Tuesday, June 20, 2006

If Dylan Had Done His "Fictional" Film

I suspect it would have ended up quite a bit like Who Killed John O'Neill. This film is very reminiscent of "A Beautiful Mind" complete with the conspiracy theory diagrammed on the wall:



I could only watch about 15 minutes of the movie before I got a headache. It's arty to the max, almost completely black and white, with lots of shouting. It seems almost like it was shot using madmen as actors (actually there appears to be only one actor, although he plays several different roles).

35 Comments:

At 20 June, 2006 13:27, Blogger nesNYC said...

"Who Killed John O'Neill" fills in a lot of blanks and ties together those in the NY DA's office who were possibly complicit in 9/11.

It also details how Atta and company were simply drug mules who were later framed to take the fall for 9/11 and connected to the mythical "Al Qaeda." My only issue with this film is that they also leave out Israel's role in 9/11 and their benefiting greatly in the aftermath.

In any case, it's a different spin on the same event and shows a clearer picture of events that don't make much sense in other films on this topic. If you can get past the lunatic ranting of some of the characters, there is plenty info in here that is verifiable and accurate.

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:04, Blogger Alex said...

Is there any way to add an ignore function to the blog comments?

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:13, Blogger nesNYC said...

Is there any way to add an ignore function to the blog comments?

Sure, get rid of the blog, that's obvious. Yet another thing I have to spoon feed here.

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:43, Blogger Alex said...

You're just a paid Zionist shill trying to shut down our freedom of speech! Err, I mean Nazi shill. Fuck, whatever, anyway, you're like, getting paid and stuff to get us to stop informing people of The Truth!

See, I can be a CT-er too.

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:55, Blogger BG said...

Screwloosechangers,

I'm a "screw WKJO'er".

 
At 20 June, 2006 15:02, Blogger Chad said...

How is that filmmaker still alive?

He figured it all out!!! That's why they killed Daniel Pearl!!! JOOS!!! PENTAGON!!! The filmaker is JOOS next!!!! PENTAGON!!! WTC7!!! ZIONISTS!!! JOOSWHITEVANDANCING!!!!

 
At 20 June, 2006 17:58, Blogger roger_sq said...

Just wondering if any of you believe that the CIA runs drugs.

Anyone?

 
At 20 June, 2006 18:09, Blogger shawn said...

Just wondering if any of you believe that the CIA runs drugs.

There's pretty much no question that agents ran drugs during the Sandinista episode. They've also probably done so in Asia.

And to respond to your entirely off-topic and random query, let me respond with my own: why do you believe that JFK was killed in a conspiracy when all the evidence points solely to a man named Oswald?

 
At 20 June, 2006 18:42, Blogger default.xbe said...

i think its a david and goliath thing, when we are goliath david cant kill us (a nobady liek oswalkd couldnt kill a kennedy, let alone president kennedy, a couple of arabs cant bring down the WTC and kill thousands of people)

but david can kill goliath when the CTers are david (the little 9/11 truth movement is going to knock down the conspiracy that destroyed the WTC, killed kennedy, cause pearl harbor, sank the maine, etc etc)

 
At 20 June, 2006 19:12, Blogger roger_sq said...

There's pretty much no question that agents ran drugs during the Sandinista episode. They've also probably done so in Asia.

No, you are wrong. They have never done any such thing.


why do you believe that JFK was killed in a conspiracy when all the evidence points solely to a man named Oswald?

Because I love guns. I come from a long line of people who love guns. Grandpa swore it was a mauser in the pictures but even if it was a Mannlicher-Carcano, well I never seen such a talented sniper make such fine use of such a crappy firearm and I've spent my whole life around snipers and firearms. If he did do it, then he was born to do it, that's for sure.

Also I know where JFK's brain is, but I won't bore you with more than your teensy weensy little mind can absorb.

 
At 20 June, 2006 19:47, Blogger shawn said...

Grandpa swore it was a mauser in the pictures but even if it was a Mannlicher-Carcano

Oswald's gun

Karabiner 98k

I'm assuming you mean the 98, as the 43 wasn't bolt action. They're similar looking, but I don't think you love guns so much if you can't see the difference.

well I never seen such a talented sniper make such fine use of such a crappy firearm and I've spent my whole life around snipers and firearms.

The difficulty of the shots is greatly exagerrated. Plus, they duplicated the shots exactly. Including the "magic" bullet.

Also I know where JFK's brain is, but I won't bore you with more than your teensy weensy little mind can absorb.

Gah an idiot calling me an idiot! Does that count as a compliment? We don't need JFK's brain, Einstein. We have the injuries to his body, to Connally's body, and we have the film. You morons don't understand you don't need pictures from every angle, every single solitary scrap of possible evidence to prove a point.

If you folks were in charge we couldn't teach evolution.

 
At 20 June, 2006 20:03, Blogger roger_sq said...

The difficulty of the shots is greatly exagerrated. Plus, they duplicated the shots exactly. Including the "magic" bullet.

Who is "they". Arlen Specter?

No we don't need JFK's brain, or his body. Nor any information from nov 22 at all. If you knew where his brain was it would make more sense to you. But you'll have to find it on your own.

If you folks were in charge we couldn't teach evolution.

Hey, you're the kook who is claiming the CIA ran drug smuggling operations. I'd rather live in the real world, thanks.

 
At 20 June, 2006 20:11, Blogger shawn said...

Hey, you're the kook who is claiming the CIA ran drug smuggling operations. I'd rather live in the real world, thanks.

So first I'm a government shill and now I'm an anti-government nutcase? You guys need to learn to be consistent. I'm not going to lie about the past misdeeds of members of the government. Or pretend bad things didn't happen.

 
At 20 June, 2006 20:22, Blogger shawn said...

Unsolved History: JFK - Beyond the Magic Bullet

Check it out, they reenact the "magic" bullet shot and get the wounds and bullets to be nearly identical.

Which they never had to do anyway, as the single bullet theory is the only probably one in circulation.

 
At 21 June, 2006 05:09, Blogger nesNYC said...

Which they never had to do anyway, as the single bullet theory is the only probably one in circulation.

Well, there were more than one bullets and the shots clearly show him being hit from the front. Lee Harvey was a patsy, period.

Nixon and crew (Dulles/CIA) were the real killers of Kennedy and is why they broke into Watergate so as to see if the investigation was getting too close. The controlled fallout of "deep throat" was the distraction that took away from these facts, hanky-panky.

 
At 21 June, 2006 06:09, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Well, there were more than one bullets

Agreed. There were three, all from Oswald's rifle.

and the shots clearly show him being hit from the front.

Oh really? What kind of bullet causes brain matter and other material to be ejected towards the shooter?

Small arms munitions also do not cause the movement of the body that much, either, that is the body's own reaction. You've watched too many hollywood movies.

 
At 21 June, 2006 06:36, Blogger Alex said...

"If you knew where his brain was it would make more sense to you. But you'll have to find it on your own."

What the hell? Anyone else reminded of the search for the holy grail?

Small arms munitions also do not cause the movement of the body that much, either, that is the body's own reaction. You've watched too many hollywood movies.

Absolutely correct. In fact, small arms munitions up to and including the .50 sniper round pass very little direct energy on to the body. We've done simulations of it on ranges before using blocks of plasticine, raw meat, and melons. None of the objects move much at all, although the melons do exploide in a rather spectacular fashion.

If insync needs a demonstration, he could also check out the myth-busters episode in which they fire all manner of small arms ammo at a pig carcass. Although he probably thinks the myth-busters crew are CIA shills too.

 
At 21 June, 2006 08:45, Blogger shawn said...

Well, there were more than one bullets and the shots clearly show him being hit from the front.

Err do you understand Newton's third law? A bullet is so small and its contact so short, that it cannot throw Kennedy back (and if you actually watch the video, he first moves forward slightly on being hit and then lurches backwards). The backwards movement was probably from one of two things: brain matter being pushed towards the spine caused a massive spasm, or the jet of matter exiting the front of his head pushed him backwards. As I said, there's no evidence for a shooter other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

 
At 21 June, 2006 08:47, Blogger shawn said...

Nesnyc stop using words like "clearly" and follow them up with statements that are completely counterfactual. It makes you look like even more of a moron.

 
At 21 June, 2006 08:59, Blogger Pat said...

The backwards movement was probably from one of two things: brain matter being pushed towards the spine caused a massive spasm, or the jet of matter exiting the front of his head pushed him backwards.

Don't forget, he was wearing a back brace that kept him stiff and unable to move forward much. Indeed, I recall an article a year or two ago which indicated that Kennedy might have survived had it not been for the brace holding him in position.

 
At 21 June, 2006 14:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

Nesnyc stop using words like "clearly" and follow them up with statements that are completely counterfactual. It makes you look like even more of a moron.

But you guys "clearly" think Osama pulled this off without any evidence either! Now what does that make you look like?

 
At 21 June, 2006 14:32, Blogger Alex said...

No, see, YOU don't get to dictate what constitutes evidence and what doesn't based on your own twisted perceptions. We, along with the US admin, have shown plenty of evidence linking Osama and Al Qaeda to the crimes. We've even got his confession on video. The evidence linking him to 9/11 would be MORE than enough to get him convicted in any court. He's "clearly" guilty because all the evidence fully supports that conclusion. Whereas your argument goes something like "the sky is clearly pink, because I say so, and you're all zionist shills". You can't use the word "clearly" when describing an even or phenomena which go AGAINST any reasonable study of the available evidence.

 
At 21 June, 2006 20:49, Blogger jackhanyes said...

We, along with the US admin, have shown plenty of evidence linking Osama and Al Qaeda to the crimes. We've even got his confession on video. The evidence linking him to 9/11 would be MORE than enough to get him convicted in any court.

Funny, I remember the FBI saying that they don't have enough evidence linking Osama to 9/11 to even indict him, let alone try him.

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:06, Blogger jackhanyes said...

The movie makes some really good points and connections of well know facts that really paints the CIA as an evil drug trafficing agents of the CFR to move forward with the NWO. It makes 9/11 just an another way to control the masses and the Atta as a crack whore.

Of course, there are things Pat, shawn, alex, undense, and other would refuse to look at, because there is no massive CT to push for the NWO.

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:07, Blogger shawn said...

Funny, I remember the FBI saying that they don't have enough evidence linking Osama to 9/11 to even indict him, let alone try him.

Ah, those strawmen, you've found them again.

The one guy said HARD evidence. That means definite physical evidence, plenty of people have been convited without it. There's countless cases where people were convicted without a body or a murder weapon.

 
At 22 June, 2006 02:48, Blogger Alex said...

The movie makes some really good points and connections of well know facts that really paints the CIA as an evil drug trafficing agents of the CFR to move forward with the NWO.

The trouble is, when you say "well known facts", what you're really saying is "often repeated rumours". Rather like when you say:

"Funny, I remember the FBI saying that they don't have enough evidence linking Osama to 9/11 to even indict him, let alone try him."

Now, see, that statement is a rumour based on a mis-quotation of one FBI agent. He, in fact, was talking about something quite different. Yet when idiots like you repeat that statement often enough, it will also become a "well known fact", just like the rest of your nonsense.

 
At 22 June, 2006 07:10, Blogger nesNYC said...

We, along with the US admin, have shown plenty of evidence linking Osama and Al Qaeda to the crimes.

Where is this "evidence?" Faked videos by the CIA don't count. Can you guys do better than that? Where are the eyewitnesses that saw Osama giving Atta the direction on what to do? Where the "Al Qaeda" even training in Afghanistan or were they training in the US? Go ahead; let's see some of that "proof."

Again, it has been solidly established that "Al Qaeda" is a lie, Osama a US asset and 9/11 and inside job with a little help form the Israelis. There is no proof that Arabs pulled this off except fabricated "confession" videos but there are mountains of evidence that factions in the US government along with Zionists pulled off 9/11.

 
At 22 June, 2006 08:06, Blogger Alex said...

The only thing that's been solidly established is that you're a flippin' fruitcake.

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:16, Blogger jackhanyes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:21, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Yet when idiots like you....

Poor little Alex, look at him. He can't make an counter point without calling someone a name or two. How sad.

Maybe when he gets some hair south of his belt line, he might be able to act a bit more mature.

The information you called "rumors" (a term you use to dismiss them) are things you can get off you fat ass and look up by your damn self!

That means definite physical evidence, plenty of people have been convited without it.

Shawn, maybe this hasn't crossed your mind (maybe because you have indicted, tryed, convicted, and excuted Osama in your mind), but Osama isn't indicted for 9/11 because all they have nothing on him to pin to that crime.

They may have some "circumstantial evidence" but that makes a weak case. But not weak enough to invade an country. To run a gas line.

 
At 22 June, 2006 20:04, Blogger shawn said...

To run a gas line.


BAHAHAHAHAHAH I hope you don't mean Afghanistan...which was a plan under Clinton. hahahaha it's all for oil hahahahahaa

You know people said that we were gonna steal Iraq's oil during the Gulf War, right?

Osama isn't indicted for 9/11 because all they have nothing on him to pin to that crime.


Maybe they don't want to try him in absentia? Think about that, tough guy? You don't get all the drama and media coverage with an empty defendant's chair.

Remember when they tried Saddam in absentia...oh wait.

 
At 22 June, 2006 20:06, Blogger shawn said...

Faked videos by the CIA don't count.

Stop stating things as if they are fact when they aren't. There's no evidence they're fake.

Again, it has been solidly established that "Al Qaeda" is a lie, Osama a US asset and 9/11 and inside job with a little help form the Israelis. There is no proof that Arabs pulled this off except fabricated "confession" videos but there are mountains of evidence that factions in the US government along with Zionists pulled off 9/11.


NONE, absolutely NONE of that has been solidly established. Stop fucking arguing the consequent. It's not true just because you say it is, numbskull.

Funny how any evidence for the truth is "faked" to you. You like living in your fantasy world?

 
At 23 June, 2006 06:08, Blogger Alex said...

Poor little Alex, look at him. He can't make an counter point without calling someone a name or two.

Counter argument? Buddy, give your head a shake.

Why would anyoneBOTHER to make a "counter argument" to a statement like..."it's been well established that the moon is made of green cheese"?

You call the guy a reatard, and you carry on. Making a detailed reply is hardly neccesary.

"but Osama isn't indicted for 9/11 because all they have nothing on him to pin to that crime."

Yah, that clearly means he's innocent. Me, I'm still waiting for Hitler to be indited. I'm sure they would have done it by now if he had REALLY been guilty.

But not weak enough to invade an country. To run a gas line.

Actually, back when the Clinton administration wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan, Bush was backing a plan to build a different one, which wouldn't have gone through Afghanistan.


Shawn:

You know people said that we were gonna steal Iraq's oil during the Gulf War, right?

Heh, remember, we're also in Kosovo in order to plunder their mineral riches and natural gas deposits.

It's amazing how many times the CT and ati-war nuts can pull out the same red herring, be proven wrong, and then repeat the entire proccess a few years later.

 
At 23 June, 2006 14:12, Blogger jackhanyes said...

NONE, absolutely NONE of that has been solidly established.

I do wonder, what do you mean by that?

Do you mean "accepted by the mainstream"? Accepted by the people who write the history books?

 
At 23 June, 2006 14:14, Blogger jackhanyes said...

...call the guy a reatard

RETARD!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home