Is the 'Path to 9/11' an attempt to profit from a tragedy?

Question

Same thing that Ann Coulter charged the 9/11 widows with doing? Or CIndy Sheehan? DO republicans find this AS shameless as the widows, or Cindy Shehan?

I blame nothing on Bush, except the mistakes that I see with my own eyes. I'm not a democrat. Now, will you answer my question?

sorry, wmcrittewr, didn't see those movies. Now, will you answer my question?

sorry, bud, did I miss something? DO they give level 2 the right to deem what questions deserve to be answered, and which don't? I guess you don't have an answer...

Shiraz, never saw farenheit...now will you answer my question ?(the only time I have asked this question)

Answer 1

Mmm, Its does not matter what tragedies happen in our lifetime, there will always be someone trying to profit from them and 9/11 has had its fair share of vultures.

Anone who sees a horrible event as a way to gain either fame or wealth disgusts me.

Answer 2

Of course, it's an attempt to profit from tragedy. Does anyone think this is a public service announcement? No. This isn't charity by the network.

The real question is do they have an agenda (beyond ratings) in their presentation of the facts. I don't know. Is it shameless? It comes back to their motivation in the presentation of facts. That's the difference. Cindy Sheehan, Ann Coulter (who charged that few 9-11 widows were profiting from tragedy, not all), and Michael Moore definatley have an agenda and they say things to push that agenda. No one has seen Path to 9-11.

Does the Discovery Channel guilty of an attempt to profit from a tragedy when they air a special about Katrina, or a tidal wave, or whatever. Maybe and maybe not. Depends on their agenda.

It's interesting what a stir this special is having? Democrats had nothing to say when Howard Dean accused the President of knowing the 9-11 attack was coming. Democrats had nothing to say about the CBS movie about Reagen despite it's errors. Liberals had nothing bad to say about Michael Moore's F9-11 (which he called a documentary unlike the creators of Path to 9-11) despite it's errors. Matter of fact Michael Moore was invited to sit beside Jimmy Carter at the Dem. National Convention. Sandy berger stuffed documents into his pockets before testimony before the 9-11 commission and liberals had nothing bad to say.

So there's an inconsitancy here that's present on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, does ANYONE actually have proof that this was funded by the republicans or that the network is involved with Republicans or that Republicans have ANYTHING to do with Path to 9-11?

Answer 3

For your statement to be true, there would have to be no motive to producing and airing this movie beyond making a profit. From your other questions, I don't believe even you think that. So, I think your question is really an ad hominem attack on ABC in a further effort to discredit the movie. Given that they are running the movie without commercials, I expect they will actually loose money. People can draw their own conclusions - some drew theirs about it being a government conspiracy the day it happened.

Weather you are a Democrat or not, if you knew this movie made Clinton look good and Bush look bad, we both know you would not be bashing it - profit or not.

[edit]
See this answer below mine? That petition is a purely politically motivated effort. Moveon.org is not concerned in the least about "partisan propaganda" being aired on 9/11 or any other date. They are only concerned with the fact that it shows a view contrary to theirs. They'd be happy as clams if it was propaganda that conformed to their agenda.

Answer 4

Of course it's an attempt to profit from a tragedy. Much like "Flight 93" or "World Trade Center."

It might, or might not, also be a political hack job. It's hard to say whether the Clinton-bashing is actually partisan or just (as I suspect) a cynical attempt to make the show more interesting by tying 9/11 to the Slobbergate scandal.

I don't think, however, that this can be tied to either the 9/11 widows or Cindy Sheehan. Their motivations are transparently political, not mercenary. One might agree with them, or not--but clearly theirs is a very different way to respond to the 9/11 trauma than its commercial exploitation for cash.

Answer 5

I asked this same question (almost) yesterday and was called a traitor and terrorist. I was told that I didn't love my country and that I should just "sell my home to the bin Laden's and get out of the country".
I totally think that all of the 9/11 movies are being done WAY too early and the entertainment industry is making profit off of tragedy. I think that both parties have done shameful things. 9/11 should NOT be a partisan debate. It took both sides to ignore the warnings, not one administration is solely responsible and we should learn from our mistakes.
I guess that makes me a traitor...
and by the way, this "mini-series" is being run with LIMITED commercials. That just means that the network gets to charge more for the slots because they know that there will be a huge audience.

Answer 6

Rupert Murdoch, Larry Silverstein, The Carlyle crew, Haliburton, managed Demolitions Inc., Boeing, large Oil businesses, ABB Industries, Colt Mfg., The list ought to bypass on, and on and on, yet i'm drained.

Answer 7

WMCRITTER -
Loosechange doesn't make a profit. Not as is proven yet. If that were the case they wouldn't have a link to view the whole thing for free on google.

Moore is a different story.

To answer the question, yup. Shameless like all the left leaning or right leaning propaganda.

Answer 8

I hope this is not the first time you've asked that question about ALL the chit that has been released since 9/11. If it is, which I think to be the case, it does not deserve an answer

Answer 9

No it is a docudrama based on historical facts unlike the movies made by Michael Moore who jumped on the opprotunities to bank on the Columbine shootings and the 911 terrorsit attacks.
ABC is hardly known as being on the right.

BTW, Even Noam Chomsky, one of the extreme lefts greatest Icon says the conspiracy theories are basically looney.

Since receiving his Ph. D., Chomsky has taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he now holds the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics.

To see video of Chomsky interview
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/

Answer 10

The only people who "profit from tragedy" are the perpetrators of it, in this case jihadists.

Why do we call 9/11 a "tragedy," anyway? Tragedies are acts of God, like earthquakes and hurricanes. 9/11 was a deliberate act of mass murder. Not picking on you, Heidi, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to digress.