• long running

Free: Fahrenheit 9/11 Documentary + Q&A Session @ Michael Moore's Substack & Youtube

3044
Free: Fahrenheit 9/11 Documentary + Q&A Session @ Michael Moore's Substack & Youtube
Go to Deal
M1lad on 11/09/2021 - 15:51 michaelmoore.com (3411 clicks)
Last edited 13/09/2021 - 16:56 by 1 other user

One of the best 9/11 documentaries IMHO (also rated 7.5 on IMDb). I watched it live earlier this morning via his youtube channel and the link will apparently be available for now…This is also the link for his Twitter announcement:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MMFlint/status/143640554513354346…

Also available via YouTube:
https://youtu.be/cebnlqi9RGQ

Update from MM (13/09)
'The response to our free screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 was so overwhelming, we’re keeping it up for free on my YouTube channel. So if you missed the screening, now you can watch it this week when u want! https://youtube.com/watch?v=cebnlqi9RGQ… (includes Q&A and extras. The movie starts at 38:00)'

Entertainment Documentary Video on Demand

Related Stores

Michael Moore
Michael Moore
YouTube
YouTube

Comments

        • SlickMick on 12/09/2021 - 16:41
          +3

          I check the source of everything I read now… I keep a list of the few news services with integrity and ignore the rest.

    • Wally on 11/09/2021 - 18:43
      +11

      Facts don't matter nowadays

      • Wardaddy on 12/09/2021 - 07:45
        +3

        Sadly true. Although many people are offended by nudity, many more are appalled at seeing the naked truth.

        • vash5 on 12/09/2021 - 09:29
          +4

          If they really knew the truth about how things are run and the level of corruption, those in charge would probably flee to other countries out of fear.

      • vash5 on 12/09/2021 - 09:27
        +2

        True.. its more about if your in favour with the tech overlords and the tribe they pander to.

    • Ghos7 on 11/09/2021 - 20:32
      +1

      I think it's about the same - totally fake. The difference is people are more sceptical of the propaganda the uni-party media arm is putting out. Pelosi has admitted they knew the WMD claims were unsubstantiated.

      • KILLER5196 on 11/09/2021 - 21:50
        +2

        Everyone did, they just needed the smallest reason to invade

        • Ghos7 on 11/09/2021 - 23:36
          +7

          They already had a reason - they're warhawk sociopaths who enrich themselves via the military industrial complex and 'nation building'. They needed an excuse to give the public, so they fabricated one.

  • DiLs on 11/09/2021 - 16:19
    +31

    Middle East and Afghanistan are all such peaceful countries since …… thank you America
    Your 9/11 is our 24/7

    • RSmith on 11/09/2021 - 17:06
      +5

      They have always been shitholes.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 11/09/2021 - 17:31
        +33

        Frankly the issues won't be resolved until we all graduate from religious to rational ethics. But criticising religion is still a huge taboo and changing foreign cultures amounts to genocide.

        • diamondd on 11/09/2021 - 22:29
          -3

          "rational" ethics? Do tell.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 12/09/2021 - 07:52
            +6

            @diamondd: Would you go around killing people if you didn't have a religious book to tell you not to? Why or why not?

        • Caped Baldy on 11/09/2021 - 22:49
          +1

          Let's start with Australia first…

      • twjr on 11/09/2021 - 20:32
        +17

        Always is a bit of a stretch. The civilizations of Mesopotamia probably wouldn't have been defined as shitholes in their day. Invented the wheel, agriculture and written language. It is known as the cradle of civilization for a reason.

        Sure it's mess now, but that's largely thanks to the British and French partitioning the region following their victory over the Ottoman Empire after World War One.

        • 1st-Amendment on 12/09/2021 - 16:30
          +1

          It is known as the cradle of civilization for a reason.

          Because it's where humans first developed civilisation. Unfortunately for them though, they never got out of nappies.

          • druex on 12/09/2021 - 21:02

            @1st-Amendment: It's hard to get up when someone is periodically standing on your neck.

          • twjr on 12/09/2021 - 23:30

            @1st-Amendment: Who is them/they?

          • kmlali99 on 13/09/2021 - 01:21
            +2

            @1st-Amendment: You’re actually so deluded it’s funny. Have u ever even looked into the history of the world. There are so many empires and civilisations from that area of the world which encompasses most of world history. One of the founders of modern maths came up with Algebra during the Islamic Golden Age, but you’ll never hear about him in modern pop culture compared to the Einstein’s and Hawkings for a reason. The House of Wisdom of Baghdad was known to hold most of the worlds writings at one point. The Silk Road was also the worlds ever first major trading route that spread exhanges of knowledge and culture throughout the world. As a matter of fact, pretty much every Middle Eastern country was thriving, and would right now still probably be thriving if not for the Cold War and how that affected the whole world. I can tell by that one sentence you wrote you know nothing about actual history that wasn’t subconsciously spread to u by modern media. Ask any decent historian about the impact of that region and you will get overwhelmed.

            • 1st-Amendment on 13/09/2021 - 10:22

              @kmlali99:

              You’re actually so deluded it’s funny.

              You are free to go live in one of these fantastic place if you wish. I assume by the fact that you live here is because you also agree that here is better than there. So who is deluded?

              I can tell by that one sentence you wrote you know nothing

              Hubris will get you every time…

              • bargainparker on 13/09/2021 - 13:56
                +3

                @1st-Amendment: "You are free to go live in one of these fantastic place if you wish."

                Wow, I can't not to laugh. They are talking about one thing and you are talking about something entirely different. They are talking about history and you are talking about living there now.

                When someone doesn't even comprehend what is written.

                • 1st-Amendment on 13/09/2021 - 14:15

                  @bargainparker:

                  They are talking about one thing and you are talking about something entirely different

                  We are talking about the same thing, you just have to think about it a bit harder.

                  When someone doesn't even comprehend what is written.

                  The irony of this comment is delicious

                  • bargainparker on 13/09/2021 - 14:18
                    +1

                    @1st-Amendment: "The irony of this comment is delicious"

                    Yes, the irony is still there. They are talking about history, like what happened. You are talking about, hey, why don't you go and live there. Two completely unrelated things.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 13/09/2021 - 14:19

                      @bargainparker: Only if you didn't understand it. But sure, keep going and see how that works out lol…

                      • bargainparker on 13/09/2021 - 14:25
                        +1

                        @1st-Amendment: Don't have to. The world is falling apart. I can see how that's going to work out. And you can keep talking about going living there.

                        If you missed the point, history is the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

                        You are talking about living there which has nothing to do with history and the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

                        • 1st-Amendment on 13/09/2021 - 15:25
                          +1

                          @bargainparker: You are the gift that keeps on giving…

                        • kmlali99 on 14/09/2021 - 15:03

                          @bargainparker: I think this 1st Amendment guy is a lil slow or something. First he says they have “always” been shitholes. So I talk about their rich history and how they have definitely not always been shitholes. And then he replies by relating to its current state completely ignoring his own initial comment lmao. And then he either completely misunderstands or acts oblivious to your replies, both equally ignorant

        • SlickMick on 12/09/2021 - 16:44
          +1

          Yeah it was all milk and honey back then /s

    • cobrakai on 12/09/2021 - 08:19
      -3

      c'mon man.. that whole region is a sandy crapper, a poop sandpit….

  • treeman on 11/09/2021 - 16:23
    +23

    I remember first watching this via a bootleg downloading it from lime wire back in the day.

    • GregRust on 11/09/2021 - 17:05

      Respect.

    • gimli on 11/09/2021 - 17:05

      lol on dial up?

      • seamonkey on 12/09/2021 - 12:37

        Woah. Was just messing about guys. Easy.. lol.

    • GeneralSkunk on 11/09/2021 - 18:21

      I might get it with youtube-dl and watch it later. I’m sure I’ve seen this though. Michael Moore was great back in the day.

      • treeman on 12/09/2021 - 08:11

        It definitely wasn't dial up. Dsl+ from memory.

    • cobrakai on 12/09/2021 - 08:21

      me too.. loved watching the estimated download time jump from 3 days 15 hours to 5 days 12 hours @ 2.3mbps….

      • treeman on 12/09/2021 - 09:45

        It was faster than that but the times did jump vastly depending on the people available to share.

    • archieduh on 11/09/2021 - 16:27
      -1

      Didn't know about it. Thanks

      • muncan on 11/09/2021 - 16:29
        +3

        Don’t forget to like & subscribe infowars.com
        /s

    • maruuO on 11/09/2021 - 16:48
      +4

      Too hot for youtube

    • Whatisthatvelvet on 11/09/2021 - 17:22
      +5

      Yeah. Get your tinfoil hats on

      • [Deactivated] on 12/09/2021 - 15:37
        +1

        Project and ABC viewers will be ok then. They'll already have one. (They can't see however because of the blinders they also wear.)

  • FutureTech on 11/09/2021 - 16:23
    +25

    Nah I'll wait for the Celsius version

  • M1lad on 11/09/2021 - 16:24
    +10

    After 20 years, we really can't blame ignorance on misinformation and fake news alone tbh.

    It's just sad those war criminals (including our very own Howard) are not yet brought to justice.

      • alidli on 11/09/2021 - 16:40
        +39

        Don't need to be an expert to recognise bullshitter politicians.

        Some of them even pronounced the death of 500,000 children was a price worth paying.
        Seems the only "weapons of mass destruction" to be found were the allied troops (who were following orders indirectly from the likes of Dick Cheney).

        • Wardaddy on 12/09/2021 - 07:43
          +2

          And the gas bombs that Iraq rained on Iran? They weren't WMDs?

          • alidli on 12/09/2021 - 13:20
            +2

            @Wardaddy: Look over there, look over there.

            Napalm in Vietnam, white phosphorous in Gaza, Stalin 20 million, Mao 50 million……..all war deaths are atrocious, but this thread is about 9/11.

            • Wardaddy on 12/09/2021 - 14:42
              +1

              @alidli: And I was replying to your false assertion that Iraq didn't have WMDs. They had them, and they used them. The use of them was widely reported around the world, with footage, in the war with Iran but because Iraq shipped them to Syria and Jordan before the allies got there, the loony left press pretended that there were never any, and the loony left masses unquestioningly believe anything that confirms their biases. Try to keep up.

              • alidli on 12/09/2021 - 15:13
                +1

                @Wardaddy: Where have I stated that Iraq didn't have WMD's, of course they did; I said the allied troops were the only ones that were actually "found" in the country?

                The lie was that Saddam had a chemical/ nuclear weapon program to potentially strike the ME/ Europe and was an imminent threat, and that he had links to Al-Qaida.

                Is that kept-up enough for you?

                • Wardaddy on 13/09/2021 - 09:31

                  @alidli:

                  Seems the only "weapons of mass destruction" to be found were the allied troops

                  Where have I stated that Iraq didn't have WMD's, of course they did

                  The lie was that Saddam had a chemical/ nuclear weapon program

                  You're very confused. Have you heard of cognitive dissonance? Look it up and then re-read what you've said.

                  Your welcome.

                  • alidli on 13/09/2021 - 16:03
                    +1

                    @Wardaddy: I took on board your reply and re-read my confused ramblings several times, but couldn't find any words where I'd falsely asserted that Iraq didn't have WMDs or that I'd disputed "They had them, and they used them"

                    It is out of my hands as to as to how you interpret or read non-existent inferences into my sentences, or basically accuse me of lying; and sorry to disappoint but I'm also not a member of the "loony left masses" which maybe you assumed and I certainly don't "unquestioningly believe anything"

                    It's good that you reminded everyone of the butcher Saddam was and the war crimes he committed, but please read my initial sentence again as it is referring to the invasion/ period the allies where in Iraq.

                    1)

                    Seems the only "weapons of mass destruction" to be found were the allied troops
                    (quoting you)
                    "Iraq shipped them (the wmd's) to Syria and Jordan before the allies got there"

                    Therefore, as you say yourself, at the time the allies arrived Saddam had no wmd's in Iraq, so it's correct to say the allied troops were the only ones to be found causing mass destruction in Iraq at the time the allies were there.

                    2)

                    Where have I stated that Iraq didn't have WMD's, of course they did
                    (again quoting you)
                    "Iraq shipped them to Syria and Jordan before the allies got there"

                    I agreed with you that of course Iraq had wmd's, but as you pointed out they had left Iraq so again it's correct say the allied troops were the only ones to be found causing or capable of mass destruction in Iraq at the time the allies were there.

                    3)

                    The lie was that Saddam had a chemical/ nuclear weapon program
                    the missing part of sentence you conveniently omitted
                    and was an imminent threat, and that he had links to Al-Qaida.

                    The lie part was referring to it being a lie that Saddam was an imminent threat and also a lie that he had links to Al-Qaida, not that it was a lie Saddam had a chemical/ nuclear weapon program.
                    The whole invasion of Iraq and mass slaughter there was carried out on the basis of these two lies.

      • gimli on 11/09/2021 - 17:06
        +7

        What do you want to know, champ

  • 8200 on 11/09/2021 - 16:27
    +2

    Moore's(less!) personal attack on Charlton Heston was disgraceful, he is a media whore

    • Boogerman on 11/09/2021 - 17:26
      +36

      Charlton Heston was a lowlife scumbag. Good riddance!

      • scud70 on 11/09/2021 - 19:00

        Yep gotta agree with you on that…

    • liongalahad on 11/09/2021 - 19:12
      +4

      I honestly appreciated Moore's guns documentary (Bowling for Columbine) better than Farenheit 9/11.
      And Heston was a total low life P.O.S., as other pointed out. Moore was too nice to him to be honest.

      • jerrus on 11/09/2021 - 20:28
        +8

        I'm not sure this could be considered too nice. Moore filmed Heston walking away and then after he was gone filmed himself "talking" to Heston holding the dead girls picture and stitched the footage together to suggest Heston was indifferent to the death of the girl. Regardless of your position on guns, Moore or Heston this is a dishonest stitch up and not a legitimate part of a documentary, to get the shots used in real-time Moore would have needed 2 cameras (which would be weird for a low budget interview) and the 2nd camera would have been visable in the shot which it isn't (ergo the shot is staged to play on emotions leading to reactions like @boogermans and yours.) (TBH even if the footage was legit whether or not Heston cares about a victim is not a good basis for policy and shouldn't be in a genuine documentary about gunlaws)

        • Wardaddy on 12/09/2021 - 14:43
          +4

          Everything Moore ever did was a dishonest stitch up.

      • Bullion78 on 12/09/2021 - 06:12
        +1

        Why was he a POS? Not challenging, just genuinely interested if your assertion is based on him being so pro gun?

        • liongalahad on 12/09/2021 - 11:04
          +1

          Yes, I may be a bit of a partisan here, but someone who is the president of the NRA, is automatically a POS in my view, reinforced by the fact that he approved an NRA convention days after the Columbine massacre. America has 35000+ gun releated deaths a year, (first in the world for suicides and high up for homicides too, between Uruguay and Nicaragua) a huge part of which could be prevented with gun laws, which NRA lobbied against, successfully, for decades.

          • iCandy on 12/09/2021 - 12:32
            +1

            @liongalahad: How do you take over a country? First, you disarm the public. Hitler did it. Mao did it. How can the people fight back when they have been disarmed? USA’s founding fathers, after having won the Revolutionary War against the Brits, codified arms in the Constitution so if the government, at any time, went rogue, the people could rise up and take back their country. Is it perfect? No. Do idiots shoot each other? Yes. Put the blame where it belongs - on the person criminally operating the gun.

            • liongalahad on 12/09/2021 - 12:52
              +1

              @iCandy: Yeah right… "Idiots shoot each other". Tell it to the Sandy Hook parents, you muppet.

              • iCandy on 12/09/2021 - 12:54

                @liongalahad: “Is it perfect? No.” Miss that part did you numbnuts?

                • liongalahad on 12/09/2021 - 14:24
                  +1

                  @iCandy: It's the opposite of perfect, it's disastrous. The concept of arming people so they can revolt against a tyrant is something good for the 18th century maybe, surely not for the 21st. To the opposite actually, a tyrant could use armed people to try and seize power, which is far more plausible (and Trump's wet dream).

                  • iCandy on 12/09/2021 - 14:25
                    -1

                    @liongalahad: As I said, it’s not perfect.

                    • liongalahad on 12/09/2021 - 14:36
                      +1

                      @iCandy: Saying it's not perfect implies it's still pretty good, but it's disastrous, and numbers prove it.
                      For the same reasons, why not allow every country in the world to build nuclear weapons? So they can fight back if attacked by a nation a lot powerful that them? Let's allow the talibans, Syria, North Korea and whoever wants it, to have nukes. A-Bombs don't kill people, people kill people, am I right? If a nation annihilates another country its not the bombs fault, it's people's fault.
                      Nice reasoning…

                      • iCandy on 12/09/2021 - 14:40

                        @liongalahad: It’s still pretty good for the reasons it was put in the constitution.

                        • liongalahad on 12/09/2021 - 14:44
                          +2

                          @iCandy: Yep, in 1776 was a great idea, but I don't think the founding fathers had in mind mass shootings with semiautomatic assault rifles, because that is the ONLY result of the second amendment, only someone sick in the head can be ok with this.

                          • iCandy on 12/09/2021 - 14:46

                            @liongalahad: Yes yes, how will I ever recover…

                            • liongalahad on 12/09/2021 - 14:51
                              +1

                              @iCandy: Well, if you are OK with mass shootings happening every week, where innocents get killed, clinically you are a sociopath, there's no way around it mate, sorry.
                              If you are not ok with it, which I sincerely hope for you, then I'd like to hear what is the solution to it, in your opinion.

            • Wardaddy on 14/09/2021 - 10:24
              +1

              @iCandy: You are absolutely correct. The second amendment exists so the people can take back authority from a government gone bad. In Australia/UK governments take away the right to bear arms so the people can't take back authority from a government gone bad. These anti gun/anti freedom idiots haven't got a clue.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/09/2021 - 15:41
          +2

          See two messages above yours. (Moore doing what Moore does best - lie/deceive to shovel $ from the wallets of the easily-deceived into his own.)

    • jerrus on 11/09/2021 - 19:54
      +4

      True regardless of your position on guns, the way he faked the heston walking away from the picture was appauling!

  • zombrex on 11/09/2021 - 16:42
    +43

    I never watched it before and gave it a go.
    Such a silly movie, 80% of the movie is Michael Moore making making smart ass quips and comments that are deliberately misleading or manipulative over stock footage. If you have a brain of your own and don't want to be propagandaised then don't bother. Moore himself admitted the purpose of the movie was to influence the outcome of the American election at the time. It is also a pity because some of the criticism he brings up in genuine but otherwise it is blatant propaganda.

    • treeman on 11/09/2021 - 16:48
      +7

      Yeah I tend to agree with this.
      I watched it back in the day but didn't really like it.

    • Nedkellyinthebush on 11/09/2021 - 17:16
      +8

      Yeah this was even worse than borat the subsequent movie

    • zaphy on 11/09/2021 - 18:35
      -6

      And so what? It's a doco presented from a point-of-view, there's nothing wrong with that, it'd be almost impossible to do a purely objective documentary on a subject like this. Just take it with a grain a salt and enjoy the quips.

      • freefall101 on 11/09/2021 - 18:57
        +13

        That's kind of like saying it's impossible to watch what I eat all the time so I'm going to KFC 3 times a day. Documentaries should be as factual as possible, otherwise they shouldn't be called documentaries.

        It is definitely entertaining though, but not enough that I'll watch it again. Bowling for Columbine is the much better emotive doco.

        • zaphy on 11/09/2021 - 19:13
          -6

          As long as the facts presented aren't flat-out lies, then I don't see the problem. Bowling for Columbine is his best work, I agree.

          • jerrus on 13/09/2021 - 09:34

            @zaphy: yes but there is an honest way to persuade, if your partner tries to get you to do something with compliments/affection it's different to threatening to kill themselves both are persuading but one is more honest/ethical.

        • belongsinforums on 12/09/2021 - 11:03
          +1

          if you think documentaries are objective, you're in for a bad time

      • mick123 on 11/09/2021 - 19:12
        +4

        What a ridiculous comment. A documentary should include facts and minimal subjectivity.

        • zaphy on 11/09/2021 - 22:23

          Documentaries are an art form/piece of entertainment. Yes, they provide facts but there's always a viewpoint expressed. Take a nature doco on some insect. Facts and figures will be dished out, but also interspersed with beauty slow-mo shots and rousing orchestral music as the insect goes about it's business. The director's viewpoint is "hey these bugs are more amazing than you thought!" It's always subjective.

          • CookieJacker31 on 12/09/2021 - 06:06
            +4

            @zaphy: They aren't full of made of shit and misleading BS though. Mike Moore would find a grasshopper on the lawn outside an NRMA conference and tell you it's trying to buy a gun.

        • belongsinforums on 12/09/2021 - 11:03

          no. they are persuasive tools

          • SlickMick on 12/09/2021 - 21:36
            +1

            @belongsinforums: the makers of biased documentaries? Yeah they are - that's putting it mildly.

            • belongsinforums on 12/09/2021 - 21:59

              @SlickMick: you don't get it. documentaries are never without bias. their primary purpose is to persuade

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join