The American Ruling Class

[Aaron]

admitting to being given false information

Unfortunately, there are still a great many people who believe the "official" story of what happened that day, and for those people it is only through our presentation of undeniable facts, and debate, that we can hope to awaken them to the truth. Not talking about it simply lets it fade away into oblivion.

Didn't some of the very member of the 9/11 commission come forward in
their own books, etc... admitting they were lied to but they decided to simply
go along with the White House's story to be congruent. They didn't admit
that our govt was behind it or anything but just they were given false
information - absolute cover-up, which is indisputable.

[dutchdivco]

DrStittler

If you read my first post in this thread, you would see that we are not far apart in our thinking, at all. (I think)
I had an interesting experiance, the other day. I was at a pawn shop, at the register.The 2 men behind the counter were in their 20's. Couple next to me, white haired. Other couple in line behind us, in 30's.
Guy totalled my purchase and it was more than pricetag, cause of tax. I said "I thought used items were no sales tax." He said, "No, we have to collect it, same as any other store. Gov't. got their hands in all our pockets."
I said "First thing we do, is stock up on rope. Did you ever notice how a litepole makes a great gallows?" He laughed and said "Shakespeare said first thing we do, kill all the lawyers", but I say we start with the Beurocrats."
I said "No, Shakespeare had it right. FIRST the lawyers, so they won't be around to offer a defence, when we go after the beurocrats."
The thing is, the others overhearing this conversation were ALL nodding their heads and smiling.
If I'd had the same conversation, just a few years ago, some would have been looking askance and moving away from me.Different age groups, demographics, but a real feeling of unity.I don't think Washington or the media have any idea the depths of the feeling in the countryside.
Wait till the bond markets re-value U.S.Bonds, and force the Fed Gov't to get its financial house in order. A combination of horrific inflation and massive benefit cuts and taxes. Then you'll see a lot of Homers wake up, and a swelling in the ranks of the Tea Party.You'll see a sleeping giant awakened.At least, I think.
It is interesting to note very few Governmental systems have survived more than 200 years,....
Actually, if the Ballot box doesn't work, don't really need to storm the gates with pithforks and rope,...(or guns, for that matter). Gov't is well prepared for that. All you need to do is remember that any gov't. needs 2 things from the populace; active consumption and active production.Citisens can piss and moan all they like, as long as they go to work, and pick up a loaf of bread on the way home. If even 1/2 the population stop doing that, everything falls apart.Don't need massive protests in the streets, just STAY HOME.
And, its much easier to persuade people to take some time off, than to risk protesting in the streets. Protest in the streets=riot police. Stay home, what 'they' going to do? Send police/army door to door, and FORCE people to go to work, at gunpoint?They have no counter, but to concede that they have lost the willingness of the Governed. And without that, no Gov't can function. Jim

[rickoff]

Didn't some of the very member of the 9/11 commission come forward in their own books, etc... admitting they were lied to but they decided to simply go along with the White House's story to be congruent. They didn't admit that our govt was behind it or anything but just they were given false information - absolute cover-up, which is indisputable.

Yes they did, and the full information can be found in my post #27 of this thread.

Rick

[RedRightHand]

Hello Everyone,

Regarding the career politicians...

I saw an interesting interview with Dr Condi Rice the other day.

She was asked if she would ever return to politics.
She said that she believes politicians should be highly respected members of a certain field, they should go into office with their expertise and knowledge and only work under the portfolio that their experience is in. After 4-8 years they should go back to Medicine, Foreign Policy Academia etc, and let some younger people come in and try out their new ideas.

Only the best and brightest of our generation in the WhiteHouse, I like it!

Her statement ALMOST made me want to forgive her for all the lies she has told....almost!

Red

[rickoff]

Tuesday was a bad day in Washington DC. The Senate voted to pass the fake FDA "Food Safety Modernization Act" (S.510) by a 73 to 25 vote, and now it goes to the House for approval. I don't think we can expect the House to vote against it with the "lame duck" session in progress and ousted Congressmen not leaving until January. The Senate also failed to pass an earmarks ban, with all but a few Democrats voting against the ban, as well as these 8 Republicans:
Sens. Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.), Dick Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Richard Shelby (Ala.), retiring Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) and defeated Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah).

Note that, of these names, only Dick Lugar faces a reelection challenge in 2012. These RINO's are evidently unconcerned that their votes are in direct opposition to a Republican proclaimed voluntary ban on earmarks in both the Senate and House in response to Tea Party requests.

In other bad news on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office. This would have been a very important case for the Supreme Court to hear, as it would have involved their determination of the legal meaning of "natural born citizen" as stated in the Constitution as a Presidential eligibility standard. The meaning was never clarified in the Constitution, and I think the reason for this is quite clear. The framers of the Constitution were all familiar with the term, and understood that it referred to natural law rather than man made law. The most highly respected treatise on natural law in those days was Emmerich De Vattel's 1758 The Law of Nations, which was read and referred to by the framers. Some "debunkers" have stated that the 1758 book never mentioned the term "natural born citizen," and instead spoke of the "indigenes." That statement, while true, fails to recognize that the book was written in French. The passage referred to, in French, reads, “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens,” and the English translation of this reads, “The naturals, or indigenous, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The first English translation of the book was published in England in 1760, and a later English update was provided in 1797. I have not yet located a 1760 copy, but the 1797 version states the following in section 212 on page 101:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Also stated in section 212 is, "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth and not his country."


Such is the case for Obama.

[aljhoa]

In other bad news on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office. This would have been a very important case for the Supreme Court to hear, as it would have involved their determination of the legal meaning of "natural born citizen" as stated in the Constitution as a Presidential eligibility standard.

Such is the case for Obama.

What are the odds that Main Republic Natural Born unrelated to the US presidential family clan and ignoring selective voting process, becomes US Corporation President?

What are the odds that the globalization trend ignorant next of kin succeeds?

Al

[dutchdivco]

Debate Class, 101

One of the main factors in the decline of the US, is the sorry state of affairs of our public education system. Most College graduates can't pass a citisenship test given to naturalised citisens; Name the 3 branches of Government.(Legislative, Judicial, and Executive).68% got it wrong.
US History and Civics have always gotten short-changed, and moreso as the emphasis has been on trying to concentrate on the basic 3R's, so high school graduates could at least read their diplomas.
Unfortunately, Debate Class is not even offered as an elective, in most high schools.And so, in addition to having a citisenry woefully inadequate in their understanding of our Gov't and History, they are also unfamiliar with the basics of how to debate.How to civilly disagree with one another, and how to converse intelligently about their different opinions.
One of the main rules (in Debating) is you don't 'personalise' the debate. No "Jane, you ignorant slut!" You don't insult your opponent, question their sincerity, motives, or intelligence.It adds nothing to the debate, and in fact detracts from it.
For Teachers of debate, this kind of behavior is fairly easy to enforce; firstly, by 'taking off points' when grading. Even more basic, by assigning not only the topic, but the position. In other words, if Rickoff and I were in such a class, he might be assigned to present the case for the Gov't version of events, (on 911), and I might be assigned to present the case for a Conspiracy.Most students learn early on that the best way to insure a good grade is to start by preparing the opposite case, THEN prepare your case to 'beat' that case, then try and find weaknesses in your own case, to counter what your opponent is going to do; exploit the weaknesses in your case.
"Unfortunately, there are still a great many people who believe the "official" story of what happened that day, and for those people it is only through our presentation of undeniable facts, and debate, that we can hope to awaken them to the truth."
Through debate, exactly.I and those who believe the "official" story are not going to be persuaded by being told we are naive, ignorant, "Homer Simpsons", etc. Nor by having our reasonable, at least to us, doubts and questions dismissed.
I have always enjoyed debating, so long as it doesn't turn into an argument.
I used to have long debates with my friend who died, and still have debates with my other friend, the retired Air Force guy.Others would observe us debating for hours and say "Why are you argueing? Its obvious neither of you is going to persuade the other of anything!" Well, we weren't 'argueing, we were debating. True, in my life the times I have persuaded my 'opponent' of the 'correctness' of my position, or they persuaded me of theirs, are few.
"Then whats the point? Why do it? What do you get out of it?"
Firstly, its intellectually stimulating. It keeps the grey matter from atrophying.Its FUN!! Secondly, it helps me, and my opponent, to refine and clarify, for ourselves, exactly what we think or believe.Its only by putting my thoughts and beliefs into words, and having someone else challenge them, that I can see the 'weaknesses', the gaps or points of illogic.
Therefore, as enjoyable as it is to sit around and talk with people who agree with me, I can only polish and refine and clarify my thinking and beliefs thru debate.
Out debate class teacher used to give 2 grades; 1 for presentation, and 1 for research (which would be obvious during the debate). I got to state up front; In this debate, my 'esteemed opponent' Rickoff would get an "A" for research, and I would get an "F"! I jumped into this debate ill-prepared, and don't have near the resources of time and energy to match what Rickoff has already done, in terms of research.So, I fully expect the concensus to be that I will have 'lost' this debate, and I'm fine with that. Already, I have noticed a clarifying of my position, in my own mind, and I hope those of you in the opposite camp will similarly benefit.And, its FUN!;-)

[dutchdivco]

Clarifications regarding Pentagon

I'm a little confused. My grey matters not what it was in my 'prime', for sure!
I thought you said no plane hit the Pentagon; that it was either a missile, or Cordite explosives.And yet there was a plane that flew at the pentagon, and then accellerated and went up OVER the pentagon.
And then, you cite as evidence the information from the flight data recorder, of the plane 'they' allege crashed at the pentagon.
And, if 'they' could do all the other stuff you ascribe to them, wouldn't they have falsified this data, to comport with their version of events?
Similarly, I'm confused regarding the paint on the second plane to hit the towers.These people had the "mission impossible"-like expertise to apply supersecret explosives to the towers, and several other buildings as well, while they were occupied, without anyone realising, the ability to disappear several planes, apparently create phony grieving relatives to come forward with phone messages of the passengers, etc. and yet, knowing they were creating an event that, historically, etc. was going to be a cross between Pearl Harbor and the JFK assasination, and was going to be played out with the whole world watching, they neglected to bother to paint the plane with the correct markings? Something which would have been very easy to do.
Admittedly, the conspiracy you are attempting to explain to me was massive and complicated.Remember I don't know all this stuff, I haven't been reading up for months on this, and am basically sceptical.Explain it to me so that I can grasp it.

[jibbguy]

Temporary change of subject, but on-topic for the thread title

Senator Bernie Sanders speaking before the Senate. Whether you agree with his politics or not, it is important to understand that his ACCURATE information here means a real change in our society. Please check out the top video of him speaking:

Bernie Sanders: There Is A WAR Being Waged Against The Working Families Of America! « Dandelion Salad

If you are one of the people who like to yell "Socialism!" all the time as a negative epithet against those who are trying to stop this destruction of the U.S. Middle Class... then understand, that the things that Sen. Sanders lists here, is exactly what you are supporting.... whether you realize it or not.

I said this before, but it's important enough to repeat because nearly all you hear in popular culture and the media is to the contrary... and also contrary to Critical Thinking:

The world isn't "black and white" folks, it comes in 256 shades of gray.

But the fact is, that many behind these major changes in our Society towards an oligarchy of the rich are hoping you remain in a "monotone" world, and don't ask too many questions.

According to the Senator, last year Exxon Mobile made over 19 billion in profits. And paid no taxes (lol, and actually got "rebates").

Sorry; that is NOT "free market capitalism"... it is simply CRIME, that affects us all. Yell "socialism!" at the banks, at the corporations. Don't attack the folks who are getting screwed the same as you are:

Unless YOU are one of that 1% who are actually doing better...?

Then it is understandable

[Joit]

And, its FUN!;-)

You call it fun, i call it distraction.
Because usual they sproad 2 Opinions, where anyone think he can choose between,
and its is only for a Win-Win Situation for them.

When you got a Hour time, then i can suggest you, to read through here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...-tommorow.html

Then you can still decide again, if you feel comfortable with this Gouvernment(s).

[rickoff]

Re: Bernie Sanders and Bush Tax Cuts

As I pointed out in this post, the median American family will see a tax hike of $1,540 if the Bush tax cuts are not extended by Congress. What we are seeing now is that everyone in Congress agrees that the cuts should be extended for lower and median income tiers, but the disagreement is over extending the tax cuts for the higher tier as designated under the Bush tax cut plan. That tier level is $200,000 and above for an individual, or $250,000 and above for a married couple. Now those amounts are way above my own fixed retirement income, but truly not representative of the high income wealthy. A great many of those in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range are actually small business owners, and hurting them through a tax increase will not help anyone. A bipartisan compromise is definitely needed to avoid expiration of the tax cuts, but it would make much more sense to simply raise the "high income" tier level, as Senator Schumer has suggested, to $1,000,000. I'm all for that, and also for making corporations pay their fair share of the tax burden. The Exxon/Mobile profit windfall, with no tax liability, truly is disgusting, and I'm sure this is just one of many such corporate examples.

While Sanders points a finger at Exxon/Mobile, though, what is he and others in Congress doing to eliminate the loopholes that allow the corporations and ultra rich Ruling Class elites to escape paying their fair share of the tax burden? The IRS tax code has been set up intentionally to provide these loopholes for the unimaginably wealthy elite, and the only way this can be made right is by ending the IRS and going back to the tax system intended by the Founding Fathers. I think it is fair to say there is slim chance of Congress taking such action, even though it is sorely needed. What they probably will do, though, is to try and make us think that they are doing something like that by instituting a Value Added Tax, which would be a national sales tax on everything that is purchased. They will probably tell us that this is a first step in eliminating the need for IRS, and so of course the people would be all for it. This will start out at a low "introductory rate," of perhaps 1% so as not to bring about a tax revolt, but over time would increase every year until reaching the @20% or higher levels now seen in some European nations where such a tax was instituted several years ago. And down the road people would see that the IRS is still around, but that the overall taxes they are paying have increased dramatically beyond what their current burden is.

Solving the economic crisis is really no dilemma, as Congress, the White House, the Treasury, and Fed would have us believe. Congress needs to take bold and decisive steps to end both the IRS and Federal Reserve's stranglehold on our nation, to take back the powers that they delegated to those corrupt institutions, and to return to the limited and fiscally responsible government policies established by the Constitution.

We must remember that politicians, like Bernie Sanders, will often "talk the talk," but will seldom "walk the walk," when it comes to taking action and following through on it. For example, Ron Paul's "Audit The Fed" bill passed in the House by a wide margin, but didn't get the attention it deserved in the Senate. Finally, after the strong House vote, Bernie Sanders attached his watered down version for a Fed audit to the so-called Senate "Financial Reform" bill. Under opposition to even this watered down version, and bending to pressure from the White House, Tim Geithner, and the Fed, Sanders agreed to language that drastically undermined and severely limited the scope of the Ron Paul proposed audit, and also limited it to a one-time performance. At the same time, the Financial Reform bill actually expanded the powers of the Federal Reserve. In other words, while he pretended to champion the audit drive in the Senate, Sanders actually sold out the American public, which was demanding a strong and high transparency Fed audit - something that has never been done. This should be given the highest priority when the new Congress convenes in January, and it is certain that new and stronger audit bills will be introduced. What will become of them, though, is anyone's guess. All that we do know for certain at this time is that if no strong and decisive action is taken on these matters then we can all say goodbye to the America we once knew and believed in.

Rick

[rickoff]

When you got a Hour time, then i can suggest you, to read through here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...-tommorow.html

Joit, I started to read the article posted at that link, but only made it through a couple of paragraphs before giving up on it because it was written in such a way that was pretty much incomprehensible. I suspect that this article may have been originally written in another language, and then transcribed automatically using an Internet service such as Google Translate. Is that the actual case? I can't imagine that the article was actually written as it appears, as it makes little sense and becomes very hard to follow. I always try to take a look at whatever anyone suggests, but found it pointless to continue. Can you give us a short version as to what the article is actually about? Thanks in advance,

Rick

[Joit]

Rick, yes the original was in German,
there is still a part from a English Version, i did chase it through a translator,
and seems it got a hickup at this moment for translating.
I will try to make later a short Version, but there are to much Points in,
when i do mention them in a short Version, it willl be a full Version again.
But mainly it is from a Person what worked at the Advertising Industry with a good, not to say very high income, till he meet this Guy at Hawaii, Mr Bernell, what did offer him a new Job.
A Man what worked for different Clientele, where the List goes through Gouvernments, Pharma indstry and other big Lobbys.
T. Balden did actually help her to sell her Lies over Medias Campaigns and her Experts, to fool Peoples and installing different 'selfrunning Institutions' as they call them, like Cancer aid assotiations.
The Peoples what are working in it, do think, they do something good,
also the Doctors, what have no other knowledge for this Problem from this desease, but, because they dont know something else, they think, it is all and the best they can do.
At this Example, they told that Cancer only can be cured over Genetic engineering,
the Trick was, that they sproaded this Statement, as noone did really had a Clue about Gentechnic, at it was actually only again The Big Lie,
and noone could prove them wrong.
A Main driver they do use at the most Campaigns is to make big Fear and give little little Hope,
and this Campaigns mostly runs forever till again someone comes and change it again with a big Campaign,
thats why they call it selfrunner.
There are more Examples of such 'Science' where noone really knows,
if it is true or not, because you cant prove this big Lie wrong.
This Guy is not a fiction, he is a dropout from this Scene.

[rickoff]

I'm a little confused. My grey matters not what it was in my 'prime', for sure!
I thought you said no plane hit the Pentagon; that it was either a missile, or Cordite explosives.And yet there was a plane that flew at the pentagon, and then accellerated and went up OVER the pentagon.
And then, you cite as evidence the information from the flight data recorder, of the plane 'they' allege crashed at the pentagon.
And, if 'they' could do all the other stuff you ascribe to them, wouldn't they have falsified this data, to comport with their version of events?

Reasonable questions that deserve answers, Jim, so here you go:
1. That's right, no plane hit the Pentagon. This becomes obvious when you realize that the eyewitness accounts of the flight path, and the flight path as established by the flight recorder data used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to produce their real-time simulation of flight 77, are identical and in complete refutation of the flight path as stated in the "official" government report. Keep in mind that the said knocking over of light poles south of the Citgo station, and the angle of penetration damage to the Pentagon, could only have occurred if a flying object had followed the "official" stated flight path. Perhaps something did follow that path, such as a missile, or a remotely controlled fighter aircraft, but definitely not flight 77. When you realize that the "downed lightpoles" was actually a staged event, as proven by this video evidence, the "official" flightpath story becomes even more absurd. Flight data recorders are extremely accurate, and simultaneously record all of the data as shown in the NTSB simulation. The margin for error is quite negligible, so the NTSB simulation can safely be assumed to be accurate in all respects, unless of course the data was falsified and prepared on a flight simulator, rather than being the actual flight recorder data from flight 77. If you choose to believe that scenario, then of course you must admit to a government conspiracy and cover-up. If you choose to believe that the flight data is real, then you must still admit to a government conspiracy and cover-up of the truth. The fact that the flight data does not match the "official" flight path, though, would confirm that the data obtained by NTSB was not doctored up with a flight simulator, since, as you say, such an effort would certainly have taken into account what the proposed path should have been in order to match the "official" story. There certainly was a large airliner that approached the Pentagon on 9/11 and it very well may have been AA flight 77. To sell the public on the official story, it would have been imperative to have a real airliner involved, and approaching the Pentagon at the time the fireball and smoke is seen, and the blast is heard. It is interesting to note that the NTSB's simulation ends at one second before the supposed impact time. You see the plane's position at that point, in the screenshot view shown in post #1033. Why doesn't it go all the way -just one more second - to actual impact? That, of course is a very profound question. NTSB would have had no good reason to cut off the simulation at that time, unless of course it would have shown that the plane never descended any lower, or that it descended slightly but then passed above the Pentagon. Remember, the plane was at least 180 feet in altitude just 1 second before reaching the Pentagon, and as was pointed out by Pilots for 911 Truth, more likely 300 feet higher than the altimeter shows. At the 462 knots speed shown in the simulation, the plane would have been flying 534 miles per hour, and one second later would have covered a distance of 782 feet. A very large plane, flying even at 480 feet and making a very loud noise, would have appeared to the eyewitnesses as to have been flying unusually low. Their conclusion that the plane struck the Pentagon would have been based upon hearing the explosion that occurred, and seeing the fireball and smoke. The rising fireball and smoke would have taken perhaps two seconds to propogate, and the closest eyewitness observers (other than the Pentagon heliport operator) were at the Citgo Station and would have heard the explosion at about the same time they saw the fireball and smoke rising up above the Pentagon. The plane, at this time, would have been 1564 feet past the blast site, and totally obscured by the rising smoke and fireball. It was only logical for the eyewitness observers to assume that flight 77 had struck the Pentagon, and the "official" government reports an media coverage that followed would have locked in this belief. One such eyewitness, Robert Turcios, who was an employee of, and at the Citgo gas station on 9/11, said he saw the plane fly past the north side of the Citgo, headed toward the Pentagon. He said that he saw the plane lift up to clear the red and white "Do Not Enter" sign and lamp post shown in the below photo. Note that this shot was taken zoomed in, from the Citgo station.

This sign, which is within ball throwing distance of the Pentagon, is clearly higher than the second story windows of the Pentagon, and suspended from a steel structure that is of height between the 3rd and 4th stories. The lamp post to the left of the sign is considerably higher still, and yet the plane did not knock down any of these. Are we to believe that, after clearing the sign and lamp post, the plane somehow dipped downward quickly enough to strike the Pentagon at the impact area, which was between the first and second floor? Or do you think it would make more sense that the plane, which was already higher than the lamp post, continued on over the Pentagon roof, which is 70 feet above ground? Incidentally, you can view the complete Robert Turcios testimony here, which shows the above scene at about 8:34 elapsed time.

Similarly, I'm confused regarding the paint on the second plane to hit the towers.These people had the "mission impossible"-like expertise to apply supersecret explosives to the towers, and several other buildings as well, while they were occupied, without anyone realising, the ability to disappear several planes, apparently create phony grieving relatives to come forward with phone messages of the passengers, etc. and yet, knowing they were creating an event that, historically, etc. was going to be a cross between Pearl Harbor and the JFK assasination, and was going to be played out with the whole world watching, they neglected to bother to paint the plane with the correct markings? Something which would have been very easy to do.
Admittedly, the conspiracy you are attempting to explain to me was massive and complicated.Remember I don't know all this stuff, I haven't been reading up for months on this, and am basically sceptical.Explain it to me so that I can grasp it.

Well, Jim, if you will kindly go back to this post and look closely at all the details I pointed out concerning the so-called United Airlines flight 175 plane which struck the second WTC tower, you will see that it definitely could not have been flight 175. Remember that it happened so quickly that anyone watching from below would not have even seen the tail markings, and that the plane itself would have been nothing much more than a blur. The video that I took the picture from was shot from a boat on the river, and is the only video that was clear enough to make out the actual appearance of the plane. I don't think that very many people took the time, as I did, to analyze still views from it, other than those close to the point of impact. As I pointed out earlier, I have not seen these facts revealed by anyone else on the Internet, so chances are excellent that darned few, if in fact any other people, had realized this. Obviously, whoever pulled off this deception was not at all worried about perfection of details. They simply assumed, and correctly so, that the vast majority of the American public, like yourself, would have no reason to doubt or question the "official" story. Now I have given you plenty of reasons to doubt their story, and I think that you will soon reach a critical point (if you haven't already) where you must admit that there are just too many holes in the official story for it to be even remotely possible.

One last thing - I never hinted that all of the said flight victims were phony, and certainly it would have been advantageous to the planners that at least some of the reported victims actually were real. I also never said that the people receiving calls from victims, or supposed victims, were phony. Some of the recorded calls, however, like the Mark Bingham one for example, are obviously phony when analyzed. The people who received these phony calls actually believed that it was their son, daughter, wife, or husband calling, simply because they recognized the voice. I'm sure you will want to ask how this would have been possible, so I'll explain. At the time of 9/11, voice morphing technology had already been highly developed. With this technology, a person's voice can be recorded, analyzed, and then synthesized so well that when another person speaks through a microphone connected to the voice synthesizer, the voice output sounds exactly like the person originally recorded, no matter what words are spoken. Third rate singers, for example, have used this technology for several years now to have their voice sound like that of famous first rate performers, and the same technology can be used to make a guitar sound like a violin or a trumpet. The technology exists, and it existed on 9/11.

Any other questions?

Rick

[dutchdivco]

comfortable?!!!

You call it fun, i call it distraction.
Because usual they sproad 2 Opinions, where anyone think he can choose between,
and its is only for a Win-Win Situation for them.

When you got a Hour time, then i can suggest you, to read through here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...-tommorow.html

Then you can still decide again, if you feel comfortable with this Gouvernment(s).

I can't imagine what you could have read, in any of my previous posts, that would lead you to believe I am "Comfortable" with this Gov't. Must be a translation problem.
Actually, I think Rickoff, while obviously P.O'd at our Gov't, is more optimistic than I, that anything can be done about it.
I fully agree that "THE DEBATE" re:911, conspiracy or no, is a distraction. And that the 2 party system is a sham, no real difference in the parties, etc.
I just ascribe these things to human nature, rather than conspiracy.
We, as a species, (humans) have reached our level of incompetence.
We are totally dependent on long, complicated and vulnerable supply chains, to provide us with our neccesities, and the # of neccesities has increased.
In addition to these supply chains, we have created large institutions which are NOT serving our interests, but their own.And, as they grow, they move more towards serving their own interest and away from serving ours, to the point where they are working against our best interests.And we did this to ourselves!WE,...did this.
All in the pursuit of a 'better life', an 'easier' life, and efficiency.
In particular, we built these 2 great edifices, like the twin towers, on a foundation of sand.Democracy and the Free Market System.And, like the towers they will ultimately topple. But not from an airplane or explosive charges. They will topple because of a foundation based on a false premise.Its called "Collective Wisdom".And its a myth. It doesn't exist.