9/11 Movies... really?, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 02:14 PM by defythetyrants

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by hooper
Is Tom Hanks in on it now too?

Neck deep, my friend. T. Hanks has been in the conspiracy at least since the 'Apollo 13' farce. Those boys went to the moon and had to come back in a hurry, cuz of what they saw.

Tom Hanks is far up the illuminati power heirarchy. : |

Oh dear Lord, there's someone here who can't tell if your're being sarcastic or not. The end is near.

By the way, Sandra Bullock, too. And the director. And the producers. And the writers. And the co-stars. Hell, everyone is on it!!

oh dear lord another sarcastic tr0ll... i asked for solid opinion not sarcastic wittisicsms. now please if you want to tr0ll go someplace else. If, on the other hand, you wish to contribute to an intellectual discussion, please proceed. otherwise i would appreciate it if the Mods would please remove your inane (and not even well thought out, i might add) comment.

edit on 10-1-2012 by defythetyrants because: error

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 02:17 PM by defythetyrants

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by defythetyrants

No. Actually in one of my responses to a post i specifically say i disagree with any attempt hollywood makes at gleaning capitol from tragic events in which hundreds of people perished.

So that pretty much puts almost all of human history off limits. People have made money and a living from telling stories for a very long time. Its kind of how we learn from one generation to another. Dramatization of tragic events helps, when done well, to put things in a more human perspective.

i can see where you are coming from with that hooper, but is it just and moral for already filthy rich celebrities to further their gains through the perpetuation of horrible events?

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 02:56 PM by hooper

reply to post by defythetyrants

i can see where you are coming from with that hooper, but is it just and moral for already filthy rich celebrities to further their gains through the perpetuation of horrible events?

Not all are filthy rich. For all its supposedly liberal politics, Hollywood is a hotbed of free-market capitalism. If a celebrity (lets assume an actor for now) can't put butts in the theatre seats then they don't get hired. Tom Hanks is rich (I assume) because people think he is a good actor. It is probably some of the most honest wealth around because everyone kind of gets a say in who gets the big money.

Anyway, like I said, people have been making money telling stories for a very long time. Technology has now given us the ability to tell stories to millions of people at a time. That scale is what creates the wealth that you are talking about. It also allows for more people to share a common experience in a common way.

Also, please note that telling a story does not perpetuate the event. The event is over. It is simply a retelling.

And to an earlier point. It was not fully sarcastic. If you think these movies, television shows, etc. are all still part of a false flag, then that means some if not all of the participants must be "in on it".

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 03:03 PM by defythetyrants

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by defythetyrants

i can see where you are coming from with that hooper, but is it just and moral for already filthy rich celebrities to further their gains through the perpetuation of horrible events?

Not all are filthy rich. For all its supposedly liberal politics, Hollywood is a hotbed of free-market capitalism. If a celebrity (lets assume an actor for now) can't put butts in the theatre seats then they don't get hired. Tom Hanks is rich (I assume) because people think he is a good actor. It is probably some of the most honest wealth around because everyone kind of gets a say in who gets the big money.

Anyway, like I said, people have been making money telling stories for a very long time. Technology has now given us the ability to tell stories to millions of people at a time. That scale is what creates the wealth that you are talking about. It also allows for more people to share a common experience in a common way.

Also, please note that telling a story does not perpetuate the event. The event is over. It is simply a retelling.

And to an earlier point. It was not fully sarcastic. If you think these movies, television shows, etc. are all still part of a false flag, then that means some if not all of the participants must be "in on it".

thank you for the valid input, sir. you make several good points. but i still have a hard time agreeing with you due to the fact that no matter which way the opinions are sliced, money is still being put into the pockets of folks who are using such a terrible event to line their purses, it just seems so wrong to me on so many levels and i simply cannot abide by it.

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 03:20 PM by hooper

reply to post by defythetyrants

Well, it would be nice to think that they would give back to the families, but where do you start with that and where do you draw a line? Every crime show and movie dramatizes vicitimization in some form or another. I think one of the ways that we deal with some of these horrors is to talk about it. Whether on an individual level or on a social level like through movies, books, magazines, television, etc.

Besides, like I said, its free-market capitalism at its best. The movie has a chance of being a flop and instead of lining pockets it may end up making a few a little more empty.

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 03:34 PM by defythetyrants

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by defythetyrants

Well, it would be nice to think that they would give back to the families, but where do you start with that and where do you draw a line? Every crime show and movie dramatizes vicitimization in some form or another. I think one of the ways that we deal with some of these horrors is to talk about it. Whether on an individual level or on a social level like through movies, books, magazines, television, etc.

Besides, like I said, its free-market capitalism at its best. The movie has a chance of being a flop and instead of lining pockets it may end up making a few a little more empty.

yes but considering the subject matter at hand it is almost certainly not going to flop, in fact it will probably accrue millions in gross ticket sales. wherein lies my concern, was the setting of 9/11, the greatest american tragedy to date, specifically chosen for the sole purpose of filling theatres? and if that IS the case then SHAME on all involved in the project. and yes the studio responsible for producing the film should, in my opinion, donate a generous sum to a foundation for the families of the victims or in some way donate money to said families.

reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 06:57 PM by Six Sigma

Originally posted by defythetyrants

yes but considering the subject matter at hand it is almost certainly not going to flop, in fact it will probably accrue millions in gross ticket sales. wherein lies my concern, was the setting of 9/11, the greatest american tragedy to date, specifically chosen for the sole purpose of filling theatres? and if that IS the case then SHAME on all involved in the project. and yes the studio responsible for producing the film should, in my opinion, donate a generous sum to a foundation for the families of the victims or in some way donate money to said families.

Did you know that this was actually a book? The book was released almost 6 years ago. Yes, there are 9/11 ties and yes it does "open wounds" with what the boy goes through. He also explores other historical tragic events: ie the Dresden firebombing during world war II. Estimates were that 25,000 civilians were killed during that raid. So, should money also me donated to those families that were victims (those not part of the Nazi regime)?

So, as mentioned in previous posts, tragic events have been and will always be part of books, movies, and plays. There isn't anything wrong with this.... typically.

This has been going on for close to 100 years:

The Johnstown Flood was a movie released in 1926 about a real event.

"Leopold and Loeb" were also depicted in a movie about their brutal slaying of Robert "Bobby" Franks in 1924 (the movie was in the 40's I believe.

"Titanic" movie in 1953, 1958 (A Night to Remember) and once again "Titanic" in 1997.

"The Longest Day" is about the Normandy landings (D-Day) during World War II.

"Tora Tora Tora" - the attack of Pearl Harbor.

"Helter Skelter" - Charles Manson

"Schindlers List" - Holocaust.

I could list hundreds of films created from true life tragic events... I think you get the point.

I don't believe that (for the most part) the authors, writers, directors, etc.. try to exploit the tragedy, but try to connect you, personally with the event.

Anyway, if you are personally not interested in contributing to the success of a film where you disagree with the subject... Don't Go!!

Oh... and the movie "United 93" grossed $31.4 million in the United States. I believe that although it was critically acclaimed, it would be considered a box office "flop".

edit on 10-1-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 01:41 PM by Shermanator

reply to post by defythetyrants

You draw your line at the # of people killed? Or you think that hollywood, should NOT make a movie about anything tragic... hmmmm .... that's logical.

reply posted on 13-1-2012 @ 03:05 PM by defythetyrants

Originally posted by Shermanator
reply to post by defythetyrants

You draw your line at the # of people killed? Or you think that hollywood, should NOT make a movie about anything tragic... hmmmm .... that's logical.

*sigh*
i have said numerous times already that i disagree with hollywood capitolizing on tragedy. that is, making money from the fictionalization of an event so awful.

wether that is logical i cannot attest, it is logical to me and thats enough.

edit on 13-1-2012 by defythetyrants because: add

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 12:07 PM by Humint1

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
Distrubing UNLESS all MONEY GOES TO THE FAMILIES OF THE LOST!!!!!!!

I agree

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 06:50 AM by TrickoftheShade

reply to post by defythetyrants

How do you feel about World War Two, or Vietnam, being used as a source for books and movies? Or how about Titanic? Or even the siege of Atlanta in Gone With the Wind? Genuinely interested.

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 07:16 AM by thejlxc

Well since they need to sell the big lie, they need Hollywood to back up the Media on this one!

Case closed. The "official" and ever changing story, must be Da Troof!

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 07:19 AM by TrickoftheShade

reply to post by thejlxc

If that's all you need to close the case I'm not surprised you just grab whatever notion fits whatever prejudice you're feeling at the time.

I notice that you believe that the propensity to change of what you call the "official story" renders it suspect. Surely if it emerged fully formed immediately that would be more suspicious? Are you equally suspicious of, say, the study of biology because those scientists are always changing it?

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 07:25 AM by thejlxc

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Yeah. Just thousands of scientists and experts not paid off, coming forward to speak out, and cops, the thermite found in the dust now multi lab tested, and 9/11 victims families, and the many FOIA videos, and the london release of the collapse of building 7 before it happened with it still in the background behind the reporter, and the military stand down, and the money that way made, and the money that was lost suddenly not being important, and all those cases against the government being destroyed conveniently by the pentagon attack, and on and on.

Yep. Nothing at all. Just the Evidence I was thinking about.

edit on 17-1-2012 by thejlxc because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 07:43 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thejlxc
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Yeah. Just thousands of scientists and experts not paid off, coming forward to speak out, and cops, the thermite found in the dust now multi lab tested, and 9/11 victims families, and the many FOIA videos, and the london release of the collapse of building 7 before it happened with it still in the background behind the reporter, and the military stand down, and the money that way made, and the money that was lost suddenly not being important, and all those cases against the government being destroyed conveniently by the pentagon attack, and on and on.

Yep. Nothing at all. Just the Evidence I was thinking about.
edit on 17-1-2012 by thejlxc because: (no reason given)

Except that's mostly not true. Or not suspicious anyway.

I'll focus on a few things. Show me good evidence that "thousands" of "not paid off" scientists and experts are coming forward. Show me evidence that the millions of other scientists and experts have been paid off. Do you honestly think it reasonable that the conspirators could keep a lid on that number of people just by paying them?

There are something like a quarter of a million construction engineers in the US alone. And that's just a tiny fraction of the people they would have to successfully silence.

The thermite has not been "multi tested". The guy who found what he claimed were anomalous results said he would publish a follow-up paper explaining what he admitted were inconsistencies by Autumn 2009. No such paper ever appeared and he has moved on.

The BBC report is the sort of thing that looks odd if you're frankly quite thick. Is it more likely that the conspirators involved a huge foreign news agency in their plan by issuing them with a script for no reason, or that the report incorrectly reflected firefighters' published opinion on the imminent collapse. Only someone who really wanted to see a conspiracy could think the former.

I note also that you're unwilling to answer my question about the mutability of the "OS".

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 07:55 AM by thejlxc

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Thousands of scientists.

www.911truth.org...

It doesn't take more than controlling grants to shut up the scientific community. Plus a few dozens really bad apples. It's not much harder than paying off the media, because you control it buy paying for it? Like so many other in your face lies in plain sight that some people think of as "conspiracies".

---------------------------------------------------

This is recent, I grant you.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25)

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Volume 2

ISSN: 1874-4125

doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

www.globalresearch.ca...

------------------------------------

But once I understood all the dirty deals the day before 9/11, the already scripted TV coverage, the military stand down, and the police state suddenly being thrust on America, an inside job doesn't seem as unlikely, sadly. You think it's awesome to think this stuff? It's sad, but it gives one hope to see the truth and speak out when you can, while you can.

Oh, the OS? That it changed over and over? That the guy who WROTE the 9/11 commission report said it was bogus? That on and on and on. The dozens of times it's been flat out shown to be a fraud. That they don't help the 9/11 victims families and they don't support the brave men on the ground who are dying from the exposure while the government excludes them from the 9/11 ceremony?

What's it gonna take?

edit on 17-1-2012 by thejlxc because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 08:40 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thejlxc
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Thousands of scientists.

www.911truth.org...

It doesn't take more than controlling grants to shut up the scientific community. Plus a few dozens really bad apples. It's not much harder than paying off the media, because you control it buy paying for it? Like so many other in your face lies in plain sight that some people think of as "conspiracies".

There's nothing in that link to support your assertion that there are "thousands" of scientists coming forward.

And do you honestly believe that millions of people will remain silent just for cash? That the government has effectively gagged vast numbers with bribes and that nobody has ever even mentioned being offered money or threatened? It sounds fantastical.

This is recent, I grant you.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

No it isn't. It's from 2009. The site has simply reproduced it.

Jones has failed to address the inconsistencies even he admits are there.

But once I understood all the dirty deals the day before 9/11, the already scripted TV coverage, the military stand down, and the police state suddenly being thrust on America, an inside job doesn't seem as unlikely, sadly. You think it's awesome to think this stuff? It's sad, but it gives one hope to see the truth and speak out when you can, while you can.

What police state? I agree there are serious concerns about the government's response to 9/11 but that doesn't mean that they did it. What "dirty deeds"? What "scripted coverage"? Do you believe that all broadcasters are in on this as well, that the whole BBC could be bribed to stay silent?

If so you're living in a dream world.

Oh, the OS? That it changed over and over?

Once again, why is a theory's tendency to alter evidence that it's wrong? All theories - especially those based on historical events - are subject to constant revision. What would be suspicious would be if it had NEVER changed, and the whole story remained the same from day one. That would suggest preparation.

That the guy who WROTE the 9/11 commission report said it was bogus?

No he didn't. I assume you mean the chair of the report, Thomas Keen. He highlighted problems with NORAD's testimony and the government's tendency to obstruct the investigation. But he meant that they did this to cover up the fact that their response to intelligence and their judgement was lacking.

That they don't help the 9/11 victims families and they don't support the brave men on the ground who are dying from the exposure while the government excludes them from the 9/11 ceremony?

At least some of those brave men must, according to you, be in on it. The firemen who said they expected Building Seven to collapse for example, and now stick by their story. They must be paid off too?

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 08:47 AM by thejlxc

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

That link I gave you for the thermite was from January 17th, this year. Not 2009. Just so ya know. It's the real deal there.

Trick said: What police state? I agree there are serious concerns about the government's response to 9/11 but that doesn't mean that they did it. What "dirty deeds"? What "scripted coverage"? Do you believe that all broadcasters are in on this as well, that the whole BBC could be bribed to stay silent?

If so you're living in a dream world.

--------------

What police state? The NDAA, the Patriot Act, on and on I could go, the TSA, WHAT Police state? LOL!

Ok I see where you're coming from now. I'm happy to know that the disbelievers are not in the majority they once were. Yeah, everything's peachy man. It wasn't scripted! Have a good life.

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 08:59 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thejlxc
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

That link I gave you for the thermite was from January 17th, this year. Not 2009. Just so ya know. It's the real deal there.

You haven't actually read the report, have you? Or even the whole link. Go back and look at it. The web page is from January 17 - today - because I assume it automatically formats the page with the day's date.

The report quite clearly says, both on the site and in its text, that it is nearly three years old.

Ok I see where you're coming from now. I'm happy to know that the disbelievers are not in the majority they once were. Yeah, everything's peachy man. It wasn't scripted! Have a good life.

That's a very weak response. You haven't addressed anything I've said. The one fact you've brought to bear isn't correct and indeed only shows that you don't even bother to look at your sources properly.

If your worldview can only remain intact by ignoring pertinent questions then that's a clue that it's probably built on rather shaky ground. Enjoy your unfounded beliefs.

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 12:04 PM by defythetyrants

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by defythetyrants

How do you feel about World War Two, or Vietnam, being used as a source for books and movies? Or how about Titanic? Or even the siege of Atlanta in Gone With the Wind? Genuinely interested.

i have already gone over this numerous times within this thread.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^