Oliver Stone DOES believe in 9/11 Conspiracy leading to White House!

[spooked]

Look at this recent interview with Oliver Stone at ign.com. While he admits not delving into the conspiracy aspects of 9/11, he says that this is only because of lack of time for research on his part, and goes on to say that he believes in a wider conspiracy leading to the White House!

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/724/724905p1.html

IGNFF: Considering your past films and the things you've said, what do you think of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11?

STONE: I'd read some of those conspiracy theories. And frankly, I don't want to venture an opinion because I never got deeper into it. I read a couple of books. It's fascinating stuff. But you have to really go further. On JFK I really did a lot of research. I did a year-and-a-half of research. But here, I don't know. It seems to me in a broad way, if you look at the forest through the trees, it seems to me that what happened since is far worse than what happened that day. So a conspiracy theory, whatever it may be, is not as relevant as where we are now. I think we have more deaths from terror, more fear, more debt. We have constitutional breakdowns. We've got everything going on. Wars. So I think that's what matters, and we have to worry about that, really, instead of what say is so — and even if it is, so f****** what? We've got a bigger problem now.

IGNFF: You'd mentioned an interest in the idea that Richard Clarke proposed: That there was a high-level conspiracy.

STONE: That is a conspiracy, it seems to me, that everyone seems to be missing, and it's pretty overt. Richard Clarke got it, and so did several other books. I mean, there's a bunch of people who run the White House and who ignore all the normal traditions of the state department and CIA inputted information. And they simply went their own way with their own information inside the defense department and went to war. That, you could say, is a very limited conspiracy of people at the top.

[greyl]

1. No, according to that interview, he does not.

He's talking about after 9/11 and is agreeing with Richard Clarke.

So a conspiracy theory, whatever it may be, is not as relevant as where we are now. I think we have more deaths from terror, more fear, more debt. We have constitutional breakdowns. We've got everything going on. Wars. So I think that's what matters, and we have to worry about that, really, instead of what (conspiracy theorists) say is so — and even if it is, so fucking what? We've got a bigger problem now.

edit: btw, I agree with him.

[Grateful for Hope]

2. My take

is that he is not saying one way or another if he believes in so-called conspiracy theories and is pointing out that what happened after 9/11 is much worse than the event itself.

[Artdyst]

3. Exactly right. Furthermore, he seems more open-minded than our OCT'ers.

EOM

[greyl]

4. Even if what you say were so,

(*when you just read the subject line, did you get the feeling I was about to disagree with you? There's a good reason for that.)

instead of what (conspiracy theorists) say is so — and even if it is, so fucking what? We've got a bigger problem now.

It's probably not wise to reach a strong conclusion about what Stone believes based on what he said in this interview, but the fact that he used the phrase "what conspiracy theorists say is so" is evidence that he believes in conspiracy a la Richard Clark, rather than with what conspiracy theorists say is true. He even goes farther, saying 'even if what conspiracy theorists say is so(true), so fucking what, there are more urgent issues to be concerned with.

But ya know, I'm sure there'll be more interviews, so we probably won't have to wonder for long.

Note: It's pretty interesting how fickle the CTers are around here regarding him and this movie.

[Grateful for Hope]

5. Can you explain

what you mean by this:

Note: It's pretty interesting how fickle the CTers are around here regarding him and this movie.

Also, what is your definition of a "CTer"? Do you lump anyone who doesn't have an alternative explanation for 9/11, but who believes there are holes in the official version a "CTer"?

Personally, I could care less about Oliver Stone or his movie (except I know I won't go to see it), so I was baffled by the comment I highlighted above.

[greyl]

6. Yes, I can.

Why did you only respond a note in post #4, instead of the main point?

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Responding with a question is not answering the question

You show a great deal of disrespect to those who may not agree with you by using this tactic. Also, that use of "can" in your response was very condescending.

I didn't think the rest of your post needed a response, and I was not interested in pursuing it. I could care less what Oliver Stone believes.

It is apparent that you are not interested in civil discourse with anyone you consider to be a "CTer" - whatever that term means to you.

[Artdyst]

8. CT'er = COMPLETE Truth. Obviously something which threatens them.

Excellent posts, Hope2006. It's astonishing that a NON-paid poster would go to so much effort to divert attention from the "wheat" and instead, try to get everyone to focus on the "chaff". Almost like how a magician tricks people. Except that "they" aren't "real" magicians. They're non-believers in CT. COMPLETE Truth isn't their game.

[Grateful for Hope]

9. Thank you

I don't pretend to know what other posters believe in this forum, and, it is often nearly impossible to know because some here simply debunk what they consider to be CT's, and they do not offer their viewpoints on the official story in return. This obviously does not apply to all posters who may disagree with some of the hypotheses being discussed here.

I also take issue with categorizing someone who believes the government lied to us about 9/11 while not subscribing to any particular alternative hypothesis, and who wishes to see an independent full-scale investigation of 9/11 as a "CTer".

The flipside is that I do not think that everyone who debunks the alternative hypotheses here are "OCTers". However, it would be very helpful if more could be up-front with what they do and do not believe.

[Artdyst]

10. OCTers = Only Coincidences Theorist // CT = COMPLETE Truth

If I may, when you talk about someone "who debunks", it seems to me that term should only apply to people that actually DEbunk. What WE have to contend with (and on a massive basis that is on-going) is NOT what I'd call debunking. They do very little of that. Rather, they ask questions for the purpose of diverting attention to unimportant details, ridicule COMPLETE TRUTH SEEKERS, and deploy entire brigades of straw men, all because the Complete Truth threatens the cover story that the Bush administration told which they are here to support, defend, and apologize for, in order to quell the curiousity of people that know the history of state-sponsored terrorism in this and other countries.

[Grateful for Hope]

11. Yes, I do see diversionary tactics here

that is absolutely correct. And, I have no doubt that some of it is to discourage those who do not buy the OCT.

But, I also think that we have posters who do not necessarily believe the OCT hook-line-and-sinker. Some of these posters, I think, believe that the more "out there" hypotheses (no planes, holograms, etc.) damage the credibility of those who really want some honest answers.

I admit this is not an easy forum to post in, and, sometimes, I have to take a breather before I respond to a particular post so that anger doesn't get the best of me. Sometimes, I am not all that successful. :D

[Artdyst]

14. What makes you think that "no planes, holograms, etc." isn't possible?

Have you ever seen any credible (keyword: credible, verifiable) evidence of large commercial airliners at either the WTC, Pennsylvania, or at the Pentagon?

Are you aware of what's called "cloaking" technology? It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that some form of cloaking technology was used to maybe disguise a missile.

Don't let the folks that want you to think that "Osama Patsie, World's Most Famous Cave Man" did it use their ridicule tactics to prevent you from considering KNOWN technology (even exotic, secret technology) that might have been used on 9/11. That's much more likely than thinking a group of cave dwellers had the resources, know-how, AND 100%-necessary SECRET INFORMATION about U.S. military and "terror" exercises, to plot, plan, organize, and carry out the 9/11 attacks.

[Grateful for Hope]

16. I never said that I didn't think such things are impossible

I was simply describing the characteristics of the people who post in this forum. I apologize that I was not clear.

I don't know what to think except that I think it is a waste of time to conjecture and argue without evidence in hand. And, currently, as far as I can determine, we don't have this.

I maintain that we need to have a new investigation.

[Jazz2006]

28. What makes you think that "no planes" and "holograms" theories are

credible?

That is probably the better question.

The secondary question is to ask whether other CTers posting here agree with you, but let's start with the first question, shall we?

Do you believe in the "no planes" theory and the "holograms" theory?

And if so, on what basis?

[sabbat hunter]

32. WTC/ no holograms

i know people that were in the area on 911. there were planes that hit the towers. i personally know people that saw and heard a plane fly overhead and hit the south tower.

OBL was NOT in a cave prior to 911. OBL and al qaeda were out in the open in afganistan prior to the attacks and definately could have coordinated such an attack.

[greyl]

12. You asked if I could explain something,

and I said yes, then proceeded to ignore the main points in your post to ask you a question.
Sound familiar?

Search this forum for discussion about the movie, and you will(should) see what I meant.

edit: btw, your post is especially ridiculous because this thread is about what Oliver Stone believes.
For you to say you couldn't care less what he believes after entering a discussion about what he believes, only to personally attack me after your arguments are effectively nullified isn't setting a good example for civil discourse. Is it? Sheesh.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Artdyst]

15. The kind of response you got is proof they aren't interested in trying to

actually convince you that the Bush 9/11 story is anything but a cheap fairy tale. Someone that wanted to convince you of their point of view wouldn't insult you (ever known a good salesperson who insulted prospective customers? ever known a trial lawyer that insulted the jury?). The insults don't matter to them because what's important to THEM is to divert attention from the truth, suppress the truth, distort facts, undermine efforts to DISCUSS what really happened and so on. I doubt they actually enjoy insulting anyone, but like everyone, they need to eat.

[Grateful for Hope]

17. You are absolutely correct. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

18. Another thought

Not sure what you meant in this statement "they need to eat", so, I can't say whether I agree with it or not. I do think, however, that it might be seen as beneficial to some that oppose any discussion of alternative hypotheses in this forum to arouse anger by posting inflammatory posts such as the one that heads this sub-thread.

[mirandapriestly]

20. You mean, they "play on both teams"?

I have suspected that as well....

[Grateful for Hope]

21. No

Inflammatory posts sometimes have an end result.

Know what I mean?

[mirandapriestly]

22. Yes, absolutely. eom

I meant by "play on both teams" that someone has objectives that are the opposite of what they may seem. It was kind of a dumb phrase.

[Grateful for Hope]

23. No, it was not dumb

and, I do get your meaning.

Thanks, MP!

[Norrin Radd]

27. Correct me if I'm wrong Artdyst,

but I think Artdyst is implying that the "they" of "they need to eat" are being paid to do what they do, and so are doing it for the paycheck.

[mirandapriestly]

19. so true, so true.eom

[Grateful for Hope]

24. Yes, very true. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

25. deleted

on edit: A sarcastic post that I should have thought better about posting.

[Grateful for Hope]

26. personal attack

For you to say you couldn't care less what he believes after entering a discussion about what he believes, only to personally attack me after your arguments are effectively nullified isn't setting a good example for civil discourse. Is it? Sheesh.

Please show me where I personally attacked you.

To mimic your phrase..."Sheesh"

[Grateful for Hope]

31. After you have shown me where and how I personally attacked you

please show me where my arguments are nullified.

thank you in advance, greyl.

:hi:

[greyl]

29. Please see post #1. nt

[Grateful for Hope]

30. Is this a response to something?

:eyes: