth is because there are no defined boundries and because of it the gov&#39;t takes lattitudes under the guise of national security with no explanation other than trust us. You are much more specific in the defining the enemy than Bush and I concur with you. WMD is easier to get but pissing off the arab community by invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 only encourages hatred against us. If we had eliminated Al-Qaeda & Bin Laden and then focused on creating a Palestinan state that would&#39;ve gained us so much clout in going after Iran, Syria, etc. And as far as failed diplomacy goes, we get no credit for allying ourselves with Saddam for so long and promoting the war with Iran. Cheney & Rumsfeld both had dealings with Iraq even when the sanctions were on. That to me speaks volumes to the hypocricy of the current adminstration. I am no pacifist. There was a way to deal with our enemies by working with the arab community. Instead we&#39;ve alienated them and given the enemy lots of cover. Regarding the inspections not working, that argument would&#39;ve had legs if any WMD were found. Same question to you as DoctorWho: Why not get Osama first? Why spend 1 trillion dollars, 2700 US deaths, 20,000 wounded soldiers and 50,000-100,000 Iraqi deaths to get one man? And Osama is still out there.

  • April 19, 2006, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Childe Roland

    by 900LBGorilla

    Uhh... yes I have answered the question honestly, correctly and multiple times... your utter ignorance of the fact that history supports my arguement doesn&#39;t change the facts at all-but it does speak loudly about you. I have actually ignored much of the rest of your historically ignorant drivel and nonsensical comments, but since you stuck head back out of the hole, I got a kick out of one of some of your other vapid quotes. I&#39;ll just stick to the truly brilliantly ignorant and/or dim-witted A) /////// Roland: "These are unnecessary to securing support for the planned actions because, as Bush I showed us in 1990, you don&#39;t need anyone&#39;s authorization to send troops anywhere when you&#39;re the president"/// Sheesh, and here I was thinking that it was Jefferson who taught us that (and a couple Presidential Dems who seemed to concur- you also don&#39;t apparently understand "authorization" based on the sentence, but shit why "nitpick" at this point) B) //// Roland: "if any foreign national butting into Iraq with weapons, looking to influence the development of the new government during this time of turmoil is a terrorist nation, the U.S. has to count itself among their number"//// The stupidity of this one speaks for itself through the utter lack of understanding of the definition of the word "terrorism" And Pehaps my all time FAVIORITE: //// Roland: "It would be ludicrous for us to try and invade/occupy multiple Middle Eastern nations simultaneously. Anyone who&#39;s ever played Risk .... could tell you that". Let&#39;s base modern war strategies on Childe Rolande&#39;s understanding of one of the most simplistic child&#39;s game on on war ever created- FREAKING BRILLIANT!!!!

  • April 19, 2006, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Max - Beer and United fronts

    by 900LBGorilla

    This would be better over a beer, both because of the atmosphere, and as we would be able to relay much more information more quickly. Trying to keep this concise is at times difficult. I started responding to your

  • April 19, 2006, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Max

    by 900LBGorilla

    You bring up a lot of meaty stuff in this post. I would say that you shouldn

  • April 19, 2006, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Max Meanie

    by DoctorWho?

    Always glad to respond to good questions. 1)"When did he(Saddam) attack the United States?" ...He had a long history of aggression against the United States

  • April 19, 2006, 11:03 p.m. CST

    One more thing...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...about Iran. yes, we backed Saddam against Iran...although the Soviet Union was always Iraq&#39;s chief ally and arms supplier, followed by France. Still we supported him subtantially. The reason was the belief that the Islamic revolution in Iran posed a greater threat to Western interests than did Iraqi President Saddam Hussein&#39;s regime. THAT IS A SOUND TACTIC. We also allied with the butcher Stalin against Hitler in WW II as well.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST

    movie poster

    by dengreg31

    hi..don&#39;t know if anyone brought this up, but what plane is that exactly in the movie poster? Both towers have been hit, united 93 crashed in PENNSYLVANIA.... I&#39;m just saying...

  • April 20, 2006, 8:25 a.m. CST

    You amuse me, Gorilla...

    by Childe Roland

    ...mostly because you haven&#39;t refuted even one of my points. You&#39;ve simply made what you imagine to be funny quips about them without addressing the meat of them. Unless, of course, you attempted to dismiss them entirely by saying they weren&#39;t worth addressing (here&#39;s a hint: quoting my words and then making a joke does not equal points scored in a debate). You should check the scale and change your screen name, because your words have no weight. Before you do, though, "enlighten" me as to your definition of terrorism. That might be good for a chuckle. Or, better yet, stop trying to convince anyone you have the slightest clue what you&#39;re typing about. You have no perspective and no capacity for addressing issues outside of the narrow viewpoint you&#39;ve been spoon fed. You&#39;re a joke that would be a lot funnier if there weren&#39;t so many other people like you.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Why Liberals Lose Elections

    by NeoCon

    First of all, what a great talkback. I departed this one 6 days ago and it seems to finally be dying down. Reading all of these liberal criticisms reminds me of why they continue to lose elections. You offer no solutions. Kerry did the same thing and lost. Any IDIOT can say what they are against. What are you for? Remember guys, Bin Laden called us a "Paper Tiger" when Clinton was the Pres. He knew what kind of cowardly liberal he was. Who&#39;s calling us a "Paper Tiger" now?

  • April 20, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    DoctorWho? - Thanks but you didn&#39;t answer

    by Max Meanie

    I applaud you for being civil in your response but you didn&#39;t answer directly. You said, ""Saddam had a history of war against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and the United States." And your response was he fired back at us during Gulf War 1? What does that mean? 2nd) About Osama, you&#39;re saying it&#39;s too hard to get him? What if we used the resources in the Iraq war to get the man behind 9/11? Would that have made it easier? We agree that when someone kills Americans we should strike back, correct? The gun wasn&#39;t pointed at that killer. And it should&#39;ve been first on the list.

  • April 20, 2006, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Neo-cons do not have answers only sloguns

    by Max Meanie

    I agree, this is a great talkbalk because it became a discussion. Barring 2 or 3 racist/juvenile posters, we found we could chat without insults. That being said saying liberals offer no solutions isn&#39;t a valid comment. Democrats are in the minority in Congress and as such cannot chair a committee, call for oversight investigations, have no subpeona power and are outvoted by sheer numbers. If you watch C-Span you&#39;d see that Democrats are constantly bringing forward new legislation but rarely are these even brought up for a vote because the Republican chair will not allow it. So the "liberals/no ideas" line is false. And since this talkback is dying down, I&#39;ll leave you with this to ponder: we have record deficits, obscenely high gas prices, a # of republicans under indictment, arrested, or under investigation and a war with no end in sight because Rumsfeld & Bush have "no new ideas." Bush said it&#39;s a war for future presidents and will not change policy. These issues directly affect middle America & the poor and they were not caused by liberals. Let&#39;s see what happens after the mid-term elections this November.

  • April 20, 2006, 1:39 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla - one bourbon one scotch one beer

    by Max Meanie

    I try my best to be clear and concise because messages get lost in long-winded speeches. It&#39;s unfortunate that corporate interests sometimes come ahead of the american people was my point. You bring up many which I agree with. France & China do rely more on Iran oil and as such there&#39;s more room for diplomacy. But the chicks are hot (when they shave). The problem with the NSA tapping is there&#39;s no oversight. To this day no one knows who is being tapped or the range. Gonzales wont say. Bush wont say. Re: Palestine - It&#39;s the top reason for tension between Israel & Arabs. Immediately after getting Bin Laden, our 2nd goal should&#39;ve been resolving this. Bush would&#39;ve gone down in history as a great Uniter. That would&#39;ve opened so many avenues of help from the Mid-East. Then we could&#39;ve walked in as friends instead of with a gun and as a recruiter for further hatred & terrorism. I&#39;m sure when X3 comes out it&#39;ll devolve into another Iraq discussion. See you there!

  • April 20, 2006, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Max, sorry you didn&#39;t understand...

    by DoctorWho?

    those were some pretty crystal clear answers.Shooting at U.S planes is attacking the U.S.Just like attacking an embassy is.And yes it is hard finding binLaden ...that&#39;s no reason not to do it.You seem to think that we could just nab him tomorrow if we relly wnted to.If so, that&#39;s naive.Spending money isn&#39;t going to make finding him any easier either...so Iraq war dollars wouldn&#39;t matter. Besides...he&#39;s most likely in Pakistan...we can&#39;t just walk in and out of there as we see fit.

  • April 20, 2006, 5:28 p.m. CST

    DoctorWho? - let me ask this another way

    by Max Meanie

    For argument&#39;s sake, let&#39;s say I hit you and you hit me back. Who started the fight? Me. So if you say Iraq shot back at us because of the Gulf War, that&#39;s a big difference from your statement "Iraq has a history of aggression against...the US." 2nd if spending money doesn&#39;t make a difference, can I borrow a $1000 bucks? 3rd, I agree he&#39;s in Pakistan but that didn&#39;t stop us from bombing Pakistan on 1/13/6 killing 18 civillians and not getting al-Zawahiri. Since we both want the same thing, I&#39;d suggest sending a letter to your congressman stating you want us to concentrate on Bin Laden.

  • April 20, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST

    A Poster-Childe of Public

    by 900LBGorilla

    LMFAO! I may Amuse when I

  • April 20, 2006, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Max- Great song

    by 900LBGorilla

    NSA actually DOES have oversight- it was just on the committee level- which is where it belongs as evidenced by the fact that Congress can

  • April 21, 2006, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Max_Let me use your analogy...

    by DoctorWho?

    If I see a bully hit someone in the face...I am going to come to the aide of the weaker person.Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we got the whole neighborhood (world community) to get together and say "unacceptable". For the next 12 or so years after that, he basically flipped off the world delaring he was above the rules and conventions that all the rest off the world plays by, and on and on... Please don&#39;t boil down these complicated geopolitical scenarios down to a case of "He started it!". As far as your comment ..."if spending money doesn&#39;t make a difference, can I borrow a $1000 bucks?"...what are you talking about? My point was simply: throwing $ at a problem doen&#39;t automatically=results. Do you think it does??? Cause in this situation(finding Bin Laden)I don&#39;t believe so. Gotta go to work...but i&#39;ll try a question for you later if this thread is still up. out.