The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Sorry Rick, not yet

They went to the trouble of knowing, well in advance who was going to be on those flights, on that day, getting recordings of their voices so they could 'morph' them, and knowing the phone #'s they would call, and having people, to imitate the passengers, who had to be 'in' on the conspiracy.
And they didn't HAVE to do this; it would only have been to lend versimilatude to the lie. Would have been much easier to just say the hijackers took away everyones cell phones, and turned off the ones in the plane.
So, they went to all this trouble, AND made these airliners they could fly by remote control.THEIR planes, fully under their control.And yet they didn't bother to paint the planes with the correct markings, cause they didn't think anyone would notice!!!!Sorry Rick, but thats just a very weak argument.
It takes more than a voice sounding right to pursuade someone they are talking to someone they know intimately; spouse, father etc.
Particularly for the conversations they were having.One false word or phrase, one not knowing some private reference would have risked 'blowing it'.
If I were in charge of this operation, and someone had come to me with this idea, I would have said "Too much risk of exposure, for too little benefit" and, if your honest with yourself, you gotta admit you would too.
Problem is, this is the only way you can explain away the phone calls.And if the purpose of the phone calls was to make people believe, than not painting the plane with the correct markings, is absurd.Sorry, not persuaded, yet.

[bugler]

dutchdivco you are right. 19 arabs with box cutters directed from a guy in a cave were capable of doing 911.

You solved the mistery.

Thanks to you.

Nobody in his right mind would have gone all the trouble to make a phony recording. Impossible. Not even for the 1200 million $ that the jew Larry Silverstein got in insurance. No way. To much trouble for a couple of bucks.

There are no criminals behind anything. The World is a paradise. Humans love other humans and love nature. There is peace and love everywhere.

You are right. N conspiracy at all even those that have been admitted by the government.

[jibbguy]

Sanders is totally unique in the Senate. He is an Independent. And he has walked the walk all his career. The only other Senator i have heard say anything similar on the Floor of the Senate, was Paul Wellstone; and he died in a mysterious plane crash over 7 years ago.

The funny thing about this tax cut TOTAL BALONEY is this: When the rich were paying

OVER THREE TIMES

in tax percentage than they do now, our economy was much more stable and PROSPEROUS, for EVERYONE (except perhaps the corporate executives who's salaries were only 25 times that of their employees, NOT ONE HUNDRED TIMES like they are now.

There is no evidence at all, and i have looked, that they wish to do anything to increase tax to the middle class ONE SINGLE PENNY:

That appears to be total propaganda lies, that all the sites just passed on and did not even bother to check for themselves.

And very recently, just last week, it was Sanders' amendment that FORCED TO FED to tell who they gave the money to.

People just want to tell you that "socialism is evil"... And not have to explain anything.

THAT IS THE CELEBRATION OF IGNORANCE.

Well, the facts show that THE LACK OF "SOCIALISM" IS FRIGGIN' WORSE for everyone, except the very rich. ARE YOU RICH? Then you should be happy about the way things are now and are heading.

Otherwise, you should be damned mad about it.

[Aaron]

fed

And very recently, just last week, it was Sanders' amendment that FORCED TO FED to tell who they gave the money to.

What is the status of this? And if it passes what are the chances that
they'll actually wind up disclosing this?

[jibbguy]

Its already in place:

Release: Fed Disclosure Lifts Veil of Secrecy, Sanders Says - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

See, what these "heroes" of the truth movement who attack "socialism" every day DON'T TELL YOU is, that the people who are trying to save ANY regulations to stop the destruction of the economy, are the same ones they are LABELING.

This is the bottom line: This country will NEVER not be "socialist" to a degree: It is literally impossible unless it becomes a totalitarian nightmare first.

IT ALL ABOUT "DEGREES".

That's why it is wrong to view these things in such simplistic "black and white" terms.. but it sure serves the oligarchy if you do... and its funny how that is always how it is being pushed by even certain members of the "alternative media"

If people want to try to label me as a "Socialist", they are welcome to try. But they better bring an ACCURATE understanding of the word

EDIT: WOW did you guys see that about G.E. getting 16 TRILLION from the Fed ??? WTF!! It was not even in trouble!!

Lol, no wonder we did not hear about that on the msm news

EDIT 2: Wow again: These banks used the ZERO INTEREST money from taxpayers to buy Treasury Bills that we then have to pay interest on. LOL that is SO WRONG it is actually absurd.

[ashtweth]

Very informative about the FED
YouTube - Quantitative Easing Explained

[rickoff]

They went to the trouble of knowing, well in advance who was going to be on those flights, on that day, getting recordings of their voices so they could 'morph' them, and knowing the phone #'s they would call, and having people, to imitate the passengers, who had to be 'in' on the conspiracy.
And they didn't HAVE to do this; it would only have been to lend versimilatude to the lie. Would have been much easier to just say the hijackers took away everyones cell phones, and turned off the ones in the plane.
So, they went to all this trouble, AND made these airliners they could fly by remote control.THEIR planes, fully under their control.And yet they didn't bother to paint the planes with the correct markings, cause they didn't think anyone would notice!!!!Sorry Rick, but thats just a very weak argument.

Is it really? I have shown you positive picture proof that the plane said to have been flight 175 and striking the second WTC tower could not possibly have been United 175. You have to admit the markings don't match. Therefore, there are only two possibilities:
1. The government story that this was UA flight 175 is false, or
2. The video showing this plane, and taken from the river, was faked, but somehow accepted by both the government and mass media as being genuine.

Please answer the following questions before you ask any further ones of me, or seek to reject my evidence out of hand as being absurd:
Question #1: Which of the two numbered scenarios above do you prefer to believe?
Question #2: On 9/11, and for several days afterwards, we were bombarded over and over with video footage showing "flight 175" striking the WTC south tower. Did you, or anyone you know, notice the out of character markings or paint job before I pointed them out here?
Question #3: Perhaps you will dismiss this photo/video proof as being some kind of optical illusion, with our eyes playing tricks on us, but how can you reconcile the fact, which I pointed out earlier, that UA flight 175 (according to live feed from FAA) was still flying an hour after it supposedly hit the WTC2 south tower?

Do yourself (and all the rest of us here) a favor and view the live MSNBC TV coverage shown in this video. Start watching the video and notice, at 0:27 elapsed time, the headline stating the south tower (supposedly hit by UA175 at 9:03AM) has already collapsed. It collapsed at 9:59AM. The north tower, which collapsed at 10:28, is still standing. Move ahead to 2:35 elapsed time, and live broadcast shows the north tower still standing at least 2 minutes and 8 seconds (2:35-0:27=2:08) after the south tower collapse. Therefore the time of this live broadcast is somewhere between 10:01:08AM and 10:28AM. Simple deductive reasoning, do you follow that? Ok, now continue watching and then pause the video at 3:04 elapsed time, where the commentator is showing live feed from the FAA of planes still in the air. He has pointed to one of the planes, and an information popup appears. The top line of that info popup reads, "UAL 175." Still flying, a minimum of 58 minutes (10:01-9:03=58 minutes) after it supposedly crashed. And considering that live coverage in this video shows the north tower collapsing at 6 minutes and 2 seconds elapsed time, we can safely say that flight 174 was pointed to in the FAA live feed presentation 3 minutes prior to the collapse, which equates to 10:25AM, or 1 hour and 22 minutes of UA175 flight time after the reported WTC south tower impact.

It takes more than a voice sounding right to pursuade someone they are talking to someone they know intimately; spouse, father etc. Particularly for the conversations they were having. One false word or phrase, one not knowing some private reference would have risked 'blowing it'.

Study the "Mark Bingham" call. The caller did blow it, but the women who received the call (his aunt and mother) believed it was Mark because they recognized the voice, and they had no reason to doubt it was Mark because TV coverage, and later government reports, told the same story that they had heard from "Mark." The caller blew it when he said, "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." Nobody uses their last name when talking to their mother. The caller was most likely reading the name from a list of calls to be made. Besides, the mother had already been informed by "Mark's" sister (who had answered the phone) that it was "Mark" calling. The caller realizes that he has done something stupid by stating Mark's last name to the mother, so then says, "You do believe me mom, don't you?"
Come on, Jim. Unlike Mark Bingham's aunt and mother, we as outsiders can look at this call with objectivity and scrutiny. How much more obviously phony could any call have been?

If I were in charge of this operation, and someone had come to me with this idea, I would have said "Too much risk of exposure, for too little benefit" and, if your honest with yourself, you gotta admit you would too.

In a plan such as this, where it is essential that the public must be convinced that Arab terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings, the most convincing "evidence" of this would naturally be from recorded "phone calls" supposedly having been made by passengers on the planes involved. With "passenger" callers stating that their planes had been hijacked by Arab terrorists, the public would have little, or no reason whatever, to believe anything other than that the story fed to them by government and media was true and verified by the passengers. This would have been considered a critical factor to a successful deployment of the plan. The planners knew there would be some risk if the actual callers talked long enough, so the calls were purposely kept very brief, and limited to establishing the "facts" as to what was supposedly happening on the flights.

Problem is, this is the only way you can explain away the phone calls.

No, Jim, it is not. Fact is, the truth about the reported 9/11 cell phone calls came out in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006. In that case, the government's own evidence, concerning flight 93 (which Mark Bingham was on), severely contradicts the 911 Commission, and media reports, that at least 10 cell phone calls were made from flight 93, including the Mark Bingam call, and 4 calls reported by Deena Burnett to have been made by her husband Tom. Deena stated that her caller id identified the calls (supposedly from her husband) as coming from his cell phone number. But a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified at the Moussaoui trial that, "In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls [on GTE seat back phones] and two cell phone calls, to family members and airline dispatchers." This was reported by trial reporter Greg Gordon, in “Prosecutors Play Flight 93 Cockpit Recording,” KnoxNews.com, April 12, 2006. The two cell phone calls on flight 93 were identified by the government as having been made by passenger Edward Felt and flight attendant CeeCee Lyles. The distinctive thing about the calls from Felt and Lyles is that they both reportedly occurred at 9:58AM, after United 93 had descended to about 5,000 feet. In 2001, it was virtually impossible for cell phone calls to be made on aircraft at elevations much above that level, since cellphone towers have highly directional antennas that transmit and receive signals parallel to the ground. And aside from the Felt and Lyle calls, all other said cell phone calls on all 4 of the 9/11 flights were made at times when these planes were flying at high altitudes. For example, a said cell phone call by Barbara Olson from American Airlines flight 77 (the Pentagon plane) was supposedly made at a time, according to NTSB flight data recorder info, when the plane was at 25,000 feet. This call story was later changed by Barbara's husband, Ted Olson, who was then the US Solicitor General, who stated the call must have been made using a seat back airline phone. This explanation fails scrutiny, though, since American Airlines has confirmed that their 757's did not have airline phones on 9/11, neither for passenger nor crew usage. Crews communicated to ground stations by other means. Thus, no phone calls of any kind were made from flight 77.

So there you have it, Jim. Since only two of the several reported cell phone calls on the four 9/11 flights were even possible, what does that tell us? The answer, of course, is that any of the other reported calls that were actually made were made on the ground, either by victims forced to comply with perpetrator demands, or by the perps themselves using voice synthesis technology.

Now here's another question for you:
Question #4: If you were being held hostage and had a gun placed against your head, would you comply with a demand to call your wife and read from a short script handed to you, or would you refuse and choose to be shot?

I would assume that most people in this situation, with the exception of a very brave individual, would choose to comply. After seeing the threat carried out on that individual, though, how many more would choose to die? This brings up one final point. Let's assume that Mark Bingham was confronted in this manner, and chose to read the script, but let's also assume that perhaps he was clever enough to intentionally "blow it" when speaking to his mother in an attempt to alert her to the call being staged. If Mark did make the call, then this is the only plausible reasoning behind the bizarreness of it, as I'm sure most any reasonable thinking person would agree.

Rick

[rickoff]

Sanders is totally unique in the Senate. He is an Independent. And he has walked the walk all his career. The only other Senator i have heard say anything similar on the Floor of the Senate, was Paul Wellstone; and he died in a mysterious plane crash over 7 years ago.

Yes, that certainly was a very questionable "accident," happening just 11 days before Wellstone, in all likelihood, would have been reelected.

I may have been a bit too harsh on Bernie, and I would be the first to agree that it was better to have at least a partial Fed audit than none at all. Even getting the Senate to consider an audit was like pulling teeth, and an attempt to water down the audit in a similar fashion was introduced under the Watt amendment a year ago. My statement about Bernie selling out the people, by caving in to pressure from the Fed, the Treasury, and the White house, was made in regards to Ron Paul's sentiment concerning Bernie's agreement to water down the language of Ron's Audit The Fed bill, thus making it far less potent than Ron intended. Bernie's "compromise" was what the Obama administration and banking interests wanted - to allow the TARP and TALF to be audited, but no transparency of monetary policy decisions, discount window operations or agreement with foreign central banks. While the watered down audit did produce some revealing results, the worst of the Fed's despicable actions continues to remain hidden. Hopefully, though, with the release of Bernie's audit data causing public outrage, and a demand for further and stronger audits, Congress will wake up, listen, and take real action. To help speed this along, note that Ron Paul is in line to become Chairman of the House Subcommittee for Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology! That must surely be Ben Bernanke's worst nightmare scenario come true.

[dutchdivco]

Bugler, Part 1

TOP SECRET FOR YOU
OPERATION NEW ERA
TO: THE DIRECTOR FROM: #2 RE: #3'S MORPHING PROPOSAL

Sir, I wanted to personally share with you my severe reservations regarding #3's proposal.
As I stated in the meeting, I feel the costs and risks of this addition to an already complicated project far outweigh the negligible benefits.to wit;
Alleged benefit;
To give 'irrefutable proof' to the American people that the 19 hijackers did this. We already know, from previous operations, that the majority will believe our cover story; they always do.Similarly, we know there will be a percentage who will never believe the cover story.They will examine everything minutely, looking for some sign of a conspiracy. And, we already have a time tested way of dealing with this, thru discrediting, calling them kooks, etc.Worked before, and it will work, again.So, in my mind there is simply no need for this morphing proposal to be implemented.
Costs and risks;Firstly, additional agents who will have to be 'in the know' about this project, in order to act as 'morphers'.Yes, we have used this morphing technic before with great success.The Sec.Gen of the U.N project was a great success. However, we have only used it with 1 individual at a time, for a very limited and specific purpose.And not to have the kind of conversations #3 is talking about.Sir, as you know my father died last year, of cancer.So, all the family had the opportunity to have our 'last conversation' with him. Without going into details, just let me say, in this kind of conversation, there is no way to anticipate where it might go.Many families have deep dark secrets.Indescretions, lies and cheating, molestations,etc.Those in the know committed to carrying the secrets to their grave. When they learn a loved one is dieing, the reasons for keeping the secrets no longer seem relevent.Some examples of what could happen;
Our agent is morphing John, a 57y.o., married for 35 years to Mary.After the 'standard intro'
Seen the news, my plane hijacked, gonna die, just called to say I love you' etc.
Mary says; Sorry to tell you this now, but won't have another chance to make a clean breast of it, and ask your forgiveness; I've been having an affair with (your brother, your best friend, the next door neighbor) George for the past 3 years. I'm sorry, please forgive me, it just happened!
And or morphed John says,...WHAT?
Mary you slut!etc. or...I haven't been paying enough attention to you, in the bedroom or out, I understand and forgive you and George.
Mary says, "In the few moments we have left, lets remember the best times we spent together. Remember when we stayed in that motel with the jacuzzi bathtubs in the room, what was the name of that place? I never can remember, but you always do. What was that name, John?"
Mary says, John, you know how I love it when you talk dirty to me.I know you never do it on the phone, only when we're in bed together, but how bout 1 last time, for me to remember when your gone?"
And John says "Sorry, gotta go" Mary; "Gotta go? Where you going?The plane hasn't crashed yet, your families all dead, we have no friends, who are you hanging up with me so you can call? John, do you have a Mistress? John, ANSWER ME!!!!
Out of character answers are simply too likely to occer.This is nothing like morphing the voice of a call girl, and blackmailing the Sec. Gen of the U.N.Thats a very specific conversation, with very little chance of going off coarse. Much different than these conversations.
And then there are the agents who would be doing the morphing.Not only are we having 40-80 additional agents who are in on the plan.They have to live with the part they have played. The public thinks of our people as cold emotionless automotons, willing to follow whatever orders they are given. We know different.They would have to live with the guilt of cynically decieving these relatives about something so intimate, so,.. sacred if you will.I suspect this would weigh on them, over time, until like the man in the "Tell Tale Heart", they would be compelled to break.So, for operational security we would have to terminate 40 to 80 of our own agents, for operational security.The termination process would have to be nearly simultaneous, or they may catch on and realised they had to go public, to save themselves.So, these are some of the risks, and some of the costs. And, of coarse theres the '4th plane', that #3 wants to create a phony crash site in Pennsylvania, and force the real passengers to make phone calls at gun point. Whats that all about? I swear i think #3 has lost his mind.
Which brings me to the final point.Bringing this idea to us, without subjecting it to this type of critical thinking, in and of itself, causes me to have serious concerns about #3.
His decision not to paint our planes to look like the airliners, because 'nobody will notice' is nothing short of ludicrous.They're OUR planes, in OUR secure hangers! We've got OUR people making the modifications to them, already. People fully capable of painting airline logos on them. They'll be taking off from OUR secure airfields, and following flightpaths and at altitudes which insure no one will see them until the event. #3's insistence that they don't need to be painted, along with this new proposal, convince me we must make some personell adjustments, of a permanent nature. #4 is fully knowledgeable of all aspects of the operation, and I feel very confident she can take over, after #3's,...departure.
As always, awaiting your orders, sincerely etc.

[dutchdivco]

Bugler, Part 2

Its perfectly acceptable to use sarcasm in a debate, when it further elucidates an argument you are making, or offers a valid rebuttal of an opponets argument.See Bugler, part 1.
You seem to be making the argument, "19 guys with boxcutters, and some guy in a cave, couldn't possibly have pulled this off."
I suspect this, and "No way a plane crashing into it, could have brought down one of those towers" are the basis, the starting point, for all conspircy theorists.
This is very understandable. I suspect on Sept. 12, 13, 14, etc. most everyone in the U.S. and even the world was thinking this. It just seems incomprehensible.HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!!
To then say, it must have been a Government, or Jewish, or Ruling class conspiracy, involving thousands of not only run of the mill Gov't employees, but civilians as well, stretches credulity even more.
And, you didn't answer my question; With all the planning, and expertise to secrete demolitions in the buildings without anyone knowing, all the rest of the complicated things "THEY" are credited with doing, Why in the HELL wouldn't they paint their planes to look like the airliners?!!!Answer that, and you can be as sarcastic as you like.

[dutchdivco]

Rickoff

Ah,Ah, no fair. I asked you first, and you still haven't answered.Same question I just asked Bugler. With all the planning and preparation, secreting explosives in several occupied buildings without anyone being aware, diverting planes and holding guns to the passengers heads to force them to make calls, having agents morph to make other calls,making planes fly remotely, and crashing them into buldings, etc. etc. Why in the world WOULDN'T they paint their planes to look like the airliners?

It would be 1 thing if painting the planes was going to be really difficult, but painting a plane is childsplay, compared to some of the things you are asking me to believe they did.

or if they didn't know, in advance, what plane (airliner and airline) they were going to subsequently tell us was the one that flew into the second tower, so therefore had no way of knowing how it should be painted.But according to you, they did know well in advance. (And why wouldn't they, the airline schedules are set well in advance).


Or, if the planes weren't under their possesion prior to 'The Event" so they had no opportunity to paint them correctly, but then where did they get them from, and how did they fly them remotely.I should think you would want to do some 'test flights', with pilots on board to take over if there were any problems, just to make sure the remote system was working right.

So, Why Didn't they paint them correctly? Thought no one would notice simply doesn't fly.Especially since it would have been so easy to paint them correctly, and then there wouldn't be anything for anyone to not notice.

[bugler]

Ah,Ah, no fair. I asked you first, and you still haven't answered.Same question I just asked Bugler. With all the planning and preparation, secreting explosives in several occupied buildings without anyone being aware, diverting planes and holding guns to the passengers heads to force them to make calls, having agents morph to make other calls,making planes fly remotely, and crashing them into buldings, etc. etc. Why in the world WOULDN'T they paint their planes to look like the airliners?

I think you are a disinfo agent.

The basis of the conspiracy is not "No way a plane crashing into it, could have brought down one of those towers" Either you haven0t read nor watched nothing about 911 or you are a disinfo agent. There are so many evidence that what you just say talks loud about you.

Why didn't they paint the planes white? Ask the jews who did it not me. I don't know why they are so stupid. Maybe cause the average IQ of that group is 94 and not 135 as they claim.IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I won't enter in a debate with you cause I honestly think you are a disinfo agent. Disinfo agents keep repeating the same nonsense no matter how much info you give them. They "pretend" to be morons who can't understand 2 + 2 = 4 and keep and keep talling about stupid details(white planes?) that change nothing.
If rickoff is willing to spend countless hours giving you information that you won't read, I am not. Go on protecting the jewish cirminal network. It is going to be destroyed anyway cause the truth is getting spread.

[Joit]

@Dutchvico,
for the feeling comfortable, it was more in the Sense of
believing any from the Information they do give you.
When i shall estimate, what Informations are good from Gouvernments,
the i would say it is about 20%, and this only in Areas, what are not importend,
and the rest is BS, no matter if it is Education, Science, different Fields of Politics or social living, News, Medicine, Financal System or for Future Thinking.

But oh well, do the test and ask some neutral structural engineer,
what he do think about Buildings what do crash like falling straight down after some floors are damaged. If this is possible or not.

I did see the Buildings fall at this Days, and seriously, even i did think,
now they did blast it, but no, the Speaker said different.
There is asolute no Way that Buildings fall like this,
and it is brainwashed, to think otherwise.
In case you did not know, 6 Months later after 9/11
a Plane with 6 chief blaster did crash at the Atlantic without any survivor.
There are way more evidence to find, that the Official Story dont match
as trying to stick at some Statements what been given out afterwards.
And as you see it is not only about Conspiracy but it creates Doubts.

Even that they removed all remains after one Week, actually fast as possible,
when ie at other Planecrashes parts of the Plane are keeped forever,
is this not really the Way, what the bureaucratic Gouvernment usual do,
just because a G.W Bush states, " We know allready how it did happen".
Further when it is proven, that they did blast it by her own,
then you cant do this at a forenoon, it takes about 3 Weeks
or more to prepare the Buildings.
And then, you must actually admit, that the Irak War is a Lie,
Al Quaida is a Lie Bin Laden is a Lie, the Patriot Act is a Lie,
this whole War on Terror is a Lie, and understandable, that this is,
what the Gouvernment can be scared from.

[dutchdivco]

Joit and Bugler

Joit
Someone has said "When judgeing Gov't actions, if the choice is between Conspiracy and Incompetence, I'll put my $ on Incompetence. And I'll be right, about 99.9 % of the time." Don't know who said it, and not sure I got it word-for word, but thats the jist. And, comes pretty close to my position.
In the same vein, when it comes to Gov't. lieing, or covering up, I would say that its far more often lieing to cover up their incompetance rather than to cover up a conspiracy.
Bugler,
Again with the accusation of being a Disinfo agent. This really adds nothing to the debate, which is a debate between me and Rickoff. He said to me. "Alright, Jim lets have a debate."(paraphrasing here) If you choose not to participate in this debate, thats fine and certainly your choice, and it in no way precludes you from participating in other aspects of this thread on "The American Ruling Class."However, for you to withdraw from this debate, as you seem to be doing, and then later jump back in by posting on this 911 conspiracy debate, would be an unviable position; your either in, or out. Eithers fine with me, just if your out, stay out.Otherwise, its just 'comments from the peanut gallery."

[aljhoa]

Unskillful debates or arguments dilute this thread and the untruth may prevail.
Convey the facts and let the reader makeup their mind.

how to win every debate - Google Search

Al