-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/oliver_stone_to_direct_9_11_film -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
ellinas
1109 comments · 47 points
-
Kenny
669 comments · 37 points
-
Rob
25254 comments · 136 points
-
suitepotato
2720 comments · 17 points
-
carrick
501 comments · 16 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
TSA Puts Secret Security Manual On-line
3 hours ago · 12 comments
-
Extra TARP Money? What Extra TARP Money?
14 hours ago · 41 comments
-
Homophobia Update: A Review of “Falsettos”
11 hours ago · 21 comments
-
Did Sarah Palin Leave College In Hawaii Because Of Racism?
2 days ago · 158 comments
-
Obama To Save/Create More Jobs With Speech Today
16 hours ago · 29 comments
-
TSA Puts Secret Security Manual On-line
In short, he's an asshat.
-Jon Seitel
BlogAmericana.com
"civilian slaughter in "Platoon", lampooning with Castro in a documentary, making Nixon out to be Hitler incarnate, and the latest, labeling Alexander a homosexual"
I hate to burst your bubble but Alexander the great was gay. Does that change who he was? Does it matter in anyway whatsoever? NO!
As for 9/11, if Stone is going to do a film on it, I hope it WILL be contravercial. If the world has been lied to, which many people suspect it has been, then we need to know. And I believe that Oliver Stone is the man to do it.
No. The issue with him is that he likes to invent facts out of whole cloth. You could have just asked if you wanted to know.
Mc said, Oliver Stones previous films such as Nixon, JFK and Platoon recieved alot of flak from people when they came out, but the fact remains Oliver Stone does not lie in his films.
Yes he does. He weaves conspiracy theories that have no evidence and holds them up as fact.
American troops did rape and murder innocent Women and children in Vietnam (and are still in Iraq!)...
Evidence? You asshole.
...and JFK was not killed by a lone gunman.
Evidence?
As for 9/11, if Stone is going to do a film on it, I hope it WILL be contravercial. If the world has been lied to, which many people suspect it has been, then we need to know. And I believe that Oliver Stone is the man to do it.
His movie will be bought by a bunch of gullible idiots like yourself. Now that's the truth!
I hate to burst your bubble but Alexander the great was gay.
And you would know this how? Hahaha...
There is plenty of proof that US troops raped woman and children in Vietnam and still do in Iraq. Proof? http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/vietnam/vietnam_mylai.cfm has some information on the My Lai massacre where a village full of woman and children where butchered, many where raped before they where killed.
Proof that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK? Oliver Stones film proves that. Why dont you prove to me why his film isnt proof?
Proof that Alexander the great was Gay? In ancient Greece Homosexuality was not viewed in the same way that it is today. It was considered normal for two men to have a sexual relationship. I suppose the term Bisexual would be more applicable then. But why does it matter if Alexander took part in gay sex?
That was the point? Oh wow. Okay. I guess that because I am "a kid", I can't have a view on anything. Right? Only the elders, or my betters as you'd undoubtedly view them, are allowed to talk. Great logic there! Who are you again?
now shut your mouth about everything you said little punk. all your "rebuddle" is b.s. yes it is no it is isnt yes it is no it isnt. do you think that your facist mommy and daddy and consolidated media and scared ass hell that the market is going to disinigrate capitalists are going to tell you what's really going on?
Hahaha. Dude, are you on some serious drugs? How about just addressing what I said instead of this shit talk? Think you could handle that? It requires a bit of maturity, so I'm not holding my breath, but the challenge is put forth.
all you neo con's do is try to attack and destroy the character or credibility of those who bring you the truth.
What are you doing right now? Talking shit on me, my parents, my age... Basically everything except provide a real argument. So what would we call you? Oh yes,...a hypocrite.
the truth is out there punk, but a black and white EXTREMELY pin point narrow vision little kid like you?
You don't even know me. How about getting a real argument? Why do you think I'm a "little kid" and why would it matter even if I was?
you most likely will die just as simple, backwards, silly, stupid and conditioned as you are now. these are not insults. they are simple truths.
Oh. Since you said so. Heh. Once again I have to point out that you don't even know me. Now carry on with your mindless rant.
the more you try to cling to an ideal, the more warped and narrow your vision will become.
What the hell are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense in all cases.
wanna talk, come to cali and we'll buck buck your backwards little hat off your domicile. peace!
"Peace"? You are the antithesis of "peace". Anyways...you're obviously just an Internet tough guy. If I was to travel to California, you're the last person I'd want to visit. Why would I waste my time?
support the people's army not the troops.
What?
(aka yeah yeah yeah i'm the anti christ communist rolled into one.....sure dude, blather on you hicks!!!!!!!!!!!let's roll
You're confused and rambling.
...you need some racial culturing anyway dixie! yee haw!
What does "racial culturing" mean? Does it mean being a hypocritical racist like you? No thanks.
Mc cries, It's sad that you have to resort to childish language and call me an asswhole.
Well,..then don't be an asshole.
There is plenty of proof that US troops raped woman and children in Vietnam and still do in Iraq. Proof?
Yeah. You got proof of the Iraq charge? No? You don't? Asshole!
Proof that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK? Oliver Stones film proves that.
No he doesn't. He gives you a conspiracy theory.
Why dont you prove to me why his film isnt proof?
No. Your job is to prove how is film is proof (or has it). It's your claim.
Proof that Alexander the great was Gay? In ancient Greece Homosexuality was not viewed in the same way that it is today. It was considered normal for two men to have a sexual relationship. I suppose the term Bisexual would be more applicable then.
So where is your proof?
But why does it matter if Alexander took part in gay sex?
It doesn't. It is the rewriting of history that bothers me.
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/images/graner.jpg
http://www.americanstate.org/image/abu_ghraib_02.jpg
Have you seen the film JFK? If you have then you would know that the shot allegedly made by Oswald was an impossible one. The gun that he was using could not fire at the rate that was recorded.
Also Abraham Zapruder filmed the only footage of the entire assasination. In his footage you can clearly see that the fatal shot pushes Kennedy back and to the left. It also blew the back, right side of Kennedy's head off. This could not have happened if Oswald had fired the gun as he was behind the president, a LONG way behind.
And in the 1978 House select comitee on the Assanation of JFK they concluded "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm Has information on the Select comitees findings.
I don't see any women and children there (your original charge). That's not to excuse these acts. After all, we put those soldiers in prison and don't condone that behavior. So in the end you didn't back up your charge. Asshole.
Have you seen the film JFK? If you have then you would know that the shot allegedly made by Oswald was an impossible one.
That was one of the conspiracy theories that Stone pushed out as fact.
The gun that he was using could not fire at the rate that was recorded.
Actually it can very easily when handled by a competent shooter, which Oswald most certainly was. Again, this was one of the made up facts in the movie. (Amazing that you bought it so easily I might add.)
In his footage you can clearly see that the fatal shot pushes Kennedy back and to the left. It also blew the back, right side of Kennedy's head off. This could not have happened if Oswald had fired the gun as he was behind the president, a LONG way behind.
Oswald was behind Kennedy and to the right. He shot Kennedy, pushing him to the left. That makes sense considering where it was coming from. He shot off the right side of Kennedy's head. That makes sense considering where it was coming from. The distance doesn't matter in this, only the directions and angles.
And in the 1978 House select comitee on the Assanation of JFK they concluded "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."
Probably. I'd say, "no shit", but nobody knows. In any regard, I won't dispute it.
Stupid sounding asian name~
You suck, you are a retard. You can't spell correctly or even use proper grammar. You have no idea what apostrophes are or how to use them. Your logic and flawed and your knowledge is little. Your mother was a hampser! You are brainwashed and small. You are obviously less than 5 feet tall. Your manhood is tiny and your brain the size of a pea. You're obviously also a yankee and own slaves.
These are not insults. They are simple truths.
I see that you are using AOL. Please note that I have contacted AOL's abuse department about your threats of violence here. I expect that you will be hearing from them in short order.
Disagreeing with myself or the other commenters on this site is one thing, but I draw the line at threats of violence.
Einstein said something about having an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.
As you admit... Stone admits that his documentaries are nonfactual. Since he doesn't tell you which part is real and which part is his own made up shit, what's the purpose in watching his movies? Your admission does nothing to strength an argument that Oliver Stone should have anything to do with as delicate a material as 9/11.
I can see why he'd like it though... plenty of conspiracy theories for his paranoid drug-fried mind to work with.
Question: Who--and I mean specifically--bought the first bullet in JFK's head? Was it a Commie plot? Or was it someone on LBJ's payroll? Castro? Queers in Big Easy? Maybe Hoover getting large in his girdle?
Stone's entire "auterish" being is "I'm telling you the truth" and that crap has been obliterated, and he's been hammereed by historians harder than his crack hookups (oops! I'm sorry, "screenplays") could ever hope.
Until you got a good spin on anything--and I mean ANYTHING--this monkey has ever afforded the public argument that has not played out to be a fever dream, STFU.
... if you wanna keep barking up that tree, ...well, I got a waterfall made of chocolate I would like you to open your mouth and drown beneath. It's located directly beneath the Brooklyn Bridge.
That's different from calling a film a documentary.
I'm not sure that he's described his movies as "documentaries." But within the fictional setting of the movie, a filmmaker may use actual events around which he builds a story, and the result can be an authentic work or art or entertainment. Shakespeare used actual people and events in his plays, and doesn't tell you which are real, but that doesn't mean his work is less worthwhile.
His ENTIRE thing has been "I'll tell you the truth."
And he's been making shit up since Day One.
I dare you, right now here today, to go ask a smattering of people under a certain age and of a certain political ken where they got their impetus: It was from Moore, and his ilk, twisting facts to meet an agenda that portays the US as the Almighty Bastard of International Politics.
That is nasty... thanks for the mental image...
HAHA! You're funny.... I guess you're some kind of super engineer that studied this material?
And FYI, the planes didn't cause the towers to come down... In case you didn't notice, it took like an hour for them to actually fall... What hapened was that all that aviation fuel (the jets were FULL, the were on cross-country flights and had just left) burnt so hot it melted the metal frame which caused the buildings to come down...
Because you're not. You're just a poser who spouts wild conspiracy theories on the Internet.
Look, the perimeter was the load-bearing section of the building sure, but what does that have to do with anything?
Here> is a pretty good explanation from civil engineers in Sydney as to what brought the towers down.
Just curious though, how do you believe Cheney did it? Did he hire Halliburton to melt them with an invisible metal-melting ray to simiulate fire heating the steel?
And as Likwid said, you're obviously not an engineer based on your moronically simple answer about the 9-11 commission, so don't even pretend to be. If you were really a civil engineer (as I was very close to becoming) you would have a much mroe detailed and jargon-ized answer...
Hm.... using his dark lord powers of course.
It's amazing how many people believe really stupid shit. And the 9/11 conspiracy gunk is really stupid shit.
Complete list of all airline and WTC deaths can be found here along with pictures
Satisfied?
Btw, you should lay off whatever it is you're on. too much dope, too much X, too much Vodka... whatever it is...
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your brain on liberalism.
Then there is the little problem of video of the planes slamming into the high rises...
Your comment about "planes don't cause buildings to fall like that, period" was pretty sad too... considering that it took an hour for the buildings to collapse after being struck. And it was the fire not the collision that caused the buildings to collapse. And the fire didn't melt the supporting beams, the heat just reduced their load bearing capacity to the point where they failed. Engineering 101.
Had the plains not been heavily laden with fuel (for cross-country flights) it is unlikely that the buildings would have collapsed. It was either a coincidence that planes with sufficient fuelant were both flown into the range of floors that ensured a collapse. You can look for conspiracies there if you want (they would probably start in Baghdad).
What utter tripe. This garbage has been debunked a long time ago.
What about the stationary surveilance videos that captured the pentagon crash? why were they seized? why have we not seen them? Why does popular mechanics not debunk this popular non-theory, that the videos were seized because the gub-munt don't want you to see what's on them....and do you wonder why?
I'd suggest you fact check that. All I'm gonna say on that topic.
Maybe it's because it's the freakin' Pentagon and you can't just go taking video and pictures of the place, especially when it was just attacked and in it's most vulnerable state!
Sheesh, get a grip...
I started understanding that the world trade center was a controlled demolition about 6 weeks before the 2004 presidential election fraud //
http://www.st911.org/ SCHOLARSFORTRUTH
THIS SITE HAS A LOT OF EXCELLENT FEATURE VIDEOS ONLINE FREELIKE 911eyewitness where Richard Segal sets up a camera with audio on a dock in N.J.1.8 mi. from the event and get the explosions in the basement before the buildings fall//
In the released fireman interviews of august 2005
MANY HEARD AND SAW BOMBS SEQUENTIALLY EXPLODING
The international terrorist cabal, my friend, is in the White House.
Get the free DVD "Confronting the Evidence" from philanthropist Jimmy Walter at reopen911.org .