Political Crossfire Forums

[DJivAss]

This is the same country (USA) where promoters sold out a fight between Tonya Harding and Paula Jones. In other words: No pride, no shame, no sense of decency.

Therefor why hasn't the film industry jumped on a whole series of conspiracy related films associated with 9/11? It's a better question to ask than "was 9/11 an inside job by ____ (submit some rightwing military industrial complex group)".

If there is any major film group pushing the concept I sure haven't heard about it.

Also interesting to note is that over thirty years since the publication of the Late Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench gang" there is no movie out about it either.

I'm told that Robert Redford, a good friend of Abbey's, owns the rights to the film. The book is hysterically funny. If anyone had the stones and money to pull off that subversive, but entertaining film surely Bob Redford would. So it's likely someone has turned the screws pressuring the industry to avoid putting THAT movie on the screen.

So my guess is that the major moguls of film making have received strict orders to put a lid on both concepts.

In the case of 9/11 conspiracies I heard last week that fully 41% of Americans believe that 9/11 involved a conspiracy. This is just way too high of a population to ignore the entertainment potential of a huge market like that.

So where is Oliver Stone when we need him? heck even Michael Moore only intimated that Bush was involved in some sort of scam. never really pressed the issue in his film "Farenheit 9/11".

All said I still don't know if I agree that there was a bonified conspiracy there. Am only comfortable with the concept of "tacet complicity". Meaning: When govenment intel knows there is likely to be some kind of attack but doesn't intervene due to the certain benefits such an attack would give to arms industry.

Never-the-less there is just way too big of a prospective audience of fellow conspiracy "nuts" for the film makers to avoid the production altogether.

That by itself is reason to believe there was serious complicity in some form or another.

[Aim-64C]

The same reason they stopped airing videos of the WTC colapse.

The issue was 'too disturbing' for people.

I'm sure that there would be a bunch of people having sh** fits over it.

Our media has little shame - but they do have some sense in their heads - it just shows itself at odd times.

[Todd D.]

Our motion picture industry is dominated by one single question: Will it sell? It's the same reason that you are going to see Clerks II this summer even though Kevin Smith hasn't put out a decent movie since Dogma. It's the same reason that the DaVinci Code did so well.

People don't want to see a movie full of BS half truths that implicates our government in having an active role in 9/11, they just don't. As such, any venture on a wide scale is bound to be unprofitable. Why would a major motion picture studio fork over the money on a project that they know will tank in the box office?

[DJivAss]

With 41% of the population believing in a 9/11 conspiracy you think they'd just shelve an idea like that???

41% is a HUGE audience of paying customers!

I've never watched a Harry Potter movie all the way through. Popular as that series was there have to plenty of people like me not much enthused about kiddie witchcraft movies.

Then there are people who don't believe in conspiracies who might go just to see the special effects or what the producer had on the ball ina 9/11 "expose" type film.

Add it all up and there just isn't any reason to avoid the concept the way that it has.

[Straudos]

Quote: With 41% of the population believing in a 9/11 conspiracy you think they'd just shelve an idea like that? I would like to see the source of this statistic, because I have no doubt the question was phrased otherwise at the very least.

The movie industry makes money based on what people want. If they thought people would go see this kind of movie in theater, they would make it. The movie industry also isn't too keen on taking risks with movie ventures (and this a serious problem with the industry). It has nothing to do with the government trying to stop them, or the industry's fear of releasing a movie with half-truths. How do we know this? Because Fahrenheit 911 was released.

[cap'n queasy]

Why would people pay 20 dollars to go see a movie containing information they could get for a dollar in the National Enquirer?

[Aim-64C]

I know - I could buy a movie to watch on a date cheaper than to go to the movies with a girl.

There are also certain advatages that comes with.

So... simply, you're saying that because the media refuses to go all gungho over stirring up a past event that resulted in the death of thousands of our friends and family, blaming it on our government agencies with half-baked arguements and out of context quotes, and featuring engineers with online degrees ......... that this means the government is placing a silencing order on the media?

I might buy it if this were the former USSR and there wasn't so much controvoursey over not finding WMD in Iraq. I mean - hell - that's from within the Military! That'd be something I'd place a hush-hush on REAL fast.

[DJivAss]

Well I admit to woking off a quote heard over the radio. However 41% believing in the idea that 9/11 may have been part of a conspiracy seems reasonable to me.

After all the press gives Republican leaders a free pass on most things as it is.

No controversy about not finding WMD's in Iraq.

No problem with Bush crime family ties to oil and arms sales.

Also if you watched MSNBC on Sunday you'd have seen Kentuckey Republican Senator Mitch McConnell get a free pass on his untruthful statement: "We must fight the terrorists over there (Iraq) instead of over here". About the most misleading statement in so few words as I've ever seen.

So it stands to reason that any producer who tried to put together a 9/11 conspiracy movie would be shut down faster than a closed lid.

[Aim-64C]

Or the problem could be reversed - you give a free pass to anti-Bush/Republican claims and jump all over the others.

You don't sound like a hateful person - but you seem to be basing an arguement out of hatred rather than logic or moral values.

The radio can construe things - when someone says "Yes, I beleive there is more to the story of 9/11" - then people could also claim that to mean that that person beleives there is a conspiracy - since that's the general accepted definition of a conspiracy - neglecting the root of the word - conspire - which roots from correspond.... which probably has some sort root someplace else......... which pretty much means to plan.

Taking that note - you could also say that anyone who beleives 9/11 was planned (by either any party) beleives that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

You can find all kinds of ways to construe information in the direction you want it to. The secret lies in giving people the interpretation of data, rather than the whole context of the data, itself.

I could plan a series of questions to ask you in a videotaped interview. I could ask you all kinds of questions about who you are, what your hobbies are, etc - and in the entirity of it - you can be a VERY nice and fairly average person (although that might not mean average.... quite a few rude people in today's society). However, I can take various questions and their answers, pause the video in the middle of your response (giving you an odd look on your face) - and interject a comment like "looks like he's hiding something..." - and be able to lead people's train of thought and interject my own message into their reasoning - bringing them to any conclusion about you that I want.

Most of the attacks on the administration you see are all based on the above tactic. Farenheit 9/11 and 'Bush was in with the Saudis', the lack of WMD in Iraq (which there were sizable stockpiles of chemical agents found... but that would make the media look like they jumped the gun - so that just gets passed off to the side) - and your quote has something to it that you've probably missed.

The implication is that we need to fight terrorists on THEIR land, rather than trying to intercept their plans here. Of course, there is no accompanying context with that.

Simply all of this put - if you want to, you can read what you will into any event. This is especially easy to do with quotes and 'open ended' reports. People who thrive off of this tactic know how people will jump to conclusions - even illogically, based on an instilled idea.

I can give you a page that has four paragraphs of talk - claims that I have proof that Bush was lying and etc etc - that there are untold amounts of destruction caused by the administration, and so-forth. Giving the reader a pre-concieved idea about what they are going to see - this basing off of their own internal beleifs - maybe they don't exactly care for Bush or have an opinion either way; those who trust Bush will laugh at the mere thought of it and either read on to continue laughing or close the page (it's a nice filtering system). Those who are being drawn in read on intently, waiting for the proof. Then, a series of quotes and exerpts from documents may be presented - or a bunch of half-truths globbed together to form an arguement which, after being told it would be proof, becomes an adequite amount of proof in the minds of the people reading.

The human mind is an incredibly strong and an incredibly weak thing. You can lead it in many directions if only you know what makes them 'tic'. It is by knowing your weaknesses and evaluating your own ideas (and re-evaluating them in light of new evidence) that you become stronger and more independent from the many that can be lead.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Well I admit to woking off a quote heard over the radio. However 41% believing in the idea that 9/11 may have been part of a conspiracy seems reasonable to me.
It seems reasonable to you because you have deluded yourself in to hearing what you want to hear. It's 41% of NEW YORKERS that believe that the US Government had information that 9/11 was going to happen and failed to act accordingly, ie they didn't do enough to DEFEND the United States. This doesn't mean that 41% believe that the US Government was BEHIND 9/11, merely that they didn't do enough to prevent it. Try reading closer next time.

Quote: No controversy about not finding WMD's in Iraq.
Really? It seems to be all I saw on the news from late 2002 until about mid-2004 when we actually came out and said that there were no WMDs there. I'd call that controversy.

Quote: So it stands to reason that any producer who tried to put together a 9/11 conspiracy movie would be shut down faster than a closed lid.
No it doesn't. Loose Change and Road to Tyranny were both produced uninhibited, and they continue to be distributed to this day. I think it's unlikely that a major motion picture studio would sign on to fund and/or distribute such a film (for the reason that I stated above: it wouldn't sell and it would cause a huge public backlash against that studio), but that's not the same as "shutting it down".

[Patriot911]

You could have two kinds of conspiracy movies:

The first would be a movie that is fictional that parallels the conspiracy theories, but is made as a work of fiction. This would be in extremely poor taste and would reflect badly on any theater producing it.

The second would be showing the conspiracy theory as a documentary or, since most of the information is either blatantly false, taken out of context or misconstrued, a mockumentary. This has already been done once in Fahrenheit 911. It is funny that even Michael Moore who is known for his twisting of the truth and stretching credibility to the limits wouldn't touch the nuttier conspiracy theories. I guess even he is concerned with his own credibility.

[Chymical]

Unlike those who write history