9/11 movies Options

[*kryogenix*]

Oh man. They better not screw this up. Documentaries are fine (except for movies like Fahrenheit 9/11). If they make a love story, I'm going to be pissed. I have a feeling some of them are just exploiting 9/11. They better not have a political message. I have a bad feeling the Oliver Stone is going to screw this up. And if they bash the United States, or justify the attacks in any way, I'm going to be pissed.

[technicolour]

Question: What the hell are you talking about?

[*kryogenix*]

I guess you haven't seen the news.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2...11-movies_x.htm

Hollywood Studios are already making movies based on 9/11.

[technicolour]

AWW HELL NO!

Hollywood + anything political = Bullshit

[aera]

i like the documentaries, like the flight that fought back. but movies about it? i agree, it better not be some love story.

[sadolakced acid]

aww pooh. if you can let hollywood make a movie about the crucifiction of christ, let them make a movie about 9/11.

i, for one, hae been waiting for one, and i hope it pays tribute to the unsung heros (as well as the sung ones, you know).

[Looow]

I hope its not a love story. Come on.

[yellowgurl]

AWW HELL NO!

Hollywood + anything political = Bullshit

i agree.. they usually make something not really realistic to the issue

[illumineering]

Oh man. They better not screw this up. Documentaries are fine (except for movies like Fahrenheit 9/11). If they make a love story, I'm going to be pissed. I have a feeling some of them are just exploiting 9/11. They better not have a political message. I have a bad feeling the Oliver Stone is going to screw this up. And if they bash the United States, or justify the attacks in any way, I'm going to be pissed.

What are you complaining about? Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are nothing alike. I don't understand your beef w/ Farenheit 9/11. Why can't he make a documentary that's based on his perspective of the issue? If you don't like it, don't bring it up. Why are you anticipating being pissed? The film isn't even out yet. This seems more like a rant as opposed to a debatable issue.

[*kryogenix*]

The questions: 1) Are we ready for movies based on 9/11? 2) Do you think Hollywood is exploiting the issue?

What are you complaining about? Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are nothing alike. I don't understand your beef w/ Farenheit 9/11. Why can't he make a documentary that's based on his perspective of the issue? If you don't like it, don't bring it up. Why are you anticipating being pissed? The film isn't even out yet. This seems more like a rant as opposed to a debatable issue.

How can you not understand my beef with F. 9/11? It was a propaganda film.

If I don't like it, why shouldn't I bring it up? I'm warning people to look out for BS. And it's not like I said I'm not even going to give the film a chance. I probably will watch it to form my own opinion.
It's just that if the reviews say it's political, or it distorts what really happened, then I will not like it.

aww pooh.  if you can let hollywood make a movie about the crucifiction of christ, let them make a movie about 9/11. 

i, for one, hae been waiting for one, and i hope it pays tribute to the unsung heros (as well as the sung ones, you know).

How are you going to screw up the crucifixion of Christ, all the details are pretty much set in stone?

I don't mind a movie about 9/11. I'm looking forward to see National Geographic's documentary on it (They're spending 4 hours on it). But if any of these films warp the truth, it's not good. And the fact that Oliver Stone is behind the scenes in one of these movies worries me. They've announced that the film is not going to be political, but his JFK movie and some of the quotes he said after 9/11 scare me.

[illumineering]

The "truth" you refer to is a matter of perception. It's not a law of nature.

[*kryogenix*]

The "truth" you refer to is a matter of perception.  It's not a law of nature.

The truth is that the people who were in the towers were the victims. If he tries to suggest that the corporations inside were the true villains, would that not be false?

[illumineering]

The truth is that the people who were in the towers were the victims. If he tries to suggest that the corporations inside were the true villains, would that not be false?

No, it wouldn't. If the "attack" was meant for the corporations that the towers represent, the people would still remain victims as they were the unintended targets.

[*kryogenix*]

No, it wouldn't.  If the "attack" was meant for the corporations that the towers represent, the people would still remain victims as they were the unintended targets.

I think you misunderstood my post. Oliver Stone has justified 9/11 in the past by saying it was a stand against corporations. That is warping the truth. You cannot justify the attacks with that.

[The Voice]

How can you not understand my beef with F. 9/11? It was a propaganda film.

Every film that mentions America in it, on some level or another…is a propoganda film. The Captain America comic books were propoganda. This was simply one of the first times that a documentary was made opposing the current leader of our country. I'm not going to go into my stance on the film and it's merit..because that's irrelevant...but of course it's propoganda. The point of a documentary is to make someone see things from the perspective of the director/writer. He stressed his views, and take them how you like. That's the point of it. I also hope that they don't screw up the 9/11 movie. And you're right, with Oliver stone it's a possibility. I just pray that it's not another Pearl Harbor. Also, I think it's a bit premature to write the film...and for it to have any merit...because it seems like there is still a great deal of investigation ongoing. If they are to simply focus on the act itself, and the people who's lives were destroyed...that's fine...and on the firemen and police officers that sacrificed their lives...then once again...that's wonderful. But I hope it doesn't become a political thing. I hope that they don't make claims that will nto truly be proven or disproven for another 10 to 20 years.

[napoleon034]

What are you complaining about?  Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are nothing alike.  I don't understand your beef w/ Farenheit 9/11.  Why can't he make a documentary that's based on his perspective of the issue?  If you don't like it, don't bring it up.  Why are you anticipating being pissed?  The film isn't even out yet.  This seems more like a rant as opposed to a debatable issue.

well, the problem there is if a republican made a documentary on abortion, you'd hate that movie.

and actually, i agree with you, documentaries are strongly biased, and no one can change that. so no one should hate the documentaries, just the people who made them.

[SkaironFrenzy]

i bet they're going to say its g. bush's fualt. hmm... liberals.

[The Voice]

i bet they're going to say its g. bush's fualt. hmm... liberals.

See, and I assume that it's somehow going to try connect 9/11 to Iraq…and then through focusing on the hero aspect…attempt to make the whole movie into a recruitment drive. At least that's what I worry about. Hmm…conservatives.

[napoleon034]

See, and I assume that it's somehow going to try connect 9/11 to Iraq…and then through focusing on the hero aspect…attempt to make the whole movie into a recruitment drive.  At least that's what I worry about.  Hmm…conservatives. 

Recruitment drive for...George Bush? Soory, last time I checked, only two presidential terms are allowed.

[The Voice]

Recruitment drive for...George Bush? Soory, last time I checked, only two presidential terms are allowed.

Umm…I was talking about a recruitment drive for the military. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I can assume to know, but I don't see where you got that idea from my post.

[*disco infiltrator*]

1. You may not like Fahrenheit 911, but it is true, from that perspective. You don't agree and that's fine. Michael Moore expressed himself. I roll my eyes when one of George Bush's speeches interrupts the Daily Show, but that doesn't mean whatever he says is untruthful - I just don't agree.

2. Many people will be ecstatic about the 9/11 movie, probably. It'll show the "heroes" in a good light, making them out to have saved millions of people or something. Personally, I don't think much heroism was done since so many people were not saved, and that may not be others' opinion but oh well, it's mine. It's a movie, of course it's not gonna show anyone but the terrorists in a bad light. That's what happens. Oh well. Don't go see it.

[zepfel]

just take the film with a pinch of salt... it's a film, so it's primary purpose is entertertainment, and since it's hollywood, it's going to try to appeal to as many people as possible without upsetting anyone.

so obviously, it will be crap, but does it really matter?

oh, and in response to the "exploiting 9/11" thing, every film has a story, some of them are true. people will watch if it's a famous story, but not so many people if the film's particularly bad. war films have been made about death, you could say schindler's list was exploiting nazi terror. i wouldn't.

[*kryogenix*]

Every film that mentions America in it, on some level or another…is a propoganda film.  The Captain America comic books were propoganda.  This was simply one of the first times that a documentary was made opposing the current leader of our country.  I'm not going to go into my stance on the film and it's merit..because that's irrelevant...but of course it's propoganda.  The point of a documentary is to make someone see things from the perspective of the director/writer.  He stressed his views, and take them how you like.  That's the point of it.  I also hope that they don't screw up the 9/11 movie.  And you're right, with Oliver stone it's a possibility.  I just pray that it's not another Pearl Harbor.  Also, I think it's a bit premature to write the film...and for it to have any merit...because it seems like there is still a great deal of investigation ongoing.  If they are to simply focus on the act itself, and the people who's lives were destroyed...that's fine...and on the firemen and police officers that sacrificed their lives...then once again...that's wonderful.  But I hope it doesn't become a political thing.  I hope that they don't make claims that will nto truly be proven or disproven for another 10 to 20 years.

If a documentary maker wants to make money from a documentary he's making, he'd avoid using misleading statements, controversy, and a political agenda.

Reading more into it, I don't think there will be any "Pearl Harbor" type films with a love story and what not.

  1. You may not like Fahrenheit 911, but it is true, from that perspective. You don't agree and that's fine. Michael Moore expressed himself. I roll my eyes when one of George Bush's speeches interrupts the Daily Show, but that doesn't mean whatever he says is untruthful - I just don't agree.

2. Many people will be ecstatic about the 9/11 movie, probably. It'll show the "heroes" in a good light, making them out to have saved millions of people or something. Personally, I don't think much heroism was done since so many people were not saved, and that may not be others' opinion but oh well, it's mine. It's a movie, of course it's not gonna show anyone but the terrorists in a bad light. That's what happens. Oh well. Don't go see it.

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty misleading, if not untruthful. Just type in fahrenheit 9/11 lies in a search engine. There are exaggerations and outright lies in that movie. The movie was made to push an agenda, not to educate the masses about an issue in an unobjective manner. The fact that it's helping the terrorists is even worse.

2. Again, I will repeat, I do not mind a 9/11 movie as long as it remains truthful and properly respects that day and those that died on it.

[The Voice]

If a documentary maker wants to make money from a documentary he's making, he'd avoid using misleading statements, controversy, and a political agenda.

I wish that were the case…but unfortunately, lies and fiction have always had a tendency to rake in more money than truth and honesty. I agree, that truth is key importance in documentaries…however, everyone has a different version of the truth. There is no absolute definate, universal truth...so someone will always view whatever you do with some level of skepticism. That's a huge difference between conservatives and liberals. They both look at the exact same thing, and see something entirely different. I'd personally like to consider myself a Star Bellied Sneetch. Oo Sorry, couldn't resist Dr Seuss.

[*mipadi*]

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty misleading, if not untruthful. Just type in fahrenheit 9/11 lies in a search engine. There are exaggerations and outright lies in that movie. The movie was made to push an agenda, not to educate the masses about an issue in an unobjective manner. The fact that it's helping the terrorists is even worse.

How is it "helping the terrorists"?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Saying George Bush is a hero for going to war is pretty misleading in my eyes too.

And yea, how in the WORLD is it HELPING TERRORISTS?

[technicolour]

Ah blah blah, I really gotta stop coming in here. I get too mad. I'm going to have bad high blood pressure.

i bet they're going to say its g. bush's fualt. hmm... liberals.

In a way it is part Bush's fault. He chose to act on faulty [is that spelled right?] intelligence.

And I'll agree with headphones. Saying Bush is a hero for going to war isn't right. That's too extreme.

[*kryogenix*]

How is it "helping the terrorists"?

Well, it's undermining the war effort. Bin Laden has used pieces from Fahrenheit 9/11 in his speeches.

  Saying George Bush is a hero for going to war is pretty misleading in my eyes too.

And yea, how in the WORLD is it HELPING TERRORISTS?

What 9/11 movie has said George Bush is a hero? And I don't think the movies should go too deeply into the war on terror. I want them to talk about 9/11.

[*mipadi*]

I think it's going a bit far to say that any criticism of the government is undermining the war effort and helping the terrorists. If we're going to look down on those freedoms now, then the terrorists have already won.

[*kryogenix*]

I think it's going a bit far to say that any criticism of the government is undermining the war effort and helping the terrorists. If we're going to look down on those freedoms now, then the terrorists have already won.

Speaking out against the government isn't wrong. Lying is wrong.

[sadolakced acid]

^ and farenheit 9/11 was all lies?

[*kryogenix*]

^ and farenheit 9/11 was all lies?

It had some lies. Documentaries, especially ones on topics such as 9/11, should not have any lies.

[*xcaitlinx*]

It had some lies. Documentaries, especially ones on topics such as 9/11, should not have any lies.

And, exactly, how do YOU know that F. 9/11 contained lies? All because you read articles (written by Conservatives, I'm sure) that say that F. 9/11 was a fake, doesn't mean that THEY'RE telling the truth. Like everyone said, people who are against Bush will agree with Michael Moore, and people that are pro-Bush or pro-war will say that the movie was bullshit. It all depends on your views of 9/11 and Bush.

[*kryogenix*]

And, exactly, how do YOU know that F. 9/11 contained lies? All because you read articles (written by Conservatives, I'm sure) that say that F. 9/11 was a fake, doesn't mean that THEY'RE telling the truth. Like everyone said, people who are against Bush will agree with Michael Moore, and people that are pro-Bush or pro-war will say that the movie was bullshit. It all depends on your views of 9/11 and Bush.

Because I saw it (although I'll admit, I was extremely disgusted, and I turned it off without seeing the whole thing). Because I like to get something called perspective, especially when watching propaganda films like F. 9/11. Because I like to research things that people say that I don't think are true.

The movie used facts, but it is outrageously misleading. If you just listen to one side, you're simply buying into their propaganda.

Let me ask you, what do you think of the Swift Boat movie?

[edit]

BTW, Ed Koch, former Democrat (read: liberal) Mayor of NYC, had this to say about Fahrenheit 9/11: (I bolded some text for emphasis)

“I am a movie critic, so I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics. [b]It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully. The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon. … Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not. I think, yes. The movie’s diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.”

(Ed Koch, Op/Ed, “Koch: Moore’s Propaganda Film Cheapens Debate, Polarizes Nation,” World Tribune, 6/29/04)

There you have it. A liberal finds Fahrenheit 9/11 misleading. Which isn't surprising at all, since anyone who has the sense to find perspective can figure that out.

[*mipadi*]

Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a documentary, but it is more of an editorial; and like it or not, Michael Moore has a right to express his opinion, even one contradicting that of our own government's propaganda machine (which has been spewing out spin endlessly since 9/11). I don't see why it is acceptable for the government and the Bush administration to spin the story and express their opinions how they choose, but a private citizen like Michael Moore is "helping the terrorists."

Granted, I don't like Michael Moore very much because he does do more harm than good, but the fact is, amongst all the biases and propaganda, there is some good information about the government that people should know about.

[The Voice]

I'm not going to get heated about this…but Micheal Moore has never told a lie that cost thousands of lives. Take that how you will.

[*kryogenix*]

Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a documentary, but it is more of an editorial; and like it or not, Michael Moore has a right to express his opinion, even one contradicting that of our own government's propaganda machine (which has been spewing out spin endlessly since 9/11). I don't see why it is acceptable for the government and the Bush administration to spin the story and express their opinions how they choose, but a private citizen like Michael Moore is "helping the terrorists."

Granted, I don't like Michael Moore very much because he does do more harm than good, but the fact is, amongst all the biases and propaganda, there is some good information about the government that people should know about.

I'm fine with Michael Moore expressing his opinion. I just don't want him supporting his opinion with lies. I'd rather he just present the good information, rather than wrap it in trash.

  I'm not going to get heated about this…but Micheal Moore has never told a lie that cost thousands of lives. Take that how you will.

Yeah, Bill Clinton is a heck of a liar.

[*mipadi*]

Yeah, Bill Clinton is a heck of a liar.

So at what point do we stop blaming everything on Michael Moore or Bill Clinton, and actually admit that yes, George Bush misled the public, and yes, that cost over 1000 American lives?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Michael Moore didn't lie. He used hard facts in every bit of that movie, just interpreted and used these facts, showing them differently than you would.

Why don't you get this? None of it is lies, it's just not seen in the same light as you.

Conservatives and liberals have the same information on the war in their minds. There's disagreement because they interpret and use the information differently. It's not that either of them are lying, they just choose to use the facts they've been given differently than the other.

[LordAwesome]

Well, you argue back and fourth so fervently. Darn conservatives and dastardly liberals. Let's take a look at each group. Basically, by simple definition, conservative means that you are against change, and liberal means you embrace change, looking forward to new things.

Now, logically looking at these 2 groups with no bias, I think that it is easy to see, on a political level, that the liberal view is a more beneficial one.

Realistically, however, it has come down to this. The conservatives carry religious connotations, and have their own form of unattractive fanaticism.

The liberals tend to get the fanaticism, violent, trouble making rep. But let's also look at some assemblies of people. Look into recent gatherings of people and look at the results. People have remained peaceful, but the police presence has become rather aggressive, oppressive, and forceful.

It seems to me that a lot of our rights are being slowly scared out of us. The right to a peaceful assembly, a.k.a. protest, has been suppressed by very aggressive police actions against protesters, under unjust circumstances. People want less and less to speak out against our government.

Criticism is very important in any system, and should never be suppressed, as long as it can be justified. It definitely plays a very strong part in positive development. We just can't forget that this is OUR country; Us being the people!

Oh, 9/11. There are many very interesting facts, and some very obvious observations that make the official statements on the incident rather...questionable. Two main examples are what I like to call, "The Pentagon and the Plane".

First, there is the pentagon. The highway, near the pentagon, that the plane would have flew over was in no way disturbed. Now, a plane that size flying over that highway would have tossed cars over quite easily. Next, well, the lawn in front of the pentagon was... oddly intact. The amount of wreckage was questionable, and the holes were just too perfect.

Of note in all of this, is the fact that Cheney just happened to have the jets that would have been scrambled to protect the Pentagon out doing practice runs in the middle of nowhere. Also, he had troops stationed in New York, practicing "relief efforts" which they just so happened to have needed for that day.

Providence? Coincidence? I say suspicious, or peculiar, at least

Now, on to the plane that went down. There was a call made from that plane and the hijacker was spoken of. He was not referred to as middle eastern, nor anything you would expect if the scenario were to play out as it supposedly did. The person who made the call was also a reporter, I believe, so they would have paid attention to detail.

Another obvious observation was that on top of all that, the planes hit the towers at a time when people were just coming in for work. If this was a devious plot that people who absolutely hated us had planned for years, don't you think they would kill as many people as possible?

I also want to remind everyone that the evidence shows that 9/11 and Iraq have no direct correlation, but I hear it said all too often that we are in Iraq because of 9/11. I guess when the real reason is a lie, people who support the liar tend to quickly forget, and fabricate some other extravagant, justifiable reason to kill women, children, and the people fighting to protect their beliefs. Beliefs that we have no right to challenge...but hey, that's just my opinion.

If you read any of their literature, you'd see that starting a war with them was a bad idea. Bush only seems to read children's books, though. Maybe he should read the real Aladdin.

As far as movies go, everyone has a right to present information from their viewpoint. You all choose, as people weather or not to accept it. It all depends on your political stance, and your perception though I suppose.

These are just a few thoughts about the topic and events. I guess that's really all I have to say about that for now, thanks for your time

[sandy_lumpy_shor...]

i agree with you. documentries are nice but when they make a movie... its just wrong. it is liek they are using the tragity to make money. and that is really low

[xklipse]

ah geez, I knew they gonna make a movie the second I heard about 9/11

[*xcaitlinx*]

i agree with you.  documentries are nice but when they make a movie... its just wrong.  it is liek they are using the tragity to make money.  and that is really low

michael moore made the movie to INFORM people....because unfortunately, a lot of people are brainwashed and don't know the truth about 9/11 and Bush.

[sadolakced acid]

of course farenheit 9/11 was extrodinarily one sided. i stopped watching it halfway through. but i thought it twisted facts- not made them up.

[*xcaitlinx*]

of course farenheit 9/11 was extrodinarily one sided.  i stopped watching it halfway through.  but i thought it twisted facts- not made them up.

of course it was one-sided. if you're a republican, then you simply shouldn't watch the movie because you'll be "offended". there are plenty of movies that liberals would never want to watch because they are made by conservatives. clearly, republicans have a certain state of mind about the war in iraq and 9/11, and a documentary isn't going to change their views.

[*kryogenix*]

So at what point do we stop blaming everything on Michael Moore or Bill Clinton, and actually admit that yes, George Bush misled the public, and yes, that cost over 1000 American lives?

At what point do we stop talking about Iraq in a thread about 9/11? Bill Clinton attacked Iraq for WMDs.

Michael Moore didn't lie. He used hard facts in every bit of that movie, just interpreted and used these facts, showing them differently than you would.

Why don't you get this? None of it is lies, it's just not seen in the same light as you.

Conservatives and liberals have the same information on the war in their minds. There's disagreement because they interpret and use the information differently. It's not that either of them are lying, they just choose to use the facts they've been given differently than the other.

Didn't lie?

Here's one. Moore said that Iraq never threatened to attack the United States or any of its citizens. We all know how they've been shooting at our planes. We know Saddam planned to assassinate George Bush Sr. We know that his sons wanted to attack US war ships. USN CVNs are considered sovreign US territor. An attack on one would be considered an attack on the United States.

Even when he doesn't lie, he grossly twists the facts.

michael moore made the movie to INFORM people....because unfortunately, a lot of people are brainwashed and don't know the truth about 9/11 and Bush.

Suggesting F.9/11 is the whole truth is absurd, and if you disagree, you've been brainwashed.

  of course farenheit 9/11 was extrodinarily one sided. i stopped watching it halfway through. but i thought it twisted facts- not made them up.

It had more half truths, misleading figures, and twisted facts than outright lies, but there were some.

of course it was one-sided. if you're a republican, then you simply shouldn't watch the movie because you'll be "offended". there are plenty of movies that liberals would never want to watch because they are made by conservatives. clearly, republicans have a certain state of mind about the war in iraq and 9/11, and a documentary isn't going to change their views.

A few posts up, you said the movie was to inform people. Shouldn't I watch it, even if I am conservative minded? Or was Fahrenheit 9/11 made just to reinforce the conclusions that those on the left already made. You're really confusing me.

I'll reiterate that it's ridiculous to think only conservatives will be offended by the film. As I've stated earlier, Ed Koch was offended. Mr. Acid over here gave up on it.

And if anything, what you've stated about Republicans is true about many other people, not just Republicans.

I'm willing to change my view if the facts clearly tell me I'm wrong. Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't have enough facts to convince me.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was a movie about current events and current times, focusing on our conflict with Iraq right now, not 20 years ago, so anything having to do with George Bush Sr. has nothing to do with what was said in the movie. England is not against us, but they were years ago; however, when people say they have made no threats against us, they are referring to now, not in all time. Most countries have been against us at one time.

[technicolour]

And, exactly, how do YOU know that F. 9/11 contained lies? All because you read articles (written by Conservatives, I'm sure) that say that F. 9/11 was a fake, doesn't mean that THEY'RE telling the truth. Like everyone said, people who are against Bush will agree with Michael Moore, and people that are pro-Bush or pro-war will say that the movie was bullshit. It all depends on your views of 9/11 and Bush.

Oh. Em. Gee. Thank you so much because I finally got to laugh at someone today.


Anyways.

So, democrats hate the republicans movies. And vice versa.

It's always going to be like that. Im not really wanting to see a political movie beause my nerves are just blah.

To the republicans they make think that that movie is full of twisted lies and that michael moore needs to be shot.

while the dem's insist that he is a god and he came out with the truth.

so frankly, you're right.

it just depends on how you see the things.
----


Back to the aspect of a 9/11 movie: There are FACTS about this. 3 planes crash, fight back yadda yadda yadda etc. THERE ARE FACTS.


I'm going to be pissed off if they twist those facts.

[*kryogenix*]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was a movie about current events and current times, focusing on our conflict with Iraq right now, not 20 years ago, so anything having to do with George Bush Sr. has nothing to do with what was said in the movie. England is not against us, but they were years ago; however, when people say they have made no threats against us, they are referring to now, not in all time. Most countries have been against us at one time.

Invalid point.

Your argument would make much more sense if King George III was still in power. Saddam Hussein was in power back then. The same guy who made the threat was still in power.

[sadolakced acid]

^^(two up)

like the fact that the third plane flew 6 feet off the ground on the way to the pentagon?

4 planes.


not all the facts are right, i suppose, but i don't think they'll screw it up too much. they're bound to offend someone, but i think it will be a heroic story with some hollywood embellishments.

i think a movie simply about the plane in pennsylvania would be best.

at least al queda isn't the ones releasing films about 9/11 (that will be in theaters). you have to know, the studio excs. are americans that went through it and care as much as the rest of us (hopefully) that it's not done wrong.

[technicolour]

Oh damn. I did forget about the 4th. Blah.

But still, there are facts...so If they screw it up...Im gunna sue and get some shopping money.