Paul Greengrass

Last night I went to a seminar with Paul Greengrass, director of United 93. Mostly it was about his techniques and attitudes to filmmaking, but eventually the political aspects of the movie came up.

Inevitably there was a question from someone who seemed to have a TM-type mindset. She was a girl of middle-eastern extraction and she accused Greengrass of painting the terrorists in an unsympathetic and stereotypical light (something that derw laughs, since it's so obviously untrue). She also suggested that his film failed to take into account "other theories".

Greengrass answered at some length, saying that he felt the portrayal of the terrorists was reasoned: they were young, devout, blinkered, terrified. Then he spoke with some authority (he wrote the script, and has a keen understanding of the issues) about why he thinks 9/11 was masterminded by KSM, with money from OBL - that, in essence, the traditional version of events is true.

I've met Greengrass in private, and he is a thoughtful, liberal-leaning man. He has made films (Bloody Sunday) that are deeply critical of TPTB in the UK, and genre pictures (Bourne) that show the CIA and US authorities in a very poor, almost conspiracist, light.

He spoke at length of his delight that Avatar contained such a deep critique of American capitalist imperialism; of his belief in the civil rights movement; of how before 9/11 no one understood the forces at work in the world; and how afterwards he was horrified by the Manichean worldview of the Bush administration.

I have one question I suppose.

Do I need to add Paul Greengrass to the list of people implicated in 9/11?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
contained such a deep critique of American capitalist imperialism;

However he has not done much research. IMHO.

This is a major problem that people will simply make movies about any topic they know very very little about.

Here is my case in point, that there is No Such Thing as "American Capitalist Imperialism". This is a misnomer.

"A misnomer is a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue. Such incorrect terms sometimes derived their names because of the form, action, or origin of the subject becoming named popularly or widely referenced—long before their true natures were known."
en.wikipedia.org...

In reality, what we are dealing with is "Roman Fascist Imperialism".

To really grasp this you have to study the History of Earth at least as far back as Egypt and Babylon. Roman History is a must. Especially starting with Constantine.

To make a long story short, here goes. And all of this is LEGIT and backed up with REAL EVIDENCE (Found all over ATS yet not so popular).

The Vatican rules all nations or organizations of any worth throughout the world. The Pope is not a mere religious icon, but rather the modern Caesar cleverly hidden behind a guise of religious mumbo jumbo.

However the reality behind the situation is that the Black Pope created all well known secret societies including the Illuminati,CFR,Trilateral, Bilderburg,Pilgrims,etc, and the various Mafias or Triads. And the countless others I dont have time to mention. These secret organizations are used to control the outward apparent governments of the world.

Ever wonder why the Pope can show up to ANY meeting anywhere on Earth no matter what nation or organization it is, and always have this "Observer" status where no rules apply to him?? And he can just say anything he wants and people listen closely??

It is because he wields immense power and wealth.

The Rothschild's and Rockefeller's work for the Vatican - can be proven also. They were official bankers for the Vatican Treasury. In fact the Black Pope had some of them murdered recently, just because he can.

I even uncovered some research that shows the Chinese Com .Gov was "Hoping to Woo the Pope" and many of these related articles openly admit there were many "secret meetings" between the Pope and the Chinese Gov. China has been kissing the Pope's ring too you know!

You put 2 + 2 together and tell me what you come up with.

The Pope (and Black Pope) are more than a religious figure, indeed they are the standing Caesar of the New World Order.

There is like virtually TONS of info about this everywhere.Everything connects back to the Vatican you remember that, and check it out for yourself you will be blown away, I know I was!

So this Greengrass is either 1) Uninformed or 2) Hiding the obvious "tip of the pyramid" by focusing on lower tiers of it.

No, it's not "American Capitalist Imperialism" not by a long shot. America is just a puppet of the Vatican.

So therefore, it is "Roman Fascist Imperialism".

Thanks for that.

I'm not 100 per cent sure it's true, or germane, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


If you put 2 Green Bay Packers fans together , they will talk about how great the Green Bay Packers are.

Put 1 GB fan with a Bears fan, then the teams will be broken down into parts , as to which is better .

(not a great example, but it works)

I would have liked to talk to him , I would have asked HARD questions.

You can put him on any list you want , btw.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

If you put 2 Green Bay Packers fans together , they will talk about how great the Green Bay Packers are.

Put 1 GB fan with a Bears fan, then the teams will be broken down into parts , as to which is better .

(not a great example, but it works)

I would have liked to talk to him , I would have asked HARD questions.

You can put him on any list you want , btw.

Sorry, I don't get you? Not being argumentative, it's just I'm from the UK so I don't really understand US sport (apart from baseball, a bit).

I understand that I am at liberty to do what I want. I just find it so very unlikely that Greengrass is a paid agent for the NWO (or whoever).

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Sorry, I don't get you? Not being argumentative, it's just I'm from the UK so I don't really understand US sport (apart from baseball, a bit).

I understand that I am at liberty to do what I want. I just find it so very unlikely that Greengrass is a paid agent for the NWO (or whoever).

Switch in 2 Man U guys talking.

Then a Man U fan and a Chelsea fan talking.

NWO ?

PNAC is more the group,

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I have one question I suppose.

Do I need to add Paul Greengrass to the list of people implicated in 9/11?

Ok, I must confess to being a bit puzzled by your question.

It seems that you are under the impression that everybody who believes that 9/11 is an inside job, believes that everyone who adheres to the official story is somehow implicated.

This is obviously ridiculously implausible, so my question to you would be:
Why on earth do you feel the need to ask this question?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I have one question I suppose.

Do I need to add Paul Greengrass to the list of people implicated in 9/11?

OF COURSE. Just as you have to do with everybody else involved in the making of the movie. The production, the actors, writters, EVERYBODY!!
They are ALL IN ON IT!!

First & foremost the man is a movie maker NOT an expert on anything except movie production. Lets not twist this into anything that it isn't for the sake of an argument or, a conspiracy be it the OS or not.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do I need to add Paul Greengrass to the list of people implicated in 9/11?

No, you can just add him to the list of people who still believe the official line in all its flag-waving glory.

Even a lot of "debunkers" around here believe Flight 93 was shot down and then lied about, like esdad. I wonder if the movie depicted the debris field scattering across 8 miles, or an engine "bouncing" some ~1000 feet into dense woods, or the "explosion" and smoke one person calling from the flight referred to as it was crashing. I never watched the movie -- intentionally -- so I wouldn't know, but I doubt it.

It sounds like you got a good, fresh dose of reassurance from this guy, though, huh?

Originally posted by MrVertigo
It seems that you are under the impression that everybody who believes that 9/11 is an inside job, believes that everyone who adheres to the official story is somehow implicated.

This is obviously ridiculously implausible, so my question to you would be:
Why on earth do you feel the need to ask this question?

Honestly I think he posted this just to tell his story about the director, that he talked to somebody that agreed with him, more than ask that question.

But yeah, as time goes on these kinds of rhetorical assertions are just getting more and more ridiculous.

Originally posted by bsbray11


No, you can just add him to the list of people who still believe the official line in all its flag-waving glory.

Even a lot of "debunkers" around here believe Flight 93 was shot down and then lied about, like esdad. I wonder if the movie depicted the debris field scattering across 8 miles, or an engine "bouncing" some ~1000 feet into dense woods, or the "explosion" and smoke one person calling from the flight referred to as it was crashing. I never watched the movie -- intentionally -- so I wouldn't know, but I doubt it.

Perhaps you're the one who's frightened of having your preconceptions challenged?

It sounds like you got a good, fresh dose of reassurance from this guy, though, huh?

It amuses me that you think that people who don't believe the TM version(s) of events are the ones in need of reassurance. Personally i find the world depicted in the film - and the reality I think it goes some way towards portraying - much more terrifying than the world according to your conspiracy theory.

You admit that you are a radical isolationist. The world for you is full of complicated and frightening threats to US - and therefore your - utopian interests. It makes sense that you would ascribe to a story where the bad guys are small in number, easily understood (from your POV) and, in the final analysis, white Americans. It makes things less frightening.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It amuses me that you think that people who don't believe the TM version(s) of events are the ones in need of reassurance. Personally i find the world depicted in the film - and the reality I think it goes some way towards portraying - much more terrifying than the world according to your conspiracy theory.

That's probably because you haven't seen or read 1984, which depicts a much worse world than one in which random planes are hijacked. I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident, which I already almost have, twice. I have never once in my life been afraid of dying to a Muslim extremist. Never. When I see Muslims in person the only thing I feel is sympathy for them for what they must go through because of people who have been brainwashed no different than Jews being mistreated in Nazi Germany before they started hauling them off in masses.

You admit that you are a radical isolationist. The world for you is full of complicated and frightening threats to US - and therefore your - utopian interests.

Have you ever considered that the whole reason Middle Eastern people hate Americans to begin with is our foreign policy? Don't tell me you're one of those people who think they hate us "because of our freedom."

Isolationism isn't "radical." It was what our founding fathers explicitly stated they wanted this country to follow, and we did, until around the Spanish American War when we started going all over the world and messing with other peoples' business, and not just to better take care of issues at home, but just for pure empire-building. I'm not saying we completely ignore everyone else, I'm just saying we don't have military bases scattered all over the world, troops stationed in Korea, Germany, etc., going into Latin American countries and assassinating their leaders, starting up epic military campaigns in the Middle East with countries that had little or nothing at all to do with 9/11 in the first place, etc. That's not radical, that's common freaking sense. That's why all these countries are PISSED at us. But our leaders like it like that because they WANT somebody to start something with us. It's big money.

It makes sense that you would ascribe to a story where the bad guys are small in number, easily understood (from your POV) and, in the final analysis, white Americans. It makes things less frightening.

Again, never in my life, have I been "frightened" of Muslim terrorists. If YOU have then you're being completely ridiculous, though I suspect you aren't really worried about them either. However being declared a "domestic terrorist" because of what I say and hauled off to a prison camp one day is a concern of mine, and "al Qaeda" has nothing to do with THAT.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11


Even a lot of "debunkers" around here believe Flight 93 was shot down and then lied about, like esdad.

esdad, although a debunker is mistaken. Any debunker that thinks Flight 93 was shot down is about as well informed as 911 Truthers.

The plane was deliberately crashed. PERIOD. Mountains of evidence prove this.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
esdad, although a debunker is mistaken. Any debunker that thinks Flight 93 was shot down is about as well informed as 911 Truthers.

The plane was deliberately crashed. PERIOD. Mountains of evidence prove this.

You know what, you're right. Damn.

Of all the weird stuff I've seen about Flight 93, people calling from it and indicating the plane was smoking and there was an "explosion" on board, the debris being scattered for 8 miles, the engine being sent so far into dense woods, people reporting hearing multiple explosions in the area when it went down (only one of which would the plane actually hitting the ground), and several people hearing jets in the area, including Vietnam veterans who, according to the mayor of Shanksville, swore they heard a missile launched.

Yeah, your post just totally smashed all that with your cute little statement, "Mountains of evidence prove this." I'm glad I'm naive enough to believe such a shallow, unsupported statement in the face of everything I just mentioned.

Just to be clear, I'm being sarcastic.



You can tell me you have mountains and oceans and planets of evidence all day, but unless YOU ACTUALLY POST IT you're wasting your time.

Originally posted by bsbray11


You know what, you're right. Damn.

I know I am.

Of all the weird stuff I've seen about Flight 93, people calling from it and indicating the plane was smoking and there was an "explosion" on board,

Emphasis mine.

Please list the "people" that stated this. Edward Felt was the only one that I am aware of that was falsely reported as to have said anything about smoke.

Edwards brother listened to the 911 tape. This is what he said in regards to his brother mentioning white smoke or an explosion:

"It never happened"

-Gordon Felt

web.archive.org...://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml

the debris being scattered for 8 miles,

What debris were found in Baltimore? Please describe them, then please look into what the NSTB thought about this.

the engine being sent so far into dense woods,

"It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."

BsBray...have you found any professionals that disagree?

people reporting hearing multiple explosions in the area when it went down (only one of which would the plane actually hitting the ground), and several people hearing jets in the area, including Vietnam veterans who, according to the mayor of Shanksville, swore they heard a missile launched.

We all know that witness statements are all over the place. I'm sure you know this. Can you please point out the witnesses that stated that they saw smoke and or fire coming from flight 93 on it's way down?

Bob Blair saw it... does he mention fire? or smoke?

Rob Kimmel ... what did he see? (read Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 210-211)

Tom Fritz? ... any fire?

Terry Butler ?

Why don't you look into what they saw.

Don't forget Lee Purbaugh.. he watched the crash too.

You can tell me you have mountains and oceans and planets of evidence all day, but unless YOU ACTUALLY POST IT you're wasting your time.

It's been posted...over and over and over. Sorry you've missed it. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by bsbray11
You know what, you're right. Damn.

I know I am.

I bet you've been waiting for that for years huh? Now that someone has said it to you are you done here?

Please list the "people" that stated this. Edward Felt was the only one that I am aware of that was falsely reported as to have said anything about smoke.

Then what exactly DID Edward Felt say?

Cramer will say that Felt describes an explosion on the aircraft and smoke coming from it, but others—including Shaw—will deny this (see (Between 9:58 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Associated Press, 9/11/2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/12/2001 pdf file; Longman, 2002, pp. 264; Valley News Dispatch, 9/11/2002]

www.historycommons.org...

Edwards brother listened to the 911 tape.

Was he on the plane too? If it never happened then the FBI is lying about the calls coming from that plane. I always thought Beamer's call and a couple others were phony after all. Maybe the FBI is lying about those as well.

the debris being scattered for 8 miles,

What debris were found in Baltimore? Please describe them, then please look into what the NSTB thought about this.

Parts of seat cushions were found in lakes miles from the crash site, things of that nature. If you want the details you can look them up yourself but the fact remains the debris was spread for a ridiculous distance across land that was not all flat and frictionless, and we know the wind speed from that time and how much force that wind speed represents and it is not enough to have dislodged the debris. I've been round and round on this merry-go-round before. You know I don't give a damn about the NSTB's 'thoughts'.

the engine being sent so far into dense woods,

"It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground,"

And pass through a bunch of trees without leaving evidence of it? To lodge hundreds of feet within dense woods? Not buying it.

BsBray...have you found any professionals that disagree?

I know of three separate organizations of them. But then so do you, you just play dumb.

We all know that witness statements are all over the place.

I don't. Prove it. You just dismiss them because you obviously don't like the content of the testimony.

I'm sure you know this. Can you please point out the witnesses that stated that they saw smoke and or fire coming from flight 93 on it's way down?

Bob Blair saw it... does he mention fire? or smoke?

Rob Kimmel ... what did he see? (read Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 210-211)

Tom Fritz? ... any fire?

Terry Butler ?

Why don't you look into what they saw.

Don't forget Lee Purbaugh.. he watched the crash too.

Can you tell me how far away all these people were when they saw it go down and for how long they watched it before it went out of sight?

It's been posted...over and over and over. Sorry you've missed it. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Look how long I've been posting here. If it were really posted over and over I would have seen it by now. You're lying.

Originally posted by bsbray11

That's probably because you haven't seen or read 1984, which depicts a much worse world than one in which random planes are hijacked.

So? What's that got to do with anything? Other than the fact that it's another fictional account, a bit like yours.

And I have read it, along with all the rest of Orwell's work.

I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident, which I already almost have, twice. I have never once in my life been afraid of dying to a Muslim extremist. Never. When I see Muslims in person the only thing I feel is sympathy for them for what they must go through because of people who have been brainwashed no different than Jews being mistreated in Nazi Germany before they started hauling them off in masses.

You make the leap to nazism/the holocaust yet again. Ironic, given that if you'd been running the show in '41 the National Socialists would probably still be a party of government in Germany.

In any case, you've unwittingly made my point for me. You have constructed a fantasy that allows you to believe that radical islam was and is not a danger to the United States. A more comfortable world for you. Reassurance.

Have you ever considered that the whole reason Middle Eastern people hate Americans to begin with is our foreign policy? Don't tell me you're one of those people who think they hate us "because of our freedom."

Certainly not. I think that what your government did after 9/11 is much more frightening than what actually happened. And far more incompetent. I just don't need an all-encompassing explanation so that I can pretend everything happens for a reason.

Isolationism isn't "radical." It was what our founding fathers explicitly stated they wanted this country to follow, and we did, until around the Spanish American War ... That's why all these countries are PISSED at us. But our leaders like it like that because they WANT somebody to start something with us. It's big money.

Aside from the slightly simplistic political inflection, I agree with you.

Again, never in my life, have I been "frightened" of Muslim terrorists. If YOU have then you're being completely ridiculous, though I suspect you aren't really worried about them either. However being declared a "domestic terrorist" because of what I say and hauled off to a prison camp one day is a concern of mine, and "al Qaeda" has nothing to do with THAT.

I'm not sure that's likely. But you're not lessening its likelihood by talking about it on the internet.