Fahrenhype 9/11 - "You knew it was a lie... Now you'll know why." (DVD

R

Ruined

CAGiversary!
See how America has been lied to about 9/11. Lied to about Islamofascism. Lied to about how best to make America safe.

Find out who's pulling the strings- is Moore the puppet master, or the marionette? Hear from the people who found themselves in Fahrenheit 9/11, and found themselves betrayed. Go behind the headlines with courageous Americans, including: Dick Morris, Zell Miller, Ron Silver, Ed Koch, Ann Coulter, Peter King, Steven Emerson and many more.


Website:
http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

Trailer:
http://trailer.fahrenhype911.com/trailer.wmv
http://www.fahrenhype911.com/trailer.php?play=qt

Available for order:
DVD + Book:
http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?PAGE=PROFRAME&PROD_ID=998048&TID=FAHRENHYPE&IID=PRO:998048

DVD only:
http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?PAGE=PROFRAME&PROD_ID=997495&TID=FAHRENHYPE&IID=PRO:997495

Book only:
http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?PAGE=PROFRAME&PROD_ID=998047&TID=FAHRENHYPE&IID=PRO:998047

good stuff :)
 
Along the same lines is the book Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke. Picked it up a little bit ago, very interesting read and it shows how he stretches, spins, and otherwise makes up the truth.
 
[quote name='Ruined']. Go behind the headlines with courageous Americans, including: Dick Morris, Zell Miller, Ron Silver, Ed Koch, Ann Coulter, Peter King, Steven Emerson and many more.[/quote]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

OMG - you're kidding, right? Ann Coulter? Zell Miller? Wanna just throw Michelle Malkin into the mix, too?

Ann Coulter is *insane*. Literally - either that, or a liar. No rational human can hold the views she holds.

But, funny. Seriously. Funny sad, though, not funny ha-ha.

seppo
 
[quote name='Ruined']Go behind the headlines with courageous Americans, including: Dick Morris, Zell Miller, Ron Silver, Ed Koch, Ann Coulter, Peter King, Steven Emerson and many more.[/quote]

You are a fucking moron.
 
Wow! Quackzilla is attacking people again! Therefore his arguments are 100% fact and the rest of us are borderline retarded.
 
[quote name='Pylis']Wow! Quackzilla is attacking people again! Therefore his arguments are 100% fact and the rest of us are borderline retarded.[/quote]

It's not what I'd call cause and effect, but yes, it happens to be true.
 
[quote name='"helava"'][quote name='Ruined']Ann Coulter is *insane*. Literally - either that, or a liar. No rational human can hold the views she holds.

seppo[/quote]

I don't know about no rational human. I think she's just a very, very, very mean person who really, really, really hates people that disagree with her. Therefore, she's the kind of hyperpartisan I could certainly do without. Just what we need, some bitch yelling "Treason!!!1!" every time someone disagrees with the current administration. :roll:
 
[quote name='Sn0brawler']Anyone know when Fahrenheit 9/11 comes out? Id be interested to see this right after watching what its based on.[/quote]

Oct. 5th
 
[quote name='"elprincipe"'][quote name='helava'][quote name='Ruined']Ann Coulter is *insane*. Literally - either that, or a liar. No rational human can hold the views she holds.

seppo[/quote]

I don't know about no rational human. I think she's just a very, very, very mean person who really, really, really hates people that disagree with her. Therefore, she's the kind of hyperpartisan I could certainly do without. Just what we need, some bitch yelling "Treason!!!1!" every time someone disagrees with the current administration. :roll:[/quote]

Thank you, elprincipe. Ditto for the extremists over on this side of the aisle.
 
[quote name='"dennis_t"'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='helava'][quote name='Ruined']Ann Coulter is *insane*. Literally - either that, or a liar. No rational human can hold the views she holds.

seppo[/quote]

I don't know about no rational human. I think she's just a very, very, very mean person who really, really, really hates people that disagree with her. Therefore, she's the kind of hyperpartisan I could certainly do without. Just what we need, some bitch yelling "Treason!!!1!" every time someone disagrees with the current administration. :roll:[/quote]

Thank you, elprincipe. Ditto for the extremists over on this side of the aisle.[/quote]

I'm on neither side of the aisle. I'm standing in the aisle, listening to all the ridiculous crap thrown from both sides. That's why I can rip on people like Coulter and Al Gore with ease.
 
[quote name='guardian_owl'][quote name='Ruined']
Trailer:
http://trailer.fahrenhype911.com/trailer.wmv
http://www.fahrenhype911.com/trailer.php?play=qt[/quote]

I actually decided to look at the trailer and give it a shot, and all I saw was 2:30 mins of people giving opinions with not one documented fact to back up any of their claims. Hope the whole documentary isn't like that.[/quote]

It appears so.

At least Michael Moore had a large pile of documents to back up his movie. While he did spin a lot, none of the facts can be disputed.
 
What a surprise! They're selling a book!

George Bush should say his terribly divisive presidency has actually been good for the economy. I bet he's done wonders for the publishing industry!
 
I'll let you know how it is, my two copies shipped on Friday ;)

as for fact rebuttals, apparently the companion book rebuts the movie scene-by-scene, not sure about the DVD itself.

You can also check these sites to get more info about distortions and lies in Moore's movies:

www.bowlingfortruth.com

Ethics and Public Policy Center
War, Lies, and Videotape:
A Viewer’s Guide to Fahrenheit 9/11
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2189/pub_detail.asp
-interesting snippet here btw that sums it up quite well what Moore does:
"This assessment reveals that Moore’s film is profoundly dishonest and misleading on a scale that even the very skeptical viewer cannot begin to appreciate without a careful analysis of each of the individual pieces that make up the narrative. For the most part, the movie does not proceed by outright false assertions: Moore is careful—often through a lawyerly precision in word choice—to avoid the simplest lies and to steer barely clear of claims that are plainly libelous. Instead, he chops up the truth and rearranges the pieces to form a thoroughly false picture of reality that is composed of genuine video and audio clips that in reality often have little or nothing to do with the point being advanced in the film, and of facts out of context and figures misrepresented. This means that while Moore’s “facts” are not all false, essentially none of his “arguments” turns out to be true."

Full text pdf here:
http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20041005_F911v1.0final.pdf

www.moorelies.com

www.moorewatch.com
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']You all say that it's lies, but you never say why.

How about some specifics?[/quote]

Did you read my above post? Here is the link again if you didn't, with 59 pages of specifics scene by scene on how it is lies and deception:
http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20041005_F911v1.0final.pdf

The snippet in my above post is a good summary of how Moore tricks the audience into believing his distorted reality, and this link shows specifics of exactly how extremely distorted that reality is with a scene by scene analysis compared to the facts in context.
 
Isn't there a cash award for anyone who can prove they're "lies"? I haven't seen anyone win it yet.

Republicans are trying to smear Moore, much like they did with Richard Clarke, O'Neille, Kerry, Edwards, and soon-to-be Bremer. Go after the character instead of the truth.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Isn't there a cash award for anyone who can prove they're "lies"? I haven't seen anyone win it yet.

Republicans are trying to smear Moore, much like they did with Richard Clarke, O'Neille, Kerry, Edwards, and soon-to-be Bremer. Go after the character instead of the truth.[/quote]

read the link
http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20041005_F911v1.0final.pdf

It explains using facts and context how Moore deceives the audience into believing a false, alternate reality by manipulating, chopping up, and taking out of context "facts" in a "lawyer-like" fashion. And you think they would actually pay up and admit the movie is a big lie? lol.
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='E-Z-B']Isn't there a cash award for anyone who can prove they're "lies"? I haven't seen anyone win it yet.

Republicans are trying to smear Moore, much like they did with Richard Clarke, O'Neille, Kerry, Edwards, and soon-to-be Bremer. Go after the character instead of the truth.[/quote]

read the link
http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20041005_F911v1.0final.pdf

It explains how Moore deceives the audience by manipulating, chopping up, and taking out of context "facts" in a "lawyer-like" fashion.[/quote]

That document is just as distorting as you claim Michael Moore is.

I was amused at the part where he was talking about people not allowed to vote in Florida because they were felons where he makes the claim that convicted felons vote more for Democrats than Republicans.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']A solid point E-Z-B, but I unfortunatly can't vote for Moore to stop making movies.[/quote]

Sure you can. Don't go see them in the theater and dont rent them. If enough people do the same, Moore wont get the funding to make any new movies.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']So you're saying he spinned his facts. So? Isn't that what politicians do too?[/quote]

If Moore wants to be a politician, he should run for office. Of course, he would never win office with his extremist viewpoints. And he'd be called on distorting the facts by the opposition.

However it goes deeper than that. Moore claims to make documentaries.

When you look up a documentary in the dictionary, it states that it is "an objective film"

What does objective mean?

"expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

Moore has made movies that are the opposite of objective when dealing with facts.

If Moore wants to make fiction, label it as fiction or black comedy like he did with Canadian Bacon, not a documentary as he has with BFC and F911. Don't deceive people into thinking you uncovered some great truth when you really just deconstructed, distorted, and spliced bits and pieces of what were originally facts together to create a false reality based on your own agenda.
 
Puh-lease.

Now you're spinning the dictionary.

Let's actually look up the meaning of "documentary"

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.
1) Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2) Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

You're looking solely at the adjective, definition 2 meaning. Using that one interpretation backs up your claim. Just like a politician would do.

Moore claims that his movie is based on news articles which he cross-references line-by-line on his website. They are factual accounts of what happened, although he does organize according to his perspective.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Puh-lease.

Now you're spinning the dictionary.

Let's actually look up the meaning of "documentary"

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.
1) Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2) Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

You're looking solely at the adjective, definition 2 meaning. Using that one interpretation backs up your claim. Just like a politician would do.

Moore claims that his movie is based on news articles which he cross-references line-by-line on his website. They are factual accounts of what happened, although he does organize according to his perspective.[/quote]

Talk about contradicting yourself, you just spinned all over the dictionary. The 2nd definition still applies to the freakin' word. You can't just eliminate a definition from a word, especially when the word film which is what that was was in the definition. Thus that definition would certainly pertain to it. And Moore's film certainly doesn't not fit that at all. Also if you think every single opinion in the film was drawn from a document (a truthful one at that) you seriously need some help. I'm not saying ruined is right exactly but quit trying to pass something off as a documentry when you know it wasn't.
 
If a word has several meanings in the dictionary, does every definition have to apply in the way that you're using it? No. A word may have several different meanings, but the person using the word may be using one meaning instead of another. You're mistakenly latching onto meaning #2.

And EVERY line in the movie WAS DRAWN BY A DOCUMENT OR NEWS ARTICLE. I suggest you visit http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ for a "Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One"

where "THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'"

and "Section One covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 from the 2000 election to George W. Bush's extended visit to Booker Elementary on the morning of September 11th."

You can continue from there.
 
Moore himself said he prefers to call Fahrenheit 9/11 a "non-fiction film" rather than a documentary.

I love the way Moore upsets you conservatives. Now you know what it's been like for Democrats having to put up with Rush Limbaugh.

P.S. That's as far as I would equate the two - the irritation factor. Moore is much more truthful than Rush.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']If a word has several meanings in the dictionary, does every definition have to apply in the way that you're using it? No. A word may have several different meanings, but the person using the word may be using one meaning instead of another. You're mistakenly latching onto meaning #2.

And EVERY line in the movie WAS DRAWN BY A DOCUMENT OR NEWS ARTICLE. I suggest you visit http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ for a "Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One"

where "THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'"

and "Section One covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 from the 2000 election to George W. Bush's extended visit to Booker Elementary on the morning of September 11th."

You can continue from there.[/quote]

I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on the content. I have noticed lately that many people are picking and choosing definitions that don't fit the context of how they are using a certain word. For example, there is a big debate in my school district about the teaching of evolution. The biggest complaint against teaching evolution came up when people started stating that evolution is just a theory, therefore it is only a guess. Those people are using the incorrect definition of theory. When used in science, a theory is a proven scientific fact. It would be difficult to find someone who thinks that the Theory of Gravity is just a guess. I see the same thing with the above posts about 'documentary'. As it has been used, the noun version is the correct definition so Moore's film is therefore truly a documentary.
 
[quote name='coffman'][quote name='E-Z-B']If a word has several meanings in the dictionary, does every definition have to apply in the way that you're using it? No. A word may have several different meanings, but the person using the word may be using one meaning instead of another. You're mistakenly latching onto meaning #2.

And EVERY line in the movie WAS DRAWN BY A DOCUMENT OR NEWS ARTICLE. I suggest you visit http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ for a "Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One"

where "THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'"

and "Section One covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 from the 2000 election to George W. Bush's extended visit to Booker Elementary on the morning of September 11th."

You can continue from there.[/quote]

I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on the content. I have noticed lately that many people are picking and choosing definitions that don't fit the context of how they are using a certain word. For example, there is a big debate in my school district about the teaching of evolution. The biggest complaint against teaching evolution came up when people started stating that evolution is just a theory, therefore it is only a guess. Those people are using the incorrect definition of theory. When used in science, a theory is a proven scientific fact. It would be difficult to find someone who thinks that the Theory of Gravity is just a guess. I see the same thing with the above posts about 'documentary'. As it has been used, the noun version is the correct definition so Moore's film is therefore truly a documentary.[/quote]

Well, close. As I understand it, a theory is a hypothesis which has been tested VERY extensively and has yet to be disproven. So there is a 99.99% that the theory of gravity is correct, but not 100%.
 
[quote name='guardian_owl'][quote name='coffman'][quote name='E-Z-B']If a word has several meanings in the dictionary, does every definition have to apply in the way that you're using it? No. A word may have several different meanings, but the person using the word may be using one meaning instead of another. You're mistakenly latching onto meaning #2.

And EVERY line in the movie WAS DRAWN BY A DOCUMENT OR NEWS ARTICLE. I suggest you visit http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ for a "Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One"

where "THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'"

and "Section One covers the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 from the 2000 election to George W. Bush's extended visit to Booker Elementary on the morning of September 11th."

You can continue from there.[/quote]

I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on the content. I have noticed lately that many people are picking and choosing definitions that don't fit the context of how they are using a certain word. For example, there is a big debate in my school district about the teaching of evolution. The biggest complaint against teaching evolution came up when people started stating that evolution is just a theory, therefore it is only a guess. Those people are using the incorrect definition of theory. When used in science, a theory is a proven scientific fact. It would be difficult to find someone who thinks that the Theory of Gravity is just a guess. I see the same thing with the above posts about 'documentary'. As it has been used, the noun version is the correct definition so Moore's film is therefore truly a documentary.[/quote]

Well, close. As I understand it, a theory is a hypothesis which has been tested VERY extensively and has yet to be disproven. So there is a 99.99% that the theory of gravity is correct, but not 100%.[/quote]

No, a theory is not a hypothesis. A theory is fact and will not ever be disproven. The theory may not be complete and could need further refinement, however, which basically means adding more information to "connect the dots".
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='E-Z-B']Puh-lease.

Now you're spinning the dictionary.

Let's actually look up the meaning of "documentary"

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.
1) Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2) Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

You're looking solely at the adjective, definition 2 meaning. Using that one interpretation backs up your claim. Just like a politician would do.

Moore claims that his movie is based on news articles which he cross-references line-by-line on his website. They are factual accounts of what happened, although he does organize according to his perspective.[/quote]

Talk about contradicting yourself, you just spinned all over the dictionary. The 2nd definition still applies to the freakin' word. You can't just eliminate a definition from a word, especially when the word film which is what that was was in the definition. Thus that definition would certainly pertain to it. And Moore's film certainly doesn't not fit that at all. Also if you think every single opinion in the film was drawn from a document (a truthful one at that) you seriously need some help. I'm not saying ruined is right exactly but quit trying to pass something off as a documentry when you know it wasn't.[/quote]

lol Webster 9/11 available exclusively at cheapassgamer.com ;)
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Actually, gravity is a scientific law now.[/quote]

Unless there were some major discoveries since my college physics classes, gravity is still considered a theory. The reason is because of undetected particles such as gravity waves that are predicted to exist. Until they are discovered (and any other predictions proven) gravity will remain a theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top