It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What do you say?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:32 AM
I received the below email today from a brother firefighter. Most of the firefighters I volunteer with believe in Bush, sadly. The guy that sent this to me is very smart and is a professional devils advocate. I'd like to know what some of you would say if you received this email. What would you say that could become virtually 'devils advocate proof'?

This is a must read.

This article by Michael Niewodowski regarding
Michael Moore's movie is right on the money!!

Was just sent this article by Michael Niewodowski, a chef
at the Windows on the World restaurant, who was supposed to report to work there at the top of the World Trade Center at 9:00 a.m. The first plane hit at 8:46.

He's not a professional writer, but his take on this human
pig of a man, Michael Moore, could not be better put.

Michael on Michael

Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Michael Niewodowski

From Here to Eternity.
Tora , Tora, Tora.
In Harm's Way

These are three films made about Pearl Harbor. There
have been more than 20 films made about Pearl Harbor,
and over 200 films made about World War II. These films
inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us
about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation
that supported them.

Two and a half years after the attack on Pearl Harbor,
the world watched American forces fight on D-Day.
Two and a half years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,
the world is watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Moore's film is the first major motion picture about
Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future
generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their
first impression, through the medium of film, will be a
work in which the president and th e government are
blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting
this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa
Beamer's book, "Let's Roll," or Richard Picciotto's "Last
Man Down," we are presented with this fallacy.

How could this happen?

It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin
D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way
responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women
who lived during that period?

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is indicative of a nation that has
become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face
the enemy at the gate.

America ... where is your fury?

On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River,
watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if
the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46
a.m., I would be dead. As a survivor and witness
to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am
more than insulted by this film.
I am outraged.

This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda.
At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in
support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders,
Moore is content to spread discord and divisi veness.
The base of his argument is that the Bush administration
had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound
facts are conspicuously absent from this "documentary."

The 9/11 commission did not indict President Bush.
According to the report, the president's actions before,
during and after the attacks are fully justified, including
the military action in Iraq. The commission did not find a
direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks. A similar commission in the 1940s
would not have found a direct link between Hitler's
Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. In both
instances, the threat was imminent; the president
and the military acted decisively.

Could we have been more prepared for a terrorist
attack on Sept. 10, 2001?

Could we have been more prepared
for an attack on Dec. 6, 1941?
Most definitely.

In the weeks and months following Pearl
Harbor, there were reports and criticisms
that the government and military should have
been more prepared. The difference is that the
people of the nation did not waste a lot of time
pointing fingers at each other. Rather, they
unified and engaged the enemy head-on. I
guess that is why we call them
"The Greatest Generation." < B>

How will future generations refer to us?

So, how do we explain Moore's film to future generations?
I wonder.

More than that, I wonder how I would explain
this film to Nancy D., Jerome N. or Heather H.
I am sure you don't know their names, but their
faces haunt me day and night. How would I explain
to them that a film was made accusing the president
and vilifying th e soldiers ... the same president and
soldiers who are attempting to avenge their murders
and protect other citizens.

Moore has not only insulted the nation,
he has insulted the victims of the terrorist attacks.

During his acceptance speech at the Oscars, Moore said,

"Shame on you, Mr. Bush."

Well, I say,
"Shame on you, Michael Moore."

Sh ame on everyone who supports this travesty of a film.
Shame on a society that allows this sham of a film.
You have weakened the nation.

How can I convince this guy about the real truth.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:36 AM
I believe he has already found the truth.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:39 AM
good luck mate because there's no convincing these guys until oneday the US people become truly aware of what has been going on and it is unreffutable proof of it.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:23 AM
I would say that future generations that look back at the Western movies of, say, John Wayne and others did the same thing, yet no one complains about Westerns. Westerns seriously distort history to show that the west was lawless and that Indians were bad. Farenheit 9/11 may distort history as well, but I do not see how it is any different than any other movie. It's entertainment, and if people of the future cannot distinguish between fact and fiction then that is their fault. I know plenty of people that believe what they hear about the West being very violent and unbearable, and these people are simply uninformed, and don't do the research for themselves.

Research shows that not only was Washington (under F.D. Roosevelt) possibly aware that an attack would happen on Pearl Harbor, but wanted it to happen in order to catipult the US into WWII. The US had become increasenly Isolationist since WWI and after the depresssion had little means to fund and operate another war. However, Roosevelt saw this as a prime time to make money off the war, because the war would provide many jobs to men, women, and children. This in turn would raise the economy back up. In fact, before the US engagement in the war, the plans were almost discovered by Tyler Kent in 1940, who was a code clerk in London. Kent found secret dispatches between Churchill and Roosevelt in which he was determined to take the US into war despite campaign promises not to.

All of this information about Pearl Harbor does not keep film makers from producing falsehoods about the incident. In fact, I don't seem to remember any films telling the truth about Pearl Harbor. In the e-mail you give he says "These films inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation that supported them."...well sure they one likes to hear the truth, especially about something like Pearl Harbor.

If people believe everything they hear in movies, whether its Farenheit 9/11 or WWII films they need to do their research. There is one quote that has always stood out in my head, it's a quote by my Grandfather, a WWII Veteran "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see." I think this is a poignant statment.

There have been plenty of other lies told throughout history that many still believe such as Parson Weems fabrication about George Washington, when asked by his father if he had cut down a cherry tree said "I cannot tell a lie.... I cut it with my hatchet." Here is the story:

Here is a site that thinks they have pointed out the flaws in the movie:

On the other hand Michael Moore says he will offer anyone $10,000 if they can prove his data is wrong? No one has won the money yet

So, why do people pick on Moore for being so false, when in fact most pieces of Art are based upon someone's perspectives of the events. This is why there is nearly a 50/50 split in the presidential race...its merely perspective. Film making is an artform, and art can be interpreted in many ways; some people like a certain piece and some people don't. Some people accept what they see in a western movie, and others do not. It's all a matter of perspective.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by Jazzerman]

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:56 AM

It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin
D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way
responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

I guess whoever wrote this is not much into Historical Research? The more I think about it, whoever wrote this piece really doesn't know much about history...period. Seems to be spreading falsehoods himself.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by Jazzerman]

top topics

log in