| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 09:10:37 AM
Guess who's music will grace the opening credits for the new Loose Change which will be out in theaters later this year? 
|
| 33 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 1:43:16 PM
Was Bush Speech Scheduled To Pre-empt The View?
ABC show set to feature 9/11 truth heavyweights cancelled in favor of Bush's Al-Qaeda obsessed press conference
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 25, 2007
Did master political strategist Karl Rove schedule and script George Bush's speech in the Rose Garden yesterday to pre-empt the possible appearance of 9/11 truth movement heavyweights on ABC's The View?
That's the suspicion many people outlined to us in e mails and calls yesterday.
Though we learned privately that guest appearances by William Rodriguez and the Loose Change crew on the show hosted by Rosie O'Donnell were cancelled at the start of the week, the ABC website still listed their names as being scheduled.
Presidential news conferences that take place in the daytime and do not relate to any kind of breaking news or national event do not cut into regular programming on major non-news channels, and yet ABC chose to air the speech in its entirety after The View was cancelled for that day.
Many 9/11 truthers now suspect that this was a Rovian ploy to distract attention or in effect completely displace the subject matter raised by Rodriguez and Loose Change that was set to be aired on The View.
In his speech, Bush re-hashed dated and questionable "intelligence" about Al-Qaeda and entered into a sophomoric rant about how the terrorists want to kill our children, invoking the phantom group no less than 19 times.
"Just about everything else that came up during the hour-long news conference was traced to bin Laden's terrorist network," writes Dana Milbank today in the Washington Post.
"They are a threat to your children, David," he advised NBC's David Gregory."
"It's a danger to your children, Jim," Bush informed the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg."
"This last warning was perplexing, because Rutenberg has no children, only a brown chow chow named Little Bear. It was unclear whether Bush was referring to a specific and credible threat to Little Bear or merely indicating there was increased "chatter in the system" about chow chows in general."
Was Bush's relentless propaganda pitch about Al-Qaeda scripted to coincide with the slated appearance of 9/11 truthers on The View, a show that enjoys 30 million viewers over the course of its air time? Was this a Rovian scheme to neutralize 9/11 truth?
In between his 10th and 11th mention of "Al-Qaeda", a sparrow stepped up to the plate to challenge Bush on his crap and put the cowardly Washington press corps to shame by pooping on his shoulder.
|
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 02:57:15 AM
Well I don't care about syncing up with the actors, all I care about it syncing up with the conductor and that's it. It's a real bitch with all the cuts, and working with professionals who will hear me and have something to say about me working in the future adds a little more pressure. Although I did drink like 3 rum and cokes directly before dress rehearsal tonight which was good.
As far as bad keys go though, I hate Db on upright just a little because I have the use of no open strings and it's a hard key to makes speak and shift and stay in tune. Same goes for Ab except I can use open G for ti.
BTW I forgot to say congrats on them picking up your tune. I hope it spreads the word a little for you about what you do. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 11:52:41 AM
I had to learn and play all of "Tommy" in High School. I showed up late to the rehersals and ended up playing liek 4 songs..I didn't even learn what I was meant to...haha I sucked...
Well...the first 2 songs went very well! The rest blew and I left and smoked cigerettes in the bathroom....haha |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 11:39:27 AM
musicals are a pain in the ass, especially for guitar players that have trouble playing in certain keys. also, trying to stay in sync with the actors is always a treat. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 10:32:27 AM
9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.
During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.
The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.
So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.
It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.
Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.
We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.
We don't expect the progenitors of yellow journalism to have any answers for what constitutes the smoking gun of controlled demolition.
|
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 02:04:27 AM
That's why it would be nice to have a real investigation in to the events. I believe a professor of mine will be doing an indictment sort of thing on the 911 stuff soon although I might have to miss that night because of a gig playing for a musical which is a pain in the ass in case anyone wanted to know. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 02:01:33 AM
Wow, this thread really went full circle |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 1:58:21 PM
awesome, man. that'll probably be good for your music career. congrats.
that's just the thing though. there are instances of possible involvement. i can't rightly side with something based just on "possible." a lot of things are possible. this doesn't make them true. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 11:55:31 AM
The "blowback" theory is for sure real. However, in the case of 9/11, there were so many instances of possible involvement that in my opinion, it was much more than forknowledge.
Either way, we will have a new investigation and put all these hundreds of questions to rest.
I did just get word that my song is definately going to be in the opening credits. I am doing a newspaper interview later and I will discuss it. When I get it I will post it here! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 02:36:00 AM
see, i'd be more willing to believe that they had some sort of foreknowledge of the events and chose not to do anything because it would be financially and politically advantageous.
as far as political, or geo-political advantages are concerned, there would be other ways to reach those goes, such as the afghanistan pipeline, without conducting such a large scale plot. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 9:54:12 PM
If you're looking for motive you don't have to look to far or past hatred. We don't know for sure if the US was in on the attack and very few people do, but they are criminally negligent at the very best. I encourage every one to look at the document put out by the Project for the New American century about rebuilding america's defense's where they state that these changes will not be able to be implemented or will happen more slowly without a new pearl harbor like event. That's paraphrased loosely of course, but that's pretty much it.
Or go back and read the book the grand chess board in which all the motive and strategy is laid out pretty straightforward. It has to do with the geo-political assets of Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq as well as forward operating bases in the region. This information is out there and you actually have to respect the republicans in that they pretty much tell you exactly what they want to do. It also has to do with the pipeline through Afghanistan that will be going in. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 10:52:11 PM
well i absolutely agree with you on one thing: i think there are enough oddities surrounding this that a new investigation wouldn't be a bad idea. i only caution against believing to any large degree one story or another just now. i was under the impression that jet fuel did burn hot enough to expand and/or weaken the steel, but not melt it. unless this is a new type of metal, like some kind of neo-metal. as for the other things you mention, those are curious points. but i'd be interested in knowing what parts of the towers and building seven were powered down, and when. ditto the dog removal thing. the dogs being ordered out could be a ridiculous coincidence, an unfortunate mistake, or something more sinister. finding out who made those types of decisions and deriving what motive he or she would have for it are crucial points.
in fact, i think the conspriacy theory is a little weak on the topic of motive. plain old hatred is very believable to me, and it's not as if america hasn't earned some hatred. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 6:01:42 PM
Before we can answer who did it, wer have to find out how those buildings collapsed the way they did. They were numerous "power downs" of the building where sections of the WTC and Building 7 were shut off and security camers rendered useless, also bomb sniffing dowgs were removed a week prior. We just want a new investigation, I do not claim to know the full story, but I sure know that jet fuel didn't make those buildings weaken enough eo collapse at that speed, pulverizing the concrete into dust and making the inner core disappear. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 4:32:56 PM
it might not have occurred to you, but you can not believe the 9/11 conspiracy without being out of touch with reality (which is the definition in the field of psychology of the word "psychotic.") or that perhaps there are people on both sides who are not in touch with reality.
ignoring that, being out of touch with reality, or are in psychological denial means a whole lot of not-a-damn-thing in regards to the veracity of your theory or the official story, and i'm surprised that people who completed college, many with p.hd's (or md's, in the case of the psychiatrists) don't realize this. serious people in serious debate about this subject or any other attack the content of the theories, and not the people who posit them. basically, in any sort of meaningful debate, anything not having to do with the points made are irrelevant.
for example, i could research the history of some of these doctors and make claims about them, but that wouldn't mean anything. instead, i'd probably say that a controlled demolition takes weeks of planning, and setting it up involves compromising the structural integrity of the building (carving into the supports to plant explosives, for instance.) i would also say the theory implies that they were able to find enough to people irresponsible enough to set up a demolition on a building knowing that it's still being used by thousands of people, and/or amoral enough to do it knowing it would kill thousands.
i've brought up questions before that you have admitted to not knowing the answer to, but it seems not at all to effect your conviction. i don't understand how this is possible. i mean, i've read things here, written by you, that put holes in the official story and make me thing that something ain't right here. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 10:50:55 AM
Yea those guys are pretty funny. Most of the people who runs websites and tv shows who disagree that we haven't been told the whole truth or that jet fuel was enough to weaken the steel and make those gigantic buildings collapse in on themselves at the speed of gravity usually resort to smear tactics and name calling, because their arguments can't stand up to the facts.
They seem to get really upset. The best is when they call us Holocaust deniers or say we are insulting the vistims. It is almost a mental problem, oh wait...it is...
The following psychiatrists and psychologists have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false. Moreover, many of these mental health experts have concluded that the government's account is so obviously false that people who believe the government's version are in psychological denial:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
Clinical psychologist, Ed.D., Harvard University Gwendolyn Atwood,
Psychology researcher, M.A., Psychology Victoria Ashley
Psychotherapist, M.S. Clinical Psychology, Greg Henricks
M.S. in educational psychology, Roy Holcombe
M.A. in Counseling Psychology Tova Gabrielle
There are literally thousands of other mental health professionals who have reached the same conclusions. So who is out of touch with reality: those who question 9/11 or those who believe the government's version without question?
|
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 10:29:33 PM
Have you seen screw loose change?
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 10:47:44 AM
The guys from Loose Change and William Rodriguez (hero who saves 15 people personally and the last person saved from the rubble) will be on The View this coming Thursday, May 24th...not sure what time..maybe 10am? Check it out if you want! |
| PJK |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 09:02:24 AM
Very nice Dave!
quote:
Nah, just the Dark Side of the Moon.
LOL! |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 9:00:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
Awesome Dave! Is that the sound of a cash register I hear? cha-ching!
Nah, just the Dark Side of the Moon. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 7:00:36 PM
no no no money involved...if there is it will be donated to the sick first responders. Thanks though I'll keep you updated! |
| PJK |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 6:15:32 PM
Awesome Dave! Is that the sound of a cash register I hear? cha-ching! |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 5:36:14 PM
YOU ARE A SELL OUT. YOU BASTARD!
Aw, I'm kidding, that is pretty damn kewl. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 5:22:17 PM
you don't tap into satan for that, you fuse with him.
unless you were talking about the band? |
| Arthen |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 2:01:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
haha NEO METAL!
I am going to make a neo metal inspired song...I have to tap into satan for that one. Thanks Dan! We'll see what happens!!
It will need to be called "Shut up Dan P., You Cock." |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 12:53:57 PM
haha NEO METAL!
I am going to make a neo metal inspired song...I have to tap into satan for that one. Thanks Dan! We'll see what happens!! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 12:23:52 PM
man, that video needs some neo-metal in the worst way. \m/
congrats, though. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 10:55:10 AM
Great tune! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 10:33:21 AM
Thanks! That combined with it being for something I feel so strongly about it is an honor. I have worked my ass off for years to make people realize that we weren't told the truth about 9/11 and to have my song in a movie about that is pretty cool. If I did make any money made off of it I would be donated to the ill first responders. As far as myself becoming a musician with a sustainable income, hopefully with the exposure that would follow. I have time though, I am 23 and I just love making music. I just hope this all goes through as it should...you never know with things like this but it looks very likely!
If you want to hear the song check it out here:
The Willing Doom |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 10:23:10 AM
You blew it! I wanted a 3rd guess...it was going to be "Dogstar". That's Keanue Reeves' band. Oh well.
Congrats anyway! That sounds amazing. Who knows, you might end up winning an Oscar for best soundtrack or some such category.
Getting your music out to as many people as possible and in as many forms as possible is the most important thing. At least if you plan on making money as a professional musician. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 10:14:34 AM
hahaha
Nope they will be using a song I wrote called "The Willing Doom" for the opening credits! I am really excited! they might also use some other songs but I am not sure yet. Hopefully this will all go through. I recorded it over the weekend and sent him the mix. It blows my mind that this actually happened. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 09:42:10 AM
Huey Lewis? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 09:20:46 AM
no....guess again... |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 09:12:07 AM
Taylor Hicks? |
