You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#4701 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » How many commericals will Slash appear in for 2008? » 977 weeks ago
I don't get this "artistic integrity" vs. "selling out" bullshit that people go on about. People go into the music business for money and fame above all else. If GNR or anyone else got into it to be artists and relay a message, we'd have never heard of them, plain and simple. In any event, they released music to appeal to the masses for fame and fortune. Instead of becoming a broke has-been, Slash has chosen to embrace his celebrity and earn money in the process. What's wrong with that?
I'd say the love for music is the triggering factor for pursuing a musical career. The other shit is of course a big draw for most, but in the end it is secondary. At least it should be (that one's for you Gene).
I accept that every artist needs to make compromises. I don't expect them to be supermen. World is what it is. The line is drawn at necessity. Do you need to make commercials? Do you need to make a fool of yourself with Bill Gates? No, I absolutely don't think so.
Bottom line, all of them are guilty of artistic compromise. But while some seem to have a somewhat conscious relationship to it, others take just about anything they get thrown.
#4702 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » How many commericals will Slash appear in for 2008? » 977 weeks ago
It's looking as if this thread is being directed (and maybe was intended in the first place) at taking shots at Slash.
I'm not sure exactly why people want to do that, but it just doesn't seem logical to me.
Well, it's not exactly unwarranted.
I could draw some parallels to another section and another member...
#4703 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » How many commericals will Slash appear in for 2008? » 977 weeks ago
It's cool as hell seeing Slash's career flourish these last few years. From Grammy's to Guitar Hero, the man is on a roll.
I wouldn't exactly call raking in cash as a PR puppet for big business playing old material flourishing. Selling out perhaps.
In fact I truly detest the path some of the members of my favorite band are taking. Izzy, and to a degree Axl, seems to be the only ones with a shred of integrity left.
#4704 Re: The Garden » What happens when you drink a Coke » 977 weeks ago
I'm on a strict water, coffee and juice cure now. Gotta say, I feel pretty good.
#4705 Re: The Garden » Naomi Wolf, 10 steps towards fascism. » 977 weeks ago
Not a single one of those have happened. Not to mention the entire list is arbitray. Coincidental that she chose 10 things eh? The only one that has an ounce of reality to it, is number 9. However, that is not applied by the government but by individual citizens.
I hear you, but I don't see it.
I can agree that the completeness of some of the points can be debated, but you simply can't say "that's not true". At least throw me some arguments. I'd be very interested.
#4706 Re: The Garden » 9/11 » 977 weeks ago
Here is my challenge to you. Provide me with evidence of any chemical residue of an explosion.
He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:
First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane.
But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.
Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.
Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.
Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray substance on the outside that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten metal or liquid. He said that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten form, and the metal hardens, it is gray.
He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath both trade towers and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never discussed in official investigation reports.
And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade Towers '” in fact, there was another building between it and the towers '”and even though it was never hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said, that it came down because a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.
Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes of the collapses, and he doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered the buildings and placed thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in the know," plus other people who didn't know what they were doing but did what they were told, could have placed incendiary packages over several weeks.
#4707 Re: The Garden » 9/11 » 977 weeks ago
"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it'”much like the action of a piston'”forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar 'puffs' were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
If that was the case the air would take the route of least resistance, meaning right below the collapsing floor. It would not appear 20 stories below.
#4708 Re: The Garden » 9/11 » 977 weeks ago
The burden of proof is not on the government, though they've already provided the proof. All the answers to your questions can be answered here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ht77debris
The government invaded a country based on it, of course the burden of proof is on them.
Fyi Bin Laden is not credited as the man behind the attacks by the FBI. Quote:"There is not sufficient evidence to link Bin Laden to the attacks of 911".
Not sufficient evidence, and you invade a country? That alone is reason for impeachment.
Popular Mechanics is not the government providing proof. 911 Commission Report is the proof of the government.
#4709 Re: The Garden » 9/11 » 977 weeks ago
Sorry dude. Those videos don't fly. You're using a janitor as someone qualifed to state it was a bomb simply because he was rattled after the attack. The impact of those planes would have resonated and shook the entire foundation. I doubt anyone could pinpoint where it came from initially.
If a bomb exploded on ground level, why weren't people dead on the ground level? There would have been significant more damage had an explosion gone off.
There were damage in the lobby. A dozen firemen can attest to that. So can video footage. There were casualties and injuries in the basement. I've seen at least one fireman attest to that.
The fact that he's a janitor means nothing. He's not an idiot, he could clearly feel pressure from beneath. Then he heard the explosion from above.
The smoke at lower levels is fully and logically explained by the NIST.
"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it'”much like the action of a piston'”forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
There were no falling mass at that point. This was right after initial impact. It's pretty clear if you watch the footage.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar 'puffs' were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Puffs of air does not eject several hundred kilos of steel into nearby buildings. If you find some footage of the surrounding buildings you'll see vast amounts of debree that have been blown through the air into the facades.
#4710 Re: The Garden » 9/11 » 977 weeks ago
None of that means a damn thing. Show me proof of smoke coming from the bottom of the tower, not some supposed eye witness who was traumatized from the event.
Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY … re=related
The eyewitness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmOmWrgEJEQ
Secondly, why would smoke come from the bottom if an explosion took place as you claim? Smoke only comes from fires or the aftermath of an explosion. Physicist have proven time and time again that the "official" story is entirely feasible. Just becuase you found a few who distort the events and claim it didn't doesn't make it impossible. You choose to believe a few witnesses who think they heard something in lieu of the thousands who didn't. I'm sorry, but none of these "witnesses" were qualified or in the right state of mind to judge what happened.
Physicists have proven time and again that they have trouble reaching a coherent and logical conclusion. Take NIST, they worked on the scenario for years, still they can't seem to make their models work. The story has been changed several times. There's still no unison conclusion.
These aren't a few witnesses. I remember the day very clearly, and a common thread in the initial reports were 'bombs' 'explosions' 'secondary devices'.
And if the witnesses weren't qualified, why is the 911 Commission basing a lot of their conclusion on their testimony? That is, the testimonies that 'fit'.
Point and case with your argument on cell phones on the plane. Someone who is so certain of foul play would hopefully at least know that air phones are on every other seat on most airlines if not every seat. You're using two clocks as a defense for your argument? Are you kidding me. Two clocks that aren't linked to a central computer happen to be 5 minutes slow. You do understand that clocks lose time and the custodial staff probably has more pressing issues than making sure the thousands of clocks in that building are in synch. Did it ever occur to you that those clocks could have been a personal clock in a cubicle and the person didn't care to keep it accurate. Let's try an experiment Polluxlm. Ask 10 different people the time when you're out and about and I bet you get several different answers.
I thought it was interesting information. I'm not building an argument around it. Not everything needs to be a pissing match.
But for your information, the amount of clocks that stopped at 9.31-32 (yeah, that's inaccuracy) isn't 1, it isn't 2 or even 3. It's dozens. Richard A. Clark (I think) said himself that the impact occured at 9.32 in a speech he gave.
OH NO! The BBC reported a building fell before it did. That must mean it was planned! Or, as happens thousands of times, they reported an error. I don't have the time line in front of me, but didn't they make a decision at some point not to save building 7? Was that decsion made more than 30 minutes prior to its collapse. Would it be logical for someone to say that Building 7 was gone based simply on the fact there was no effort to save it. Furthermore, with 2 buildings already fallen, could someone have just jumped the gun and made an assumption?
Of course that is possible. It's not a particular strong argument, isolated. But put in the basket of all the other evidence it gives leverage to the case. Especially when BBC confronted with this, claimed the tapes had been lost in the archives. That's a moot defence though since it's all over the net.
Everything you list is circumstancial.
Circumstantial in terms of what? If you're thinking about 'bush and the government did it', sure. Eye witnesses and photographic evidence however, are not.
On a side note, chill out a little man. No need to get worked up.
