muse plugs alex jones' 'terror storm'

El_Kabong

for cincy

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/270806rockfrontman.htm

Rock Frontman Invites Viewing Millions To See Alex Jones Movie
Muse singer scrawls name of Terror Storm on t-shirt, performs headlining show at Reading Festival

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 27 2006

Critically acclaimed rockers Muse cited Alex Jones' new film as one of their influences as frontman Matt Bellamy scrawled "Terror Storm" on the back of his shirt for the band's Saturday night headline gig at the Reading Festival in the UK.

The Reading Festival is famous worldwide amongst music lovers and is regularly screened by the BBC to viewers in the UK. Muse are considered one of the best alternative rock bands in Britain and they have played many large stadiums in the United States, in which their fan base is also large and ever-expanding.

Following the performance, Bellamy explained the meaning ( http://www.nme.com/news/muse/24109 ) behind the t-shirt to NME, Britain's top selling music magazine.

"Go to Google Video, type in Terror Storm and you'll find a nice little surprise. It will shed some light on world affairs, put it that way. I rather point you in the direction then preach about it myself," said Bellamy.

A BBC news report also picked up on the story. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5290674.stm )

"With "terror storm" written on his T-shirt, singer Matthew Bellamy took to a white piano at one point. Afterwards he said they were getting a vibe from the crowd, and in the words of their own song they really seemed invincible."

It is very exciting and a boon for the 9/11 Truth Movement to have a major rock band encourage people to watch Terror Storm in front of 80,000 festival goers and millions watching at home on BBC television.

The connection between the cultural zeitgeist and the 9/11 truth movement as well as the wider truth movement in general is evergreen and can only help in spreading awareness amongst those who will inherit the battle to preserve all our freedoms - the youth of today.

It is our task to nurture that bond and ensure that it isn't just a flash in the pan that gets replaced by the next fad in a couple of years time. Muse should be commended and more people in the public spotlight encouraged to use their soapbox to educate people on the reality of the hidden hand that directs world events from behind closed doors.

Click here to get the high quality Terror Storm on DVD with extras! Click here to support our efforts and see the film by subscribing at Prison Planet.tv

lalalalaaaaaaaa

That's sad. Alex Jones is a liar, and people have to really start accepting that if they really want the truth. You won't get it from a propagandist, no matter what "side" they're on. I'm not going to make a list of lies here, but they're not hard to find. Google it.

even flow?

Maybe they will sway Cinci's mind to join the dark side.


A hell of a good way to get the word out there. Too bad the US government thinks that everybody in the world is schooled in the US. Would make it easier to buy into their shit!

farfromglorified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum

farfromglorified

even flow? wrote:

A hell of a good way to get the word out there. Too bad the US government thinks that everybody in the world is schooled in the US. Would make it easier to buy into their shit!

Considering that 1/3 of the US population now believes that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, I don't think this point holds much water.

even flow?

farfromglorified wrote:

Considering that 1/3 of the US population now believes that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, I don't think this point holds much water.

2/3 do? Still a lot of people.

farfromglorified

even flow? wrote:

2/3 do? Still a lot of people.

In the absence of new evidence either way, the 9/11 conspiracy crowd will simply have to wait out the generation that actually lived through the attacks. 30 years from now, much of the current innuendo and speculation will magically turn into "fact" and you'll probably see similar numbers in support of the 9/11 conspiracy that you do with the Kennedy conspiracy (2/3-3/4 of the population).

rebornFixer

farfromglorified wrote:

Considering that 1/3 of the US population now believes that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, I don't think this point holds much water.

Something like 1/3rd of the population also believes that various psychic powers (e.g., telepathy) might exist as well.

Anyhow, even assuming this stat is true, it may be better understood as an indicator of people's feelings about the Bush administration these days, as opposed to "yeah, the conspiracy theories are true!".

farfromglorified

reborncareerist wrote:

Something like 1/3rd of the population also believes that various psychic powers (e.g., telepathy) might exist as well.

Anyhow, even assuming this stat is true, it may be better understood as an indicator of people's feelings about the Bush administration these days, as opposed to "yeah, the conspiracy theories are true!".

I'm not advocating that these statistics somehow reflect the veracity of the conspiracy claims. They don't. Furthermore, your second point is spot on and the large-scale belief in these kind of theories has less to do with the evidence backing them than it does the emotional predispositions of the listener combined with their attitudes on government. Fifty years ago, these kind of claims would have been nearly unanimously laughed at to a fault. Today, they're often readily accepted without any honest questioning. It is what it is and no amount of polls or statistics of belief will alter the events of that day.

rebornFixer

To me, the very existence of these theories (regardless of any validity they may or may not have) is a symptom of where U.S. society/political culture is at these days ... Mistrust ... suspicion ... People are divided, polarized ... There is no united front in American society, is there? I have wondered lately: Is there any other nation on the planet where so many people respond to a terrorist attack by looking inward and blaming themselves? I suppose this phenomenon occurs in Europe as well. I mean, in most developing nations, an attack by outsiders generally leads the country to pull together and fight the attackers. But in Western countries, such an attack leads to self-castigation in many people.

farfromglorified

reborncareerist wrote:

To me, the very existence of these theories (regardless of any validity they may or may not have) is a symptom of where U.S. society/political culture is at these days ... Mistrust ... suspicion ... People are divided, polarized ... There is no united front in American society, is there? I have wondered lately: Is there any other nation on the planet where so many people respond to a terrorist attack by looking inward and blaming themselves? I suppose this phenomenon occurs in Europe as well. I mean, in most developing nations, an attack by outsiders generally leads the country to pull together and fight the attackers. But in Western countries, such an attack leads to self-castigation in many people.

Very valid questions. But you have two threads of logic up there competing with each other. I've bolded them. It's not self-castigation. How many conspiracy theorists that blame the government for 9/11 do you see in turn blaming themselves??? None. They blame the "rich" or the "New World Order" or the "Bush administration" or the "Israelis". They pick their "they" quite easily.

rebornFixer

farfromglorified wrote:

Very valid questions. But you have two threads of logic up there competing with each other. I've bolded them. It's not self-castigation. How many conspiracy theorists that blame the government for 9/11 do you see in turn blaming themselves??? None. They blame the "rich" or the "New World Order" or the "Bush administration" or the "Israelis". They pick their "they" quite easily.

You have a point ...

El_Kabong

reborncareerist wrote:

there any other nation on the planet where so many people respond to a terrorist attack by looking inward and blaming themselves?

yeah, they should instead look at the money trai....oooooohhhhh...we end up at the same spot

maybe it's b/c we see billions of our tax money go to these ppl one year, then the next they are compared to hitler and a grave threat to our safety. obviously the us government (especially ppl like cheney and rummy)are piss poor judges of character in who we support

as for ppl not banding together...it's like if a bully keeps pushing kids around at recess...when one of the kids finally punches back should we blame the bully or the kid who fought back? a lot of the violent actions towards the US are reactions to US policy

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, they should instead look at the money trai....oooooohhhhh...we end up at the same spot

If you look at very small part of the money trail, yes. How much money has Alex Jones made off of 9/11, friend? Perhaps you should add him to the list

maybe it's b/c we see billions of our tax money go to these ppl one year, then the next they are compared to hitler and a grave threat to our safety. obviously the us government (especially ppl like cheney and rummy)are piss poor judges of character in who we support

Yes they are.

as for ppl not banding together...it's like if a bully keeps pushing kids around at recess...when one of the kids finally punches back should we blame the bully or the kid who fought back? a lot of the violent actions towards the US are reactions to US policy

I had no respect for the bully. I had respect for the kid. Now I have respect for neither.

Just because US policy may piss people off does not somehow give them the right to attack the US. Furthermore, as you state above the US is often the reason those people have anything in the first place. You'll lampoon Cheney and Rumsfeld for supporting someone 20 years ago and then calling them a terrorist now. That's fair. But why don't you apply that same standard to those who now despise America but were perfectly willing to accept our help in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc?

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

If you look at very small part of the money trail, yes. How much money has Alex Jones made off of 9/11, friend? Perhaps you should add him to the list

i'm not talking about just profitwise but also funding wise...like al qaeda was created by bin laden while he was working for the cia...

farfromglorified wrote:

Just because US policy may piss people off does not somehow give them the right to attack the US.

didn't say it did, just explaining the WHY of it and it is far from the 'they hate our freedoms!' line

farfromglorified wrote:

Furthermore, as you state above the US is often the reason those people have anything in the first place. You'll lampoon Cheney and Rumsfeld for supporting someone 20 years ago and then calling them a terrorist now. That's fair.

sometimes there's only days between that support and being compared to hitler...saddam (the first time) bush vetoed every single sanction against iraq for their mass graves and such until he needed a new enemy and iraq was told we didn't care how he handled the kuwait situation...

same thing w/ noriega...he was a cia agent and we helped him take power in panama...but when he stopped following orders and instead started running his mouth about our actions in the region suddenly was a threat to our national security and a horrible drug dealer (even tho daddy bush instructed agencies to ignore his drug activities prior to that)

farfromglorified wrote:

But why don't you apply that same standard to those who now despise America but were perfectly willing to accept our help in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc?

i'd have to take it on a case by case basis instead of giving you a single answer and i have to run now...but if i had to boil it down simplisticly i'd say something about mistrust...they see our actions do not match w/ our reasons and are tired of being at the shit end of the stick in it. take iran for example...they even had a democratically elected PM...but...he didn't think foreign companies should own all iran's oil...so the cia takes him out and installs a corrupt thug who has one of the worst human rights abuses in history...would you trust a country after something like that? after being one of the most progessive countries in your region to having to kiss your leaders ring/hand if in his presence and US funded/trained/armed death squads running around keeping everyone in check?

obviously this can not apply to every situation you asked about

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

i'm not talking about just profitwise but also funding wise...like al qaeda was created by bin laden while he was working for the cia...

Bin Laden didn't "work for the cia". At most, the Afghani Mujahideen were funded by both the US Government and Bin Laden himself. Did their interests align then? Certainly. Were they actively in contact and working together? No.

didn't say it did, just explaining the WHY of it and it is far from the 'they hate our freedoms!' line

But the "they hate our freedoms!" line has about the same validity as the "they hate our foreign policy!" line. This is a clash of cultures, not some tactical war over troops on the ground or socio-political constructs. Both statements completely misrepresent what this conflict is about.

Right now, someone in Pakistan is saying "they hate our religion" to justify their actions. That's just as stupid as saying "they hate our freedoms" or "they hate our foreign policy".

sometimes there's only days between that support and being compared to hitler...saddam (the first time) bush vetoed every single sanction against iraq for their mass graves and such until he needed a new enemy and iraq was told we didn't care how he handled the kuwait situation...

Ok. I'm certainly not here to defend the veracity or intelligence of George Bush. Regardless, you can say the exact same thing above about Saddam Hussein. He loved us when we helped him, hated us when he didn't. It's no different than George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld.

same thing w/ noriega...he was a cia agent and we helped him take power in panama...but when he stopped following orders and instead started running his mouth about our actions in the region suddenly was a threat to our national security and a horrible drug dealer (even tho daddy bush instructed agencies to ignore his drug activities prior to that)

Yep. Goes both ways there too.

i'd have to take it on a case by case basis instead of giving you a single answer and i have to run now...but if i had to boil it down simplisticly i'd say something about mistrust...they see our actions do not match w/ our reasons and are tired of being at the shit end of the stick in it. take iran for example...they even had a democratically elected PM...but...he didn't think foreign companies should own all iran's oil...so the cia takes him out and installs a corrupt thug who has one of the worst human rights abuses in history...would you trust a country after something like that? after being one of the most progessive countries in your region to having to kiss your leaders ring/hand if in his presence and US funded/trained/armed death squads running around keeping everyone in check?

obviously this can not apply to every situation you asked about

You give Iran far too much credit. To pretend that being tired of US double-talk is the reasoning for their actions is to completely ignore the details of everything they've done over the past 40 years. Certainly the US is guilty of a lot of stupidity and harm in the region, but so are the British, the Turks, the Russians, the Iranians themselves, the Iraqis, the Saudies, the Israelis....

You want to pretend that the ills of the Middle East would be solved if the US got its nose out of the region? That's fine, go right ahead. Hopefully you and everyone else will buy a fuel-cell car because of that misconception because that will help us in other ways. But don't be surprised when the US does pull out of that region and none of these conflicts are solved.

Regardless, none of your statement above answers the very simple question: "But why don't you apply that same standard to those who now despise America but were perfectly willing to accept our help in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc?" If it's all justified because of "mistrust", then why can't the US launch wars and attack these nations because they've also given us reason to "mistrust" them?

spiral out

Do the people on here that shoot down all these videos actually watch them?

They actually have lots of news reports from trusted news sources on them, Like Fox news, CNN and the BBC.

How do you manage to ignore things that are staring you in the face?

Are these news channels lying to you but at the same time telling you the truth that you want to believe?

farfromglorified

spiral out wrote:

Do the people on here that shoot down all these videos actually watch them?

They actually have lots of news reports from trusted news sources on them, Like Fox news, CNN and the BBC.

How do you manage to ignore things that are staring you in the face?

Are these news channels lying to you but at the same time telling you the truth that you want to believe?

Please be serious. Many of the "mainstream" reports are taken completely out of context or misrepresented. For example, the CNN quote where a guy at the Pentagon refers to something that "sounded like a missile"? The part where he says "and I saw this plane" is omitted. For example, like the BBC story that talks about "alive hijackers"? The later retraction and clarification by BBC and an ABC reporter are omitted. For example, MSNBC videos of the towers collapsing with voiceover of a non-MSNBC "journalist" else describing the "unequivocal proof" of explosive use? The actual proof is omitted.

The source of news provides little by way of veracity. The content of the news is what matters. And when news is the simple reporting of fact from a reliable source, much can be gleaned from it. But when "news" is the reporting of someone's half-baked conclusions wrapped in language like "unquestionable" or "undeniable" or "conclusive", I'm always going to question it, regardless of its source.

You may ask those of us who support the official version how we "manage to ignore things that are staring [us] in the face". And to that I'll offer a simple response: we don't. One of the biggest things staring me in the face is a group of people who believe journalism is the process of publishing opinions that coincide with their own.

The official version of 9/11 is not the version I want to hear. It is simply the version that seems most consistent with the available evidence. And in the context of drawing conclusions, consistency with evidence is much more relevant than consistency with my own or anyone else's person opinions.

Abookamongstthemany

I don't see any hard evidence on either side. We are all guessing and believing what we choose to. The thing that always bothers me with the whole thing is the large amount of unanswered questions and things that just don't add up. Usually when someone is telling you something that doesn't add up all the way, or hesitates to answer your questions, it's because there are lies involved.

spiral out

so what version of the 9/11 story would you like to hear?

All people are doing is questioning the truth, what is so wrong with that?

farfromglorified

spiral out wrote:

so what version of the 9/11 story would you like to hear?

The one being spread by conspiracy theorists...that the government was complicit.

All people are doing is questioning the truth, what is so wrong with that?

Nothing. I answered your questions.