All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Has anyone reviewed these documentary films on SS? (currently 7239 views)
Alan_Stanley_Holman
Posted: September 29th, 2008, 6:25am
Guest User
Some other films that aren't reviewed enough ...
THE REFLECTING POOL http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=237517889570270757& This is not a documentary. This is the first in a new genre called "Investigative Drama." The screenplay for this movie is absolutely brilliant, and the acting is superb. You'd be remiss to miss this one! Review it!
Al Gore was able to record a power point lecture and call it a movie, so these folks should have the same equal right. I believe that these power point lectures are more important than Gore's:
Sniper. That video is completely off topic and inappropriate.
I've posted links to films that reveal the following FACTS: FACTS *One year before 9/11, George W. Bush's brother Marvin Bush left the Board of Directors of the security company SECURACOM/STRATESEC, which was in charge of security for the World Trade Center on 9/11, and SECURACOM was also in charge of security for the Dallas International Airport from which the plane which hit the Pentagon took off. But Marvin Bush's contract with SECURACOM/STRATESEC was still in effect until September 10th, 2001. *The plane that hit the Pentagon coincidentally hit the one area of the Pentagon that was under renovations. *On 9/11, NORAD, FEMA, the Air Force, and the CIA, were conducting simulations of similar attacks. *On 9/11, the Vice President was the Acting Commander-in-Chief. Months prior, the Vice President took from the Air Force the authority to prevent the Air Force from scrambling jets. *People who accepted insurance, because they were family members of 9/11 victims, had to waive their right to bring any charges against the government. *A series of explosions -- some of which were below the WTC buildings (to disable the fire sprinkler systems) -- as if charges were being detonated, were heard by many firefighters who testified to the 9/11 Commission, but their testimonies were not included in the published report. *In the weeks before 9/11, engineers were doing "repair work" on certain parts of the WTC buildings, so those parts of the buildings were closed off, and the security cameras in those parts of the buildings were turned off. *For the years prior to the attack, the WTC lost millions of dollars per year for their previous lease owner, the Port Authority. Two days before the attack, the Port Authority cut power to the security system. No security cameras were operational while "engineers" with "All Access" but without IDs, came in-and-out of the WTC buildings, to "fix a computer bandwidth issue". Until November 2002, the Port Authority blocked the release (to The New York Times) of an audiotape of firefighters' transmissions regarding the explosions of bombs in the WTC on 9/11. *According to seismographic data from the Palisades Seismology Group at Columbia University, the explosions in the South Tower registered as a 2.1 earthquake, and the explosions in the North Tower registered as a 2.3 earthquake. *Most of the WTC scrap metal was shipped to China before investigators could look at it. *All four 9/11 crash sites were the cleanest air crash sites in history. Virtually no wreckage! *No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, three fell that way on 9/11. But the truth is that none have fallen that way ever. All three of the buildings which ALLEGEDLY fell that way were leased by the same man. Overwhelming evidence of a controlled demolition using thermite reactions has been ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report. *Seven or six weeks prior to 9/11, Larry Silverstein paid around three billion dollars for the WTC lease, then he made around five billion dollars from insurance after 9/11. As soon as he took over, he was obligated to spend a billion dollars to remove asbestos, and construction work began hapenning ... but not to remove asbestos. *The CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service, had offices in Building 7. On the 23rd floor of Building 7 was a command center for the entire 9/11 inside job. Google "23rd floor of building 7". *Osama Bin Laden worked in the CIA loyally, as an agent, for years, using the name Tim Osman. *On 9/11, Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmad had breakfast with American Government Officials in Washington. Ahmad is the same man who ordered Omar Sheikh to wire $100000 to Mohammad Atta -- Atta was the lead hijacker. The flight manifests DID NOT contain the names of the alleged hijackers. You cannot hijack a plane you're not in. Six "hijackers" are alive, and no evidence links them ... aside for the front pages of newspapers which don't cite sources. *1 hour after the twin-towers were hit, Rumsfeld was already prepared to hit 27 targets within Afghanistan. This level of planning requires a year's lead time. *most Americans are unaware that America started a war in Indonesia in 1947 that killed 40,000 Indonesians. News about big operations can be kept secret or suppressed because people in charge are tested, and to speak out about a government secret is to volunteer for the electric chair. Or for a person to speak out is to put that person's family in danger. *Former White House Political Director Sara Taylor (assistant to Carl Rove) took an oath of loyalty to the President, and a B1 Bomber Pilot (whose name I don't have) took an oath of loyalty to the President ... an oath which is unconstitutional. *Hazel o'Leary, the Energy Secretary, admitted that America fed plutonium to pregnant women and children and older people. That secret was held for many years. If they could hold something like that secret, then one has to imagine that they could hold something like a 9/11 conspiracy secret. Contemporary media saturation and loss of privacy does not apply to people within the social circle of the Rockefellers. *Daniel Ellsberg, a former high-ranking analyst for the State and Defense Departments, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, said: "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy... Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."
Really stop and think about what those facts mean. You can find video evidence of all of those facts in the films I've posted links to. Stop and think about what those things mean, and what those things will mean to your future children. And then think about what you're doing when you post a pwnage video in a thread where someone's trying to educate folks about these documentaries that reveal those facts.
And if you're going to mock me for my belief, remember what Einstein said about condemnation without investigation.
I was not mocking anyone. It was a simple statement made without any judgemental pretext. If you took it as mocking, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate some of the tenents of these hypotheses within a broader context.
Quoted Text
Truth is not only violated by lies; it is outraged by silence.
There are oh so many ways to violate the truth. One need only nod towards the White House for further evidence of that.
What I (and Mike) meant by "hating" these threads is how they spin off-topic with real or perceived personal attacks and defensive responses.
So you should not take that as a personal attack, either.
But the point is we have to waste our time reading the whole thread -- which we did not even want to read in the first place -- and decide to delete piecemeal or delete the whole thing or whatever. And then some people get mad about getting deleted.
Or sometimes Don just drives a stake into its black heart -- which is the easiest for everyone all around.
Yeah, I guess you're right, Alan. Should have posted a train wreck instead.
Actually, you're onto something. Had you posted a train wreck and blamed it on a country that you wanted to attack, that would be a good example of "false flag."
A "false flag" operation is when a country pretends to be attacked by another country in order to fabricate justification to attack that other country.
International law makes it illegal to start a war of aggression, so "False Flag" was done on 9/11.
In the three months before 9/11, 44000 U.S. troops, 18000 British troops, two aircraft carriers, massed around Afghanistan ... just waiting for their excuse.
On 9/10, 2001, it was announced that $2.3 TRILLION dollars were missing from the U.S. budget. Not to mention the fact that ALL of the documents pertaining to the Enron scandal were in Building 7. And then the Enron scandal vanishes when Building 7 was demolished.
and, when you returned, you immediately started insulting Don.
It was appropriate to express my frustration that was caused by Don to Don. Don has also done a lot of things that deserve applause and cheer. And it is appropriate to express those applause and cheers to him at those times.
If you cause frustration for someone, it's appropriate for that person to express their frustration to you. If you cause joy to someone, it's approrpriate for that person to applaud and cheer to you.
We're all capable of causing frustration to people, and joy to people. And we'll all be punished for the frustration we cause to others, and we'll all be cheered and applauded for the joy we cause to others. What's important is to always be receptive of the expressions of frustration that are directed to you, and the expressions of joy that are directed to you. If you cut off your receptiveness to communication that is due to you, you don't learn the things you need to learn in order to grow. Everyone grows every moment, regardless of age.
Paranoia is a type of fear. Fear makes it impossible to focus. It takes much focus to edit together a film. The films I've linked to are the product of Zenlike clarity.
Fear makes it impossible to focus? So how do you explain the thousands of films produced during the cold war with the fear of nuclear holocaust hanging in the air?
I guess by your selfstyled defintions, there has never been an paranoid book, lyric, film or speech, because all these things require "focus" and that's something you just defined paranoid people can't possibly have.
Alan Holman can't fly.
A paranoid conspiracy theorist can't fly.
Alan Holman is a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Welcome to the wonderful world of logical fallacies...
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
The cause of these problems is the portal button. Without it, people would just navigate to the thread they're interested in. With it, people just navigate to the most recent thread, so you get all these off-topic posts by people who don't even intend to see the films that are the topic of the thread. Much of what was said in this thread provokes me to speak on those topics, particularly a rudely context'd mention of a work that took many years which is very dear to me. But those many various topics shouldn't have even been mentioned in a thread about a different topic. Whatever you want to talk about, start threads about those things, and then wait however long it takes for someone else who wants to talk about it to show up. If you see a thread that deals with films that you don't intend to see, walk away and post in a thread that deals with things that you're interested in. Why can't this thread just sit here until someone who might be interested in these topics shows up and says something intelligent? There's no reason for anyone who isn't interested in these topics to even look at this thread beyond the first message to see what it's about. Why can't the thread just linger for however long it takes before someone who has something on-topic to say can come here and contribute to the topic? It's because of the portal button. On forums that don't have it, people navigate to their topic of interest, so more people and interests can be accommodated for. No one who has interest in the films that this thread mentions gives a damn that Shelton hates these types of threads, for example. If someone posted a fair review of one of these movies, thus spawning a healthy debate, would shelton come in there and say he hates those types of threads? It's the fault of the portal button that everyone is thinking that everything is their business.
Revision History (3 edits; 1 reasons shown)
Alan_Stanley_Holman - September 29th, 2008, 4:07pm
No one who has interest in the films that this thread mentions gives a damn that Shelton hates these types of threads, for example. If someone posted a fair review of one of these movies, thus spawning a healthy debate, would shelton come in there and say he hates those types of threads? It's the fault of the portal button that everyone is thinking that everything is their business.
If you would kindly look at when I commented, you'll notice that I didn't say anything until things started to get a little too heated for my tastes. I could care less about your interest in documentaries, Icke, and the like. What I do care about is seeing things go off track.
P.S. - The portal button was forced upon us by the government.
You've posted a couple of threads asking "Has anyone reviewed this or that". All you had to do to get an answer to those questions was to do a simple search (and being the good and non-instigating member that you are, you of course did precisely that). So, knowing full well that no one had reviewed the "movies" in question, why did you post those threads? Why did you feel it was necessary to clog up the boards?
And here's another logical fallacy:
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this)...this thread sucks, Alan posted it, therefore Alan sucks.
Wait, that's no fallacy.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
This situation reminds me of Lucky's monologue from WAITING FOR GODOT. He says: "Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God [...] which even though intermittent is better than nothing [...] it is established beyond all doubt [...] that in view of the labors of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown [...] it is established what many deny that man [...] in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation wastes and pines [...] in the light of the labors lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears [...] more grave [...] in spite of the [,,,] labors abandoned left unfinished [...]"
The point is: There are so many great works left unfinished by brilliant authors whose works are attempts to answer profound questions, yet we meander. I pointed to some documentaries that are by brilliant authors whose works attempt to answer profound questions, or provoke debate about profound questions, yet we meander. In spite of the works left unfinished, the questions left unanswered, we meander. As Vladamir and Estragon remained on purpose, we shall. "Gogo" tried to go quite often, but "Didi" "did I". He did I, by that I mean he did himself. By that I mean he did what his heart told him to do. By that I mean he stuck to the purpose for which he had set forth. The purpose was to wait for he who would move them forward in their goals. This thread is here to sit and wait for whoever can forward the public discussion on these very important films that are paramount to the profound goals of our species.
The cause of these problems is the portal button. Without it, people would just navigate to the thread they're interested in. With it, people just navigate to the most recent thread, so you get all these off-topic posts by people who don't even intend to see the films that are the topic of the thread. Much of what was said in this thread provokes me to speak on those topics, particularly a rudely context'd mention of a work that took many years which is very dear to me. But those many various topics shouldn't have even been mentioned in a thread about a different topic. Whatever you want to talk about, start threads about those things, and then wait however long it takes for someone else who wants to talk about it to show up. If you see a thread that deals with films that you don't intend to see, walk away and post in a thread that deals with things that you're interested in. Why can't this thread just sit here until someone who might be interested in these topics shows up and says something intelligent? There's no reason for anyone who isn't interested in these topics to even look at this thread beyond the first message to see what it's about. Why can't the thread just linger for however long it takes before someone who has something on-topic to say can come here and contribute to the topic? It's because of the portal button. On forums that don't have it, people navigate to their topic of interest, so more people and interests can be accommodated for. No one who has interest in the films that this thread mentions gives a damn that Shelton hates these types of threads, for example. If someone posted a fair review of one of these movies, thus spawning a healthy debate, would shelton come in there and say he hates those types of threads? It's the fault of the portal button that everyone is thinking that everything is their business.
I shouldn't, but I will.
David Icke used to present the football and sports shows on British TV when I was growing up in the UK. He was on TV all the time and was quite a household name.
Then one day he appeared on a British Talk Show and told everybody watching that he was the son of God and that Britain was about to be destroyed. Although this turned him into the biggest laughing stock in Britain (I am not exaggerating - It was huge at the time) He never gave up and started to write the books and movies that you seem to have become such a fan off. I had always thought of him as a fairly harmless man who had obviously had some kind of mental breakdown. However, when he suggested in his book "And the truth will set you free" that the Holocaust was financed and arranged by the Global Elite then I changed my assessment of him to a probably quite dangerous nutter.
The guy was laughed out of Britain, laughed out of his job, he believes that just about every world leader is a lizard here to control our way of life.
You want to have an intelligent discussion about David Icke? You have really come to the wrong place. There must be message boards where all the Lizard fans can gather and discuss the end of the world. This one is about writing movies.
I read everything about what happened as thte media--responsible media--reported it 24/7. And shortly after this, the asshole came out of the woodwork with their conspiracy theories.
The media was immediately ready with an explanation BEFORE IT WAS INVESTIGATED. And when it was investigated, Philip Zelikow (the head of the investigation) had clear conflicts of interests because of his friendships with the folks who were at the center of the accusations by the "conspiracy theorists".
9/11 was rigged by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and General Richard Meyers ... but they were only following orders from the secret government, which is run by David Rockefeller.
Everyone was traumatized and seeking answers. The media gave the answers they were told to give. And during the trauma, those answers were powerful, those answers stuck. But those answers weren't the truth. Those answers were in support of an agenda called the Project for a New American Century.
George W. Bush has referred to 9/11 as a "New Pearl Harbor" ... the exact words as in the strategy that he follows like a script. Page 51 of the PNAC calls for a "New Pearl Harbor".
I can send you the full PNAC document if you request it from me. They took it offline when the truthers started quoting it a lot, but I managed to grab a copy of the PDF in time. If you want it, I'll send it to you. Basically it says that the US needs to sustain two wars on foreign fronts at a time throughout the entire century in order to remain the world's primary superpower ... this is because of the military-industrial complex's dependency on weapon's sales to BOTH SIDES OF EACH CONFLICT.
You mentioned the media ...
Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on MSNBC. But when he started questioning the official story of 9/11, his show got canceled. Have you ever heard of a network canceling their highest rated show before?
When you start talking to people about "9/11 Truth", a lot of people will tell you that the official story is true, and they will cite this article from POPULAR MECHANICS, which is a propaganda piece that was researched and written by the cousin of the Homeland Security chief: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
The hole in the Pentagon was 16 feet, but the Popular Mechanics article said it was 75 feet.
Bring the Popular Mechanics article to any engineer, along with a video tape of the collapses of the WTC towers, and the engineer will tell you that the towers would have fell over sideways if the explanation in the article were true. Then, the engineer will call the article "bullshit".
Researchers of "9/11 Truth" have discredited the Popular Mechanics article as "Yellow Journalism", but it's "POPULAR" MECHANICS, so it's usually enough to dissuade people from looking any further into the issues. Here's a good counter-criticism that discredits the POPULAR MECHANICS article: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
NBC will not report on "9/11 Truth" because NBC is owned by General Electric, a major producer of military equipment.
The media distorts the truth with Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). Search for, and watch, youtube videos featuring Derren Brown. Google "NLP" and learn that many books and courses are available.
Loose Change is a perfect example of the bullshit. The producers are first time film makers who, prior to 9/11 were looking to make a thriller involving the World Trade Center. Their movie was returned to the production each time it left it because of all the mistakes they put in it.
They put themselves in a situation that forced them to research the topic. And the more research they did, the more holes they found in the official story, until making a documentary was the responsible thing to do.
Quoted from dogglebe
The films are bullshit. You're the only one who disagrees.
Look at who's in charge. You've got all the major media and magazines, and gov'ts. Then look at the purpose fo the trilateral commission ...
1979 INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE S. FRANKLIN, TRILATERAL COMMISSION http://www.augustreview.com/is.....lin,_jr._2007012642/ From the article, we can determine: *Trilateral has three groups, a North American group, a European group, and a Japanese group. *They want to restrict the rights of the media so that it doesn't interfere with financial or government interests. The want the government to have the right and ability to withhold information at the source. They want all journalists to conform with their standards or be punished by the government. They want it so the public believes that "The only real event is the event that is reported and seen." With the media restricted, they can "innovate and experiment" quickly and without considering the opinions of citizens who disagree with their methods. At the time of the article, they were already in control of Time Magazine, Fortune, Money, and People. *Mr. Brzezinski -- one of the architects of the Trilateral Commission -- believes that sovereignty is a fiction, and he is an outspoken critic against the U.S. constitution. *Many influential members of politics -- including Presidents and White House staff -- are "former" members of the Commission. *The trilateral commission undoubtedly controls the world's oil industry.
The Trilateral Commission is run by the controllers of mainstream information, and they also control the world's oil industry. Media and oil and politics are in bed. I can send you a visual map of the media that explains this better -- ask for the document (in an e-mail to me at newlegend2005@yahoo.ca ) and you will recieve it. Wake up.
Quoted from dogglebe
I think it says a lot how you list documentaries involving 9/11, UFO's and the Anti-Christ all together. It says a lot about you.
What that says to you about me depends on what you know about those topics.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Quoted from Cypress Hill
I'm ignoring all the dumb shit Yo, because nothing is coming from it I'm not gonna waste no time fuckin' around my gat straight humming Hummin', Coming at ya Yeah ya know I had to gatt ya Time for some action Just a fraction of friction I got the clearance To run the interference Into your satellite Shining a battle light Sen got the gatt and I know that he'll gatt you right Here's an example Just a little sample How I could just kill a man
How do you explain that, Alan?
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Then one day he appeared on a British Talk Show and told everybody watching that he was the son of God and that Britain was about to be destroyed. Although this turned him into the biggest laughing stock in Britain (I am not exaggerating - It was huge at the time) He never gave up
And he's such a huge inspiration because he never gave up. He became the world's primary researcher of comparative religion. The facts he uncovered by comparing myths have helped me IMMEASURABLY in writing scripts.
Icke DOES NOT believe that he is any more then son of God than anyone else in the world.
He uncovers important groundbreaking information.
But it's difficult to find his books in libraries here in Canada because a Canadian human rights lawyer named Richard Warman successfully keeps his books out of many Canadian libraries and bookstores ... as a personal vendetta ... no one has actually made any formal complaints.
Please watch this video of Icke returning to the talk show that he was laughed off of many years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OSmdej56cw ... and really think about what you're doing when you laugh at an idea.
Pages: 
Author
Has anyone reviewed these documentary films on SS?
Logged
