# FAHRENHEIT 9/11                 June 25, 2004



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 25, 2004)

I have just returned from a 1pm screening of Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, which opens nationwide today. This is absolutely the most important and passionate political film that I have ever seen.  If for some reason the movie is not yet showing at your local theaters, I am certain that it will be eventually, so keep an eye out for it and watch it as soon as it comes to town.  At the very least, please watch the film before you vote in this November's presidential election.  Even if you do not share Moore's political views, I think that it is your responsibility as an American citizen (and/or citizen of the world) to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

If you have a loved one, friend, or acquaintance who is, was, might be, or will be serving in the U.S. military, it is especially crucial that you watch Moore's film.  The welfare of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces is among Moore's primary concerns, as it surely is for all of you.

Fahrenheit 9/11 directly addresses the issues that are on the minds of all Americans right now---and this is not at all an unpatriotic film.  Moore does have a political viewpoint, to be sure, but in the end that viewpoint is expressed in a way that is at once respectful of patriotic sentiment and critical of the Bush administration.  And I'll be honest: some of the images, scenes, and dialogue in the movie are sure to evoke very emotional responses from you, but I believe that these emotions are entirely necessary in order to appreciate the state of the nation and the world at the present time.

I am not usually one to act as a "political organizer," but I think that in this case it is my responsibility to put my timidity aside and implore you to go to the theater and watch Fahrenheit 9/11 at once.  If you are not a regular theater-goer, please make an exception for this momentous film.

If you have any specific questions about the movie, I'd be glad to answer them.:asian:


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 25, 2004)

This movie is propaganda, not a documentary.  It is certainly political.  It is also quite false.



> *Unfairenheit 9/11*
> _The lies of Michael Moore_
> 
> By Christopher Hitchens
> ...


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 25, 2004)

Great film critique, thanks for posting that, Phil. Politics aside, I thought the film was very well done. This film does have an agenda, a very obvious one. Moore's agenda is to get Bush out of office. With that in mind you already know you're going to see a very biased film. But, going back on the article above, I'd like to ask some questions:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group. *(So do they? Is there a bin Laden investor in the Carlyle Group?)*


2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States. *(In the film, it's not that the Saudis have a large amount of investment in the US, but in the Bush family. Is this true?)*


3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests. *(In the film there's footage of Taliban "ambassadors" visiting the US. It also states that the current head of Afghanistan, Karzai, and his other officials were once consultants for UNOCAL. Is this true?)*

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape. *(11,000 to be exact.)*

5) The film also states that of all the Senators and Representatives in Congress, only one among them has a child serving in Iraq in our Military.* Is this True?*

6) Also, in the film, Moore shows footages of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell in 2000 (or maybe early 2001), stating in news conferences that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was of course well before 9/11. *So, how did Iraq obtain WMDs in a span of two years?*

The article above didn't cover this, just wanted to know... Joe:asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 26, 2004)

Thanks Joe - I will certainly go see it.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 27, 2004)

*Link: Moore Lies*

*Link: Moore Exposed*


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 27, 2004)

those links don't really answer my questions above... they just attack the film maker.  would you have any other links that might answer the questions, without me having to read through "this guy is fat, and ignorant, and greedy, and illogical, and unpatriotic...".  becuase i don't really care about Moore, i'm trying to get the information presented in the film verified.  that's all. :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 27, 2004)

Ahhh...but isn't is easier to attack the person, or link up a website that fits your worldview, then to actually see the movie yourself and critique it for yourself? 

Yours,

Bill O'Rielly


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 27, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Ahhh...but isn't it easier to attack the person, or link up a website that fits your worldview, than to actually see the movie yourself and critique it for yourself?





			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Yours,
> 
> Bill O'Rielly




HAHAHahaHahA... That's so true, Paul.  Here's a very telling article:

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Tops North American Box Office
Sunday June 27 11:30 AM PST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - 

Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" did in its entire run, the film's distributors said on Sunday. 

"Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25. 
The film opened in two theaters in New York on Wednesday to help build even more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (In contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.) 

Including the sales from the head start in New York, the film's total stands at $21.96 million. Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, during which it peaked at about 250 theaters, according to Moore. 

"This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie," said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate Films, which backed the movie. 

He said in a conference call that the film played strongly in both Democrat and Republican states, even drawing sell-out crowds in Republican strongholds like Nassau County, New York and Fayetteville, N.C., home of Fort Bragg. 

Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bon Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner. 

The movie cost about $6 million to make, according to Moore. Additionally, the distributors spent less than $10 million -- a relatively modest sum -- to market the movie, said Ortenberg.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 27, 2004)

Joe Eccleston said:
			
		

> those links don't really answer my questions above... they just attack the film maker.



The problem with a filmaker like Moore that has such an agenda, and is willing ot be decietfull about it, is that you never know if you are getting the whole story, or if maybe Moore dropped off facts that told the whole story and kept only to those that makes Bush look bad.

Case in point, a good part of the movie is taken up with the idea that Bush allowed the Suadi's and Bin Laden family to leave America just after 9-11. But Wesly Clark (hardly a Bush fan) testified before the 9-11 commitee that the decision was him at a much lower level than the white house and Bush had nothing to do with the descicion.

So, despite the fact that this was known before the movie came out, is there anything in the movie or in Moore's comments acknowledging this important point? No? Gee, then do you think that maybe the rest fo the movie is just as slanted with no respect for getting at the truth?

Let me look at just one of your questions to illustrate just how complicated the real situation might be and how much Moore could have fooled with it. I will take your first.



> 1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group. (So do they? Is there a bin Laden investor in the Carlyle Group?)



First of all, are you blaming a family that cast out Osama for his sins still? Last I heard, the only member that does not curse his name is his birth mother. It has been over a decade since Osama has been in good standing with his family and still people are not going to deal with the family? I find this rather distastefull since a good friend of mine has his real father serving life in prison for child molestation. He has not talked to his father in over a decade, just like the Bin Laden family has not talked with Osama. But the guilt of one family member seems to overshadow the entire family forever- that just is not right.

Secondly, have you looked at the population of Saudi Arabia? It is much, much smaller than many American states. And over half of the population is under 20. So the older, business elite is going to be pretty small. They also have larger famileis due to polygamy laws. The end result is that it is kind of hard NOT to have some sort of relationship with a distant relative or in-law when you do business at the highest levels in Saudi Arabia. And do you know how many people are involved in the Carlyle Group?

So, are you sure that Moore would take these things into account and give the whole story, or just present the facts in as damming a way as possible and ignore anything that may explain it to people's satisfaction?

With what Clark says compared with what Moore put in his film, you have to assume that Moore would just do whatever it takes to bring down the president. His deceit and his agenda is fair grounds for discussion. If he were balanced or fair like we expect from real media people, we could expect that he would at least mention facts that run counter to his accusations. He does not. He has proven to twist things in such a way to make them as damming as possible.

Thus, we can not trust anything he says and can not take it on faith. As such, the movie is worthless as a source of facts.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

> First of all, are you blaming a family that cast out Osama for his sins still? Last I heard, the only member that does not curse his name is his birth mother. It has been over a decade since Osama has been in good standing with his family and still people are not going to deal with the family? I find this rather distastefull since a good friend of mine has his real father serving life in prison for child molestation. He has not talked to his father in over a decade, just like the Bin Laden family has not talked with Osama. But the guilt of one family member seems to overshadow the entire family forever- that just is not right.


If you saw the movie, you'd know that after the scenes which connected the bin Laden family to the Carlyle group, and their leaving for Saudi Arabia from the US on 13 Sept without the FBI investigating them, Moore also showed footage of a bin Laden family wedding (I believe that was in Afghanistan), attended by Osama, with the very family that claimed to have *"ostracized"* him. This was actually what Moore wanted to point out, not that the Bush family and the bin Laden family are connected, but that the bin Ladens are actually still in contact with their "black sheep" of a son, Osama.

As I've said, Moore is biased against Bush, this is obvious. He hates Bush and the Big Business/Big Money he represents. There's no point discussing this, because we have no need verifying this information. Moore is not "media people" he is an independent film-maker, don't confuse that with a journalist. My questions above though require some answers. Saying, "Moore is fat, biased, unpatriotic, and greedy" won't really answer these questions, because these questions are not about Moore, but rather about the contents presented in his film.

Would you care to go on with the other questions? (it might help if you see the movie first, so we'll have a basis of discussion):asian:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

Joe Eccleston said:
			
		

> If you saw the movie, you'd know that after the scenes which connected the bin Laden family to the Carlyle group, and their leaving for Saudi Arabia from the US on 13 Sept without the FBI investigating them, Moore also showed footage of a bin Laden family wedding (I believe that was in Afghanistan), attended by Osama, with the very family that claimed to have *"ostracized"* him. This was actually what Moore wanted to point out, not that the Bush family and the bin Laden family are connected, but that the bin Ladens are actually still in contact with their "black sheep" of a son, Osama.



We are talking about Moore, who has been proven to be rather distrustworthy by not taking into account the testimony by Clarke in his attack on Bush. We can not put it past him to kind of slew the dates, etc of this wedding to try to make his point.

After a program like 60 Minutes deals with the story of the Bin Laden family still having dealings with their son (I know his mother refused to stop talking to him) I may believe it. But the fact that no _legitimate_ source with a reputation for _trustworthness and honesty_ seems to want to touch it tells me that it is another case of Moore probably playing fast and loose with the facts.

Again, you can't trust someone like Moore to tell you the entire story or mention things that may let the object of his witch hunts off the hook if he knows about them. When a source that is more trustworthy backs him up, then I may start listening. But so far, the silence from the regular media is kind of interesting to say the least. You would expect them to back up a lot of what he said if there was any merit to it. But all we see is a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts taking up the charge.


----------



## Bill Lear (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> When a source that is more trustworthy backs him up, then I may start listening. But so far, the silence from the regular media is kind of interesting to say the least. You would expect them to back up a lot of what he said if there was any merit to it. But all we see is a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts taking up the charge.



It appears that much of "the regular media" may be in the President's pocket. Miramax (owned by Disney) pulled out of producing the film because Disney is "a nonpartisan company" according to Michael Eisner. I think it had more to do with Disney avoiding a financial mess in Florida. Here's an article by ABC news (Not to be confused with the ABC owned by Disney here in the U.S. :uhyeah: ): 





> Disney blocks new Michael Moore doco  Thursday, May 6, 2004. 8:09am (AEST)
> 
> The Walt Disney group has banned its Miramax Films subsidiary from distributing a documentary by award winning director Michael Moore critical of US President George W Bush's alleged links to the family of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, Disney says on its website.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> It appears that much of "the regular media" may be in the President's pocket.



Uh....right.

For years I have been reading Arab conspiracy theories about how the world's media and such are run by a conspiracy. Now I can get the same from Martialtalk. 

And I think I should point out that Moore contridicted himself on a talk show on the matter of the Miramax distributation and that no one has ever proven his rather looney claims of the Bush family putting pressure on Disney.

But of course, if the entire media in the US and overseas is controlled by the secret conspiracy, we would never hear about any proof to Moore's accusations, would we?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> We are talking about Moore, who has been proven to be rather distrustworthy by not taking into account the testimony by Clarke in his attack on Bush. We can not put it past him to kind of slew the dates, etc of this wedding to try to make his point.
> 
> After a program like 60 Minutes deals with the story of the Bin Laden family still having dealings with their son (I know his mother refused to stop talking to him) I may believe it. But the fact that no _legitimate_ source with a reputation for _trustworthness and honesty_ seems to want to touch it tells me that it is another case of Moore probably playing fast and loose with the facts.
> 
> Again, you can't trust someone like Moore to tell you the entire story or mention things that may let the object of his witch hunts off the hook if he knows about them. When a source that is more trustworthy backs him up, then I may start listening. But so far, the silence from the regular media is kind of interesting to say the least. You would expect them to back up a lot of what he said if there was any merit to it. But all we see is a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts taking up the charge.


So, what you are saying is .. that regardless of the *facts*, that Michael Moore is the messenger, you will not believe. I understand.

Mike



A mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> that no one has ever proven his rather looney claims of the Bush family putting pressure on Disney.
> 
> . . . we would never hear about any proof to Moore's accusations, would we?


Can you please reference the 'accusations' of which you speak. To my knowledge, Mr. Moore has *never accused* the Disney company of being *pressured by the Bush family*. Such a claim should be substantiated, and if true, would have profound impact on the reception of the Movie.

Mr. Moore has said that Disney refused to distribute the film because they felt releasing it would jeopardize some upcoming tax legislation in Florida. 

That Michael Eisner makes a business decision is a very different thing from the "Bush family putting pressure on Disney". 

Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying is .. that regardless of the *facts*, that Michael Moore is the messenger, you will not believe. I understand.



Nope,
I am saying that if the only source is Michael Moore with no supporting evidence, then I will not believe it. And I do not trust him to not distort the facts, hence the need for independent confirmation.

And can you show me any proof for his little claims like Jeb Bush threatened to pull Disney's tax breaks (or for that matter- the tax breaks that were supposably going ot be pulled) by a source other than Moore? Not a new story that quotes Moore, but one that uses a source other than Moore?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And can you show me any proof for his little claims like Jeb Bush threatened to pull Disney's tax breaks (or for that matter- the tax breaks that were supposably going ot be pulled) by a source other than Moore? Not a new story that quotes Moore, but one that uses a source other than Moore?


I never offered proof. It was a claim made by Moore, and can be viewed on the Michael Moore web site.

Of course, others have made the claim.



			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> Family-oriented Disney ran the risk of a financial backfire if it annoyed customers or the government officials who set the rules that the media conglomerate plays, said investor Hal Vogel, who does not own Disney shares.


http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040625/media_disney_fahrenheit911_1.html



			
				CBS MarketWatch said:
			
		

> Disney's Eisner has said he wouldn't distribute the film because of its overt political themes.


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BB51EA58C%2D0E7D%2D4893%2D97BB%2DE00AC50B6AE1%7D


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

You may note that none of the sources you mentioned back the claims that there was pressure by Jeb Bush to supress the film. They talk about financial backlash if Disney annoys the public, and the unwillingness to deal with such an overtly politcal themed movie. NOTHING about pressure by Bush, and no one has provided any proof to back up Moore's accusations that this was the reason.

Strange, huh? Easier for me to think that Moore made up the entire thing to hurt Bush and draw attention to his movie than it is for me to accept that no one could have found some sort of proof to his accusations and driven up their ratings with the scandal.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Again, you are saying there are accusations that the Bush family pressured Disney... I never said that. To my knowledge, Moore never said that. 

But ... you said it. And now you say, you can't find anyone who said it. Geesh.

Mike



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> You may note that none of the sources you mentioned back the claims that there was pressure by Jeb Bush to supress the film. They talk about financial backlash if Disney annoys the public, and the unwillingness to deal with such an overtly politcal themed movie. NOTHING about pressure by Bush, and no one has provided any proof to back up Moore's accusations that this was the reason.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Can you please reference the 'accusations' of which you speak. To my knowledge, Mr. Moore has *never accused* the Disney company of being *pressured by the Bush family*. Such a claim should be substantiated, and if true, would have profound impact on the reception of the Movie.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Again, you are saying there are accusations that the Bush family pressured Disney... I never said that. To my knowledge, Moore never said that.
> 
> But ... you said it. And now you say, you can't find anyone who said it. Geesh.


  It definitely takes effort to find out exactly what Moore *did* say, then investigate the validity of those claims.  

 It's alot easier to avoid disrupting one's world-view if one simply lets others do the thinking for them.  It's an easy trap to fall into, and certainly one I've been guilty of in the past.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

> After a program like 60 Minutes deals with the story of the Bin Laden family still having dealings with their son (I know his mother refused to stop talking to him) I may believe it. But the fact that no _legitimate_ source with a reputation for _trustworthness and honesty_ seems to want to touch it tells me that it is another case of Moore probably playing fast and loose with the facts.
> 
> Again, you can't trust someone like Moore...


You have to give me a more concrete counter than that.  Because I can as easily play the same game you're playing and say "Well, Osama's mother and his family are Liars".  And we'll be in a stalemate.  This does no one any good.  I'm ready to listen to your counters, but all you're giving me is "there lies, lies, I tell you".

OK, until you can come up with a more definite answer for that one, I'll move on with an easier question, I hope there's an answer for it.

*Why is the average Halliburton worker earning 8,000 to 10,000 a month, when our average soldier only earns 1,000 to 3,000 a month? Halliburton is the number one contractor under the Dept of Defense, so essentially both the worker and soldier are getting paid from the same place?*


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Joe Eccleston said:
			
		

> *Why is the average Halliburton worker earning 8,000 to 10,000 a month, when our average soldier only earns 1,000 to 3,000 a month? Halliburton is the number one contractor under the Dept of Defense, so essentially both the worker and soldier are getting paid from the same place?*


Could it be, that during the first Bush Administration, the Secretary of Defense wanted to find away to make the 'Peace Dividend' brought on by the end of the cold war a reality by outsourcing much of military services (such as cooking & cleaning (so much for KP duty)). Then, when the first Bush Adminstration was asked to find new employment, that ex-Secretary of Defense took a job leading a company that could build those military services that were outsourced. Lastly, when the second Bush adminstration was appointed by the (in)Justices of the Supreme Court, the ex-Secretary of Defense, now promoted to Vice-President awarded several billion dollars of no-bid contracts to his former associates at Halliburton.

Could Dick Cheney really do all that?  Naaa!!!  That's way too looney of a suggestion, isn't it?

Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> It's alot easier to avoid disrupting one's world-view if one simply lets others do the thinking for them.  It's an easy trap to fall into, and certainly one I've been guilty of in the past.



Ah yes, let Moore do the thinking for you. All this stuff on the internet about how, "It appears that much of "the regular media" may be in the President's pocket." and such- but if Moore does not actually come out and phrase it that way, then you can't blame him, eh?

Now on to more conspiracy theories and accusations against the Bush administration, Halliburton, etc as a nice diversion, eh?


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

> *Why is the average Halliburton worker earning 8,000 to 10,000 a month, when our average soldier only earns 1,000 to 3,000 a month? Halliburton is the number one contractor under the Dept of Defense, so essentially both the worker and soldier are getting paid from the same place?*





			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Ah yes, let Moore do the thinking for you. All this stuff on the internet about how, "It appears that much of "the regular media" may be in the President's pocket." and such- but if Moore does not actually come out and phrase it that way, then you can't blame him, eh?
> 
> Now on to more conspiracy theories and accusations against the Bush administration, Halliburton, etc as a nice diversion, eh?


that's your answer????!!!!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Ah yes, let Moore do the thinking for you. All this stuff on the internet about how, "It appears that much of "the regular media" may be in the President's pocket." and such- but if Moore does not actually come out and phrase it that way, then you can't blame him, eh?


 Don,  none of what I posted before the message I've quoted before came from Michael Moore.  I hadn't even *seen* "Fahrenheit" at the time, and I still haven't seen any other his other movies (except for "Roger and Me").  Why do you think I'm letting Moore do the thinking for me?

 I have listed, on two threads now, a number of researched, detailed points, and you've responded with only this kind of churlish hyperbole.  Is this because you refuse to actually discuss the facts and issues?  Or are you just enjoying the sparring?

 I've gone to a great deal of effort to back my points, and you clearly are not exerting anything like the same level of effort.  I'm finding it harder and harder to take you seriously.


----------



## captnigh (Jun 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I have listed, on two threads now, a number of researched, detailed points, and you've responded with only this kind of churlish hyperbole. Is this because you refuse to actually discuss the facts and issues? Or are you just enjoying the sparring?
> 
> I've gone to a great deal of effort to back my points, and you clearly are not exerting anything like the same level of effort. I'm finding it harder and harder to take you seriously.


Ouch!
And I believe michaeledward answered the question posed by Joe Eccleston concerning Halliburton....(very well, I might add.)
I'm looking forward to seeing this movie, I heard people stood up and cheered at the end of some of the first screenings.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 29, 2004)

> I'm looking forward to seeing this movie, I heard people stood up and cheered at the end of some of the first screenings.


 Me too - I heard that it got a standing ovation here in my little town.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 29, 2004)

I haven't seen the film yet, and will await (personal) judgement/viewpoint of it's content and "message" until then. I saw "Bowling for Columbine" and appreciated the tongue in cheek message that it had there. That film showed Moore to be insightful but a bit too biased in that the "other-side" had little or no voice. It was disappointing to see Charlton Heston refuse cooperation for an interview because he (was) a man I admired for a time. 
Regardless. Moore's films are part of what makes America great. The fact that he's able to *make* these films and release them to the general public _*without*_ censorship says that we're still free enough to voice our own views no matter who they may (or may not) offend, particularly if they're aimed at our own government. _They_ at least do not see Moore's views as a threat or else they'd never be released eh?
What I find funny (as in ODD) is the various websites that point out the indescrepencies of the Pentagon attack on 9-11 that they're up for about a week and then mysteriously disappear.  :idunno: 
Mebbe the webmaster couldn't afford to keep it up or...


----------



## captnigh (Jun 30, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> The fact that he's able to *make* these films and release them to the general public _*without*_ censorship says that we're still free enough to voice our own views no matter who they may (or may not) offend, particularly if they're aimed at our own government.


Good point.


> is the various websites that point out the indescrepencies of the Pentagon attack on 9-11 that they're up for about a week and then mysteriously disappear.


Hmmm.  I hadn't really noticed.....  Could you be more specific?
I love a good conspiracy.....


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 14, 2004)

> is the various websites that point out the indescrepencies of the Pentagon attack on 9-11 that they're up for about a week and then mysteriously disappear.



My father was there soon after the Pentagon attack, searching for two missing employees....and there was definately wreckage on site.


----------

