Michael Moron
Nibbling at the Pentagon theory.
posted by Pat @ 7:40 AM
21 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Friday, October 06, 2006
Previous Posts
- Ben Sliney Interviewed
- "They" Got to Amanda Keller
- Fun With Quote Mining
- White Men Can't Rap
- Bob Bowman Bites on Lauro Chavez Story
- 9-11 Denier Nutbars Disrupt Kristol Speech
- The Six Million Person Question
- As We Move Even Farther into Bizarro World...
- 9-11 Deniers Speak at Ground Zero
- Moron Alex Jones
View My Stats
Allies:
21 Comments:
Michael Moore making suggestive comments without presenting any indepth research or providing any definitive explanation or analysis?
Conspiracy theorists have clearly made him go against everything he stands for.
This is the same man that would have us believe that there's a pipeline being built in Afghanistan, and that the vast majority of US soldiers don't want the US involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Michael Moore doesn't need ANY help from the twoofers: he's shown time and again that he's more than capable of digging his own grave.
Joan, would you like to explain why exactly you think there would be cameras around the pentagon which could have captured the crash? Have you worked with security systems? When I was younger I did security at AECL, which is a crown corporation that works with nuclear reactors. Even though we had some 56 cameras on the premises, I can tell you that not a single one would have been capable of capturing an event such as this one. Ofcourse, if you've got inside info about Pentagon security, I'd LOVE to hear it.
This is the same man that would have us believe that there's a pipeline being built in Afghanistan
He said they wanted a pipeline built, which is true. Not his fault the project crashed.
and that the vast majority of US soldiers don't want the US involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
I missed that one. Are you pointing to the interviews he's made with disgruntled soldiers in Iraq?
'Cause if you're referring to a book, I'm not touching those. Fahrenheit's the only thing by him I actually liked.
In a perfect world the tapes would be irrelevent. People would trust the hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw the plane. Unfortunately - not a perfect world.
The FBI is bringing this on itself. They have 84 videos left (which they reasonably contend don't show the crash) that they stubbornly won't release.
They should just release the videos. At the very least they could make a statement about the national security value of keeping the videos confidential. If they don't want a comprehensive video record of the Pentagon floating around - cool, I understand, just say so. Instead they make it look like they're stonewalling.
They make us look like CT's because we can't do anything but speculate why they haven't been released.
Goyette's an idiot Truther; I feel no sympathy for him. He was the guy who sandbagged the Popular Mechanics' editor on his show. Good riddance if he's really gone--KFNX still shows him on their lineup.
He said they wanted a pipeline built, which is true. Not his fault the project crashed.
CHF answered this bit for me. I'll just re-iterate: MM is very good at implying lies and falsehoods while telling the literal truth.
I missed that one. Are you pointing to the interviews he's made with disgruntled soldiers in Iraq?
Yes. Moreover, the majority of vets/soldiers interviewed for Fahrenheit 9/11 actually held the exact opposite opinions of what MM implied. He simply used quote mining to make them appear bitter and disillusioned, and to imply that they're against the war(s).
Fahrenheit's the only thing by him I actually liked.
While Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good bit of fiction, get yourself a copy of FahrenHYPE 9/11 and you'll get a good education on just how disgusting Michael Moore really is. His personality and his actions, by comparison, make his physical appearance almost pleasant.
I am 50/50 on Michael Moore. What he does, in some regards, is a good thing, but he often cherry picks, and takes things out of context, like truthers, and this I do not like. He is "nibbling" though. To say that the USG has a reason for not releasing the camera footage is half a step from saying a plane didnt hit the pentagon.
I still, to this day, have had no CTer show me a reply from an FOIA request for this footage, telling them they could not have access, and the reasons why.
TAM
I still, to this day, have had no CTer show me a reply from an FOIA request for this footage, telling them they could not have access, and the reasons why.
not a CT'er, but...
http://flight77.info/
Fourth row of documents down from the top.
The rest is a reasonably complete documentation of the FOIA request and lawsuit. It's pretty interesting reading, if not presented very conveniently.
Watch Michael Moore go from Lefty-Gatekeeping Government Shill to Oversized Poster-Child For 9/11 Truth in 4.21 seconds flat.
(Ironically, the same amount of time it took both towers to collapse. Coincidnce? You decide.)
The Popular Mechanics book explains that the Pentagon video was taken with a Philips LTC 1261 security camera, set to record at one frame per second. An object moving at a rate of more than seven hundred feet per second will appear as a blur.
If the conspiracy liars want to continue to promote their silly fantasies, they must, at some point, come to terms with reality.
Michael Moore has been exposed as an irresponsible liar many times. Why shouldn't his hatred of America spill over into this idiocy? The wonder is that it didn't happen sooner.
I think the thing they are whining about now are the multiple cameras that sit atop of the pentgon, looking down upon the surrounding property.
(1)Is there proof these cameras exist?
(2) If they do, would they be looking out onto the lawn, or just straight down at the ground?
(3)What would be their frame rate of capture?
TAM
Interesting, thanks for the link CHAD.
SO I read the FBi reply to the 2nd FOIA request.
Under Oath, at risk of purgery, FBi agent Jacqeuline Maguire states that she looked at all 85 Videotapes in the FBi possession that might have info wrt the Pentagon crash. Only 13 of them showed the Pentagon Crash site. Of those 13, only one showed anything close to resembling the plane, and that is the tape we all have seen, from the CC camera at the car stop in the lot.
She says there is no tape from the Sheraton in their possession, we have seen the CITGO tape, it is useless, and the other hotel tape, she says contains no footage of the crash.
So I guess the CTers either call her a liar, or the whole "all that footage has to show what happened" argument is shit.
TAM
http://flight77.info/
read the actual documents they were sent by the FBi agent Jacquiline Maguire.
TAM
otherwise decent figures one by one.
You might not want to attach the label "decent" to a man who changed the definition of documentary to "manipulative editorial".
Conspiracy theorists have clearly made him go against everything he stands for.
Zing!
He said they wanted a pipeline built, which is true.
Under Clinton.
Are you pointing to the interviews he's made with disgruntled soldiers in Iraq?
The amputee vet he interviews in the film is actually for the war and is quoted as saying he'd go back if he could. The man is a master manipulator.
As has been said, Moore (like Chomsky) is very good with his statements so that he implies something but doesn't outright say it, so he can say "I didn't actually say that" as his defense.
F911 was a terrible documentary (excellent propaganda, though), but it will never beat out Bowling for Columbine for pure illogic, faulty editing, and ignorance of the basic facts (oh and of the Constitution).
I don't understand the objection to M.M's statement. He even notes that he's not making claims that the official story is incorrect, he's not suggesting anything. He just wants to see the footage, a perfectly reasonable request.
Most of the time I think this blog has some excellent counter-arguments to 9/11 truth seekers, but this post demonstrates irrational thinking and hearing what you want to hear.
Gleep Said:
"I don't understand the objection to M.M's statement. He even notes that he's not making claims that the official story is incorrect, he's not suggesting anything. He just wants to see the footage, a perfectly reasonable request.
Most of the time I think this blog has some excellent counter-arguments to 9/11 truth seekers, but this post demonstrates irrational."
I disagree that we are hearing what we want to hear. I actually stated that I am 50/50 on Michael Moore. I think some of what he does is a good thing. When you imply that the govt is hiding something, by not releasing tapes from around the pentagon, you are all but saying, "They must be covering up the fact that something else happened".
As for these tapes, go to flight77.info, they asked for the tapes. The FBI agent incharge of the tapes, reviewed all of them. Of the 85 tapes, only 13 tapes showed the pentagon crash site. Of those 13, only 1, the tape they released already, had any frames actually capturing the impact.
So you either call her a liar, or you accept here word, and realize the tapes are useless.
TAM
profound hatred for president Bush is justified in many ways
I wouldn't agree, he's middle of the road as far as the entirety of presidents is concerned.
Of course Goyette was a libertarian so the foundation for mental illness was always there of course.
From a person whose ideology has killed more people than any other and has failed spectacularly.
I never understood the rabid hatred of Bush that some people exhibit. The only reasons I can see for it is either:
a) He's an uncompromising Republican, and anyone who disagrees with their policies is scared shitless because they know he doesn't care about what they think.
or
b) It's an elitist mindset coming from people who consider themselves intellectuals, and can't believe that someone who talks like a "commoner" would be put in charge of the greatest country on the planet.
Either way, I don't think it has much to do with Bush as a person. If he weren't the president, and you met him in a bar or a coffee shop, I don't think anyone would even dislike the guy, let alone start frothing at the mouth from Bush derangement syndrome.
So let's just lay that one to rest.
I can go back and not find 70-100 million dead because of liberal democracies. Most of the dead thanks to communism and its various forms are domestic anyway, not due to external warfare.
why people hate Bush is because he goes on television and lies to people.
And that's different from the two presidents preceding him how?
Perhaps you can cite a specific lie--note carefully: a lie, not a policy you disagree with--that Bush has told. A lie is a statement that is a) untrue; b) known to be untrue by the person making it.
Post a Comment
<< Home