The American Ruling Class

[ABCStore]

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."

Main goal of [any] government is to pretend to fail. Nothing, NOTHING, happens accidentally.

Again with the accusation of being a Disinfo agent.

Do your own research, watch video clips, they are available. Until then, you sound like one. Very much so.

ABC

[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.

Maybe big Words from someone,
but seems, who did not have the Informations what you can find today at the Net.
Earlier you got your Informations from Medias and News,
and had to make your Picture to your own. Nothing else.
But since a lot Peoples do share what they know,
and not only some Publisher, what only spread this News,
what equals her own thinking, you can get way more Backround about
a lot of processes.
Then Incompetence will take just the 2nd Place.
Just look at the Financial Scandal.
Did anyone guess, that all ends up at a Ben Bernanke,
What only says at the Question, whom they did give the Billions,
" I dont tell that" or " I dont know this".
He do know, that is for sure, and he covers still a Group, what dont wanna be public.
And compare, without this Backround info, as we did get over Videos or reports,
(No Medias did actually report about this Statement from him,
what is actually just a Slap into anyones Face who is some honest)
what would be yor Opinion, why we get a crisis,
which they did cover up for decades with only printing Money for Air Money,
what they do create from Interests and Credits.
Because we work to less and get to much payment?

They do very well know, what they do, and the cases where it looks like Incompetence are actually a very less Rate, but pushed big, that it seems like,
it is what the whole Gouvernment is.
Look at the intelligence services, do you think, they need Incompetence Peoples?
They may wanna look like, Big, slow and clumsy,
but when it is about to, to force through a new law for her Advantage,
then they can do it at one Day.
But this is the best prejudice, that you are willing to forgive them.
And the best Hideout, where a Ruling Class can hide behind it.

[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?

I thought that I answered that question quite sufficiently, and you could answer it yourself by responding to my question #2 in post #1057 - Did you, or anyone you know, notice the out of character markings or paint job before I pointed them out here? Having an exact match really did not matter to the conspirators, and why should it? After all, any of the actual involved planes that did crash were destroyed, with any evidence whatsoever that they were not the reported flights being removed by the government. And they weren't concerned that someone might somehow figure out, as I did from video evidence, that markings or paint did not match. If the question ever came up in a way that threatened the conspirators, they would surely produce countless "experts" who would say that the video evidence was deceiving due to the high speed of the plane, constantly changing lighting conditions and shadows, the resolution quality of the video being poor when segments are zoomed in for detail, and I am sure many other factors. And in the worst case scenario, of course, they could simply declare that the video was faked by the person who said he shot it from the river. In fact, that may very well be the case. The video sequence shows the plane continually approaching the south tower on a level flight path, which is totally contrary to the NTSB stated flight data recorder information. That information has the plane continuously descending until impact in a steep dive from a high altitude. So, let's assume, for a moment, that the video was indeed faked - an assumption that would be correct if the NTSB did not lie. Under this assumption, and much to your delight I'm sure, my "wrong markings and paint" evidence would of course be ruled invalid. Therefore, we would have nothing left to discuss concerning flight 175 other than my proof to you that it was still flying 1 hour and 22 minutes after the WTC south tower had been impacted. So let's just cancel otherwise endless speculation about the wrong markings and paint and focus on irrefutable fact - that whatever hit the south tower, it was not flight 175. With that fact firmly in mind, aren't we then compelled, as persons of reasonable intelligence, to ask why the government and mass media told us that it was flight 175?

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.

The art of remotely controlling aircraft has been perfected for many years, and is no secret. Between 1976 and 1983, NASA had already conducted twenty six remote piloted missions using a HIMAT research derivative aircraft that had strong similarities to the F-16 design. HIMAT is an acronym for "Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology." In 1984, 17 years before 9/11, a Boeing 720 aircraft was outfitted with remote control devices and successfully flown, for a controlled impact demonstration, remotely by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. The entire flight, from takeoff to crash landing was accomplished with near pin point accuracy. Understand that the plane was intended to, and did in fact, crash into a designated barrier wall in a simulated passenger jetliner crash. Here's a photo of the crash sequence just prior to impact with the eight-post barricade:



While the dragging left wing pulled the tail to the right of the afore laid out crash site centerline, the nose was lined up perfectly. In the air, of course, the wing would not have dragged. In any case, is this accuracy not close enough for either of the twin tower impacts? And is there any reason for us to think that the technology would not have been significantly improved upon in the 17 years intervening between this 1984 test and 9/11/2001?

Obviously the NASA Dryden Research Center has undoubtedly equipped many other aircraft types with this remote controlling technology, and it would have been no problem to so equip, or use already so equipped government planes, for the 9/11 missions. It would not have been necessary to install this technology on the American or United Airlines aircraft that were simply reported to have been involved. Having said that though, a review of Boeing documentation shows that the 757/767 flight computer already had nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions. A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) on these planes provides for automatic guidance and control of the plane from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. A simple software upload can precisely direct the plane automatically to its programmed destination after the autopilot system is engaged.

Now with all that out of the way, Jim, I will expect to be hearing your answers to my 4 simple questions in post #1057, unless of course you are willing to concede that 9/11 did not happen as officially reported, and was most definitely an inside job. Remember, I have shown you irrefutable and verifiable evidence which proves that the "official" stories about flight 77, flight 175, and cellphone calls from planes, are utterly false fabrications. So far, you have not produced even one scrap of contrary evidence concerning these matters, and instead cling to your theory that if 'they' did not go to the effort of properly painting and marking a plane that the whole idea of a conspiracy is absurd. Well, I have taken that totally out of the equation for you, so now it is time to focus on the facts. Go after the facts that I have submitted to you, and prove them incorrect if you think you can. But stick to factual evidence, rather than suppositions. Attack the integrity of my facts if you can, but don't throw out straw man arguments while ignoring the facts.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Spread THE TRUTH, or not?

You, and a small, (in relation to the total population) # of people know THE TRUTH.
Now, you can ,virtually speaking, sit around in various forums, 'sharing' the truth with each other.Certainly nothing wrong with fellowship. However, this is 'preaching to the choir'; its not 'spreading' the truth, or gaining new converts.Especially if any time a non-believer enters, and expresses doubts, or subjects your beliefs to critical thinking, they are shunned, accused of being a disinformation agent, or have their intelligence insulted.
Seems to me, in order to spread THE TRUTH, you must prosteletise (sp?).
You must talk to those who don't believe, and 'educate' or enlighten them as to THE TRUTH.This requires recognising that they are starting out from a position of not believing, and are therefore sceptical and questioning.Therefore, seems to me, you need to be patient, and confident of your belief, and therefore willing to have it subjected to CRITICAL THINKING.To have these non-believers express their doubts, and ask their questions.To, in fact WELCOME their questions and expressions of doubt.This is, after all, the only way you can allay their doubts, and convince them of your belief, which is essential to them accepting the truth.

Or, you can sit around chatting only with fellow believers, and shunning or driving any non-believers away with insults.But that won't bring 1 new convert to your cause.Jim

[dutchdivco]

Rickoff

"So far, you have not produced even one scrap of contrary evidence concerning these matters, and instead cling to your theory that if 'they' did not go to the effort of properly painting and marking a plane that the whole idea of a conspiracy is absurd."
I don't believe I said that this one point was critical to the whole debate.In debating, its common for A to present an argument. B counters that argument.A has no viable refutation to that argument.And so a says "I concede the point."It is generally understood A is not conceding the debate, just the 1 point. And, they move on.This is, in effect what has happened.And I have been prepared all along to agree this 1 point is not critical to the debate. It was evidence you submitted, and I attempted to refute it.So, we move on.By the way, I have participated in many debates where 1 side conceded several such points, and still won the debate.
I am simply trying to subject your arguments or evidence to critical thinking, trying to take it 1 point at a time. Naturally, when i see what appears to be a hole, or weakness, I'm going to exploit it.No harm, no foul.
By the way, have you ever read or better yet listened to "THE SPEACH"?
If you haven't, based on your politics, you will LOVE it.I was 5 years old at the time, and so the only way I found out about it was from my dad.He was a big Goldwater supporter, and so was listening to the radio, and eagerly anticipating Goldwaters acceptance speech, at the Republican Convention.You know, "Extemism in the defence of Liberty is NO vice!"
Anyway, when the announcer introduced the keynote speaker, my Dad didn't even pay attention to the name, cause he wanted to hear Goldwater. "Come on!" he's saying to the radio. And then,.. THE SPEECH started. He said within the first minute he said to himself "Who the F*CK IS this guy?!!!", and immediately pulled over into a parking lot, so he could concentrate on listening to the speech.When it was over he was cheering and banging on the steering wheel.Anyway, his telling me this story motivated me to go online and google it. You can download a recording of it, but my computer can't handle it, so I had to settle for prinitng it out. That was before my printer died.Anyway, based on you posting of your political views, if you weren't already aware of it, I think you might really get a kick out of it. I framed it and hung it on my wall. Read it every couple of days.
Before you look, do you know who the F*ck that guy was? You probably do.

[dutchdivco]

Berman Call

A man called his Mother. :"Hows things going, Mom?""Well, not too good.""Whats wrong?""Well, I'm really hungry, but I'm not sure I've got the strength to get to the kitchen, to get something to eat" "OH my God, are you sick?Whats wrong?" "No, I'm not sick, I just haven't eaten anything in 28 days""Mom, I don't understand! If your not sick, why haven't you eaten anything in 28 days?" "Because, dear, I didn't want my mouth to be full when my Son called." (She's giving her Son Hell, for not calling more often, you see.)

Called my sister last week.When she answered, I said "This is Jim (Last name). There was a pregnant silence, so I filled it with "Your brother." I then proceeded to explain why I had called.
I realise to some, this may seem aberrant behavior.Allow me to explain. I like my sister, and her husband, and their kids.And they like me and my wife. I don't believe we have ever had any kind of a disagreement, unlike some of my other siblings. My sister and her family live 6 miles from me.The last time I talked to her on the phone was 1 1/2 years ago, when we were making arrangements for my Dads funeral.And, of coarse i saw her at the funeral.
The last time I talked to her before that was probably 1 1/2 years earlier, when my other sister's Husband was flying out from OHIO, (where they live) to attend a funeral of an old vietnam buddy.I picked him up at the airport, cause i don't work, and drove him to my sisters, where he was going to be staying while in town.I've probably talked to each of my sisters once every from 6 mos to 1 1/2 years, on the phone, and seen them even less.
My Mother died when I was 19. When my Dad moved to OHIO, to live with my sister, I talked to him probably every 4-6 mos, although it got more frequent towards the end.
You call up a family member and say "Hi, this is Jim", and they reply "Jim WHO?" and you learn real quickly to save time by saying your first and last name, and even adding your relationship to speed things along.
I know there are adults who call there parents every week, and some perhaps even every
nite. I have heard enough about parents pissing and moaning that their adult children 'never call' to know that this is not the norm.There is no norm. Each of my daughters totally severed their relationship with their Mother, and haven't seen or spoken to her in years. (Not my idea, but I can't really blame them. I Divorced her, and haven't talked to her in years either.)
I have a Brother no one in the family has heard from in over 20 years.
I suppose there are Father Knows Best/Walton kind of families. They are very lucky, I suppose. There are also many 2 1/2 men, Married with Children type 'disfunctional families, as well. I tried to make this point earlier, with my toungue in cheek "MEMO"; family dynamics are very complicated. Almost indecipherable to an outsider. So, I don't find it unusual or suspicious that a son would call his Mom and say his first and last name.Its understandable that as boorish and insensitive as they are, no interviewer would say "Mrs. Bingham, Why did your son introduce himself to you with his full name?" and put her in the position of saying, what? "Because my ungrateful son only calls me every year or two, and then only when he wants something? The bastards just like his Father!" Not exactly proper for a grieveing Mother on National TV, know what I mean?

Re; Question #4. I decide along time ago that if someone ever 'jacked' me, and told me to drive while they pointed a gun at me, I'd drive. At full throttle;"Want me to slow down, throw the gun out the window!Otherwise its full speed, till we wreck!"
Similarly, If someone held a gun to my head, and said "Read the script, or we'll kill you", And even if they said "And if you say anything off script, we'll not only kill you" I'd make the call, start the script and then say"Its all a lie"BLAM. Hey, their gonna kill me, either way.As for my family, there gonna die. We all are. Its only a question of when, and how.Sooner they die, sooner they can join me in Heaven.And, I ain't gonna co-operate with my killers. Would every person act this way. Undoubtedly not.But there are always some who simply won't submit to coercion. And the plotters could not be sure. Sure, they could kill the family, and recover the 'BLAM" message/conversation recording. But this still seems to me like a high risk low benefit and unneccesary addition to an already extremely complicated operation.Put it another way.Everything is the same, on Sept.11th. Only thing is no messages/calls from the passengers, to their families.Do you really think that would have caused the majority of Americans to say "Hey, this was a massive Gov't Conspiracy! Now, I would believe the Gov't version, except their were NO cell phone calls from the passengers.How come not one of them called their loved ones to say goodbye.Thats proof their lieing to us!"
Then it wouldn't be absolutely neccesary to the plan, to fabricate/coerce the phone calls.This whole plot is totally contra to the KISS principle, (Keep it simple, Stupid) already.Why go to the effort, expence, and risk. It just don't make sense.At least to me.

[rickoff]

Seems to me, in order to spread THE TRUTH, you must prosteletise (sp?).

That's proselytize, actually. By the way, Jim, I have wondered why it is that you use an "s" in certain words where I would use a "z." I know this is an oddity of the English language in that those who live in the UK, or countries that were British colonies, seem to do this with many words. Therefore I would assume that you probably didn't grow up or go to school in the US, even if perhaps you do live here now. Is that correct?

You must talk to those who don't believe, and 'educate' or enlighten them as to THE TRUTH.This requires recognising that they are starting out from a position of not believing, and are therefore sceptical and questioning.Therefore, seems to me, you need to be patient, and confident of your belief, and therefore willing to have it subjected to CRITICAL THINKING.To have these non-believers express their doubts, and ask their questions.To, in fact WELCOME their questions and expressions of doubt.This is, after all, the only way you can allay their doubts, and convince them of your belief, which is essential to them accepting the truth.

Jim, are you aiming this at me, or at others who frequent this forum? I know that some others have been impatient with you, but I have welcomed your questions, done my level best to answer them fully and politely, and have provided you with a great deal of truthful and verifiable information. I think that the reason why some of the others have grown so impatient with you is because it would appear, from your responses, that you refuse to acknowledge or discuss the factors which I have already proven. Naturally, it makes the others think that you haven't even read what I have presented, and that I am just wasting valuable time on you. I would hope that they are wrong, and that you will critically analyze my presentations and feel free to ask further questions if there is something you don't understand. At the same time, though, I would appreciate you responding to questions that I have posed to you. This process needs to be a two way street, so to speak. For example, I'd appreciate hearing what you now think regarding whether or not flight 175 flew into the WTC2 tower. Do you still believe that (the official story), knowing that the plane was still flying 82 minutes later? And, if so, then why? I'm not trying to make things difficult for you, or to assault your intelligence. I would simply like to hear your honest answer. Same goes for the Pentagon plane, flight 77. Do you still think AA77 struck the Pentagon, after I have shown that is a virtual impossibility? If so, then why? I thought that I had thoroughly explained this impossibility, but if you still don't quite understand why it would have been impossible then I would gladly elaborate further on that. To me, this is an exercise in truth. Although there is a mountain of evidence available that is in contradiction to the government story of 9/11, I have purposely chosen to cite only what I consider to be the most irrefutable and damning evidence. Unlike the government, I don't expect anyone to simply take my word that my evidence is factual and truthful. I would hope that you would analyze and research everything I have shown you with a magnifying glass. After that, I would hope that you would concur with my findings, but if not then that is still okay. I would still feel that my postings have served a useful purpose in that a great many people enter this thread regularly to read and learn from it. So far there have been more than 35,500 reads, so you can see that not everyone who reads here on a frequent basis actually posts to the thread. Some are just content to read and learn, and that is fine with me. I am glad to have participants, though, and welcome anyone to post questions or information relevant to this thread.

Best regards,

Rick

[rickoff]

Re: THE SPEECH

I'm pretty sure I know the one you mean, as I have heard it before as spoken by Ronald Reagan, and it seems just as relevant today as it was back then. I think the speech was also known as A Time For Choosing, but I'm not entirely certain of that. Only thing is, though, I don't recall Reagan making the speech at the 1964 Republican convention, but did hear him recite it on some TV program later that year. Oh well, maybe it's just a touch of brain fog setting in. I'd better hit the sack before the sun comes up.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Rickoff

Sorry, that post was not aimed at you. I would agree you have been courteous,etc.By the bt, i was just falling asleep when i realised an error. Goldwater was preparing to run in the election of 64, not 60. And while its possible for my Dad to be rooting for Barry in 64, when I was 9, (not 5) and have me still be from Britain, I'm not. Put down my misuse of z's and s's to good ole American Public Education, or perhaps a recurring brain fart!
Born in 1955, in USA, and of American born parents, I might add!(Take that Barry Sareno, or whoever you are!) Lived here my whole life.
I am attempting to answer your questions, or express mine, or address your 'arguments' (in debating terms) or the evidence. as I am able.
I do this at night, after my wife goes to bed. Wonder if your not similar, as I've noticed that twice now you've been posting while or just after me. Course, maybe your in a different time zone.For some of these longer posts, I'm writing them in Word first, and then c/p into the forum. Easier that way.
We've put aside the paint issue, I've responded to the Berman call. I have a responce on the newscrew with the air traffic control screen showing the plane still flying, in my head. just haven't gotten it written, yet.Also the Airlines failure to post the times of the 2 flights, in violation of FAA regulations.So, I feel like I have been responding. Sometimes i think about it for a day or so. As I think I earlier conceded, the Professor would give you an A for research, and I'd be lucky if I got a D.You are very familiar with the material, I am just going by my understanding form media reports, in depth reports like frontline (PBS)
and mostly, by the explanation I worked out for myself, as I tried to understand "What just happened here, and How did it happen?" i.e 9/12
And yes, I realise there are a lot viewing this. In fact, I know (on the web) there are 'pro conspiracy' sites, and forums, and their are 'anti conspiracy' sites and forums. Both of which tend to talk primarily to themselves, while insulting the 'other side'. I wonder if this is the first time 2 people have attempted what we're doing.Really talking and listening to each other, and debating the issue?Sorry if you feel I am not responding quickly enough. I m reading it, and thinking about my replies. And, I do have alife. (And the wife gets a little pissed, when I'm out here typing away, instead of in bed sleeping.Go figure! Will try to get thos 2 responces posted as soon as I can.By the way, these were more challenging, hence more time. Jim

[dutchdivco]

Good night, and God Bless

I'm pretty sure I know the one you mean, as I have heard it before as spoken by Ronald Reagan, and it seems just as relevant today as it was back then. I think the speech was also known as A Time For Choosing, but I'm not entirely certain of that. Only thing is, though, I don't recall Reagan making the speech at the 1964 Republican convention, but did hear him recite it on some TV program later that year. Oh well, maybe it's just a touch of brain fog setting in. I'd better hit the sack before the sun comes up.

Rick

Yes, it was called a time for choosing.It was a speech he had refined over several years, and he gave it with minor modifications at a variety of venues.But yes, he did give it at the keynote speech, at the Republican Convention. When I think 46 years ago, and its so prescient that if he were the same age now, he could ride that speech to the WH in 2012, thats incredible.

[bugler]

Regarding the ruling class, have you read about the protocols of the elders of Zion?

Here is a short video that mixes the ruling class protocols (jewish criminal network)with 911.

YouTube - how to achieve world conquest in 10 min

upate: Funny. I just saw another article mentioning the protocols and how nicely they fit into nowadays situation: NO ONE TO VOTE FOR: IRELAND: Does 'Protocol 20' sound familiar?

update: another video about the jews behind 911: YouTube - Australians Watch This: "Enemies Inside the Gates"

(I would suggest not to pay attention to disinfo agents.)

[dutchdivco]

Flight 175 still flying

Regarding flight 175 still flying, well after it was supposed to have hit the tower, as seen in the "Live" news broadcast.Firstly, wouldn't it have been an integral part of the plan, to make sure either the transponders were turned off, (on the plane) or having a jammer on board to jam the signal?
Secondly, assuming either human error or technical glitch caused this not to happen; Wouldn't THEY have been monitoring all news broadcasts, specifically watching for something like this, so it could be dealt with. Get someone working in the studio (either thru bribing or coercion) to get the tape so it could be destroyed?
So, the fact such a tape exists tends to argue against a conspiracy.
How do I explain the tape of the news broadcast, then.
I've been postponing addressing this, because I still haven't seen the tape.So, I realise this may simply not be a possible explanation, to anyone who views the tape.Please bear that in mind.

Television is a VISUAL medium. I'm sure news directors are regularly reminding there mobile news crews, when chewing them out.Look at your typical local news broadcast.You have the Anchor, reading the stories.Sometimes they have 2 Anchors, and they alternate reading them.Think about that, for a minute. 2 Anchors means twice the payroll, and even local anchors are paid pretty well. Why double their costs, for the station?Because the camera switches back and forth between the 2, and it creates more visual interest.
At some point, the anchor does the "Lead In" to a story, and intro's the 'On the Scene' reporter.The On the Scene reporter gives a brief account of the story. Usually during their bit, they will edit in 'continuity footage', I think its called.If its a fire, footage of the building burning, with fire hoses spraying. If its a shooting, a shot of a pool of blood on the ground (not from too close, want to titilate the audience, not gross them out). If theres no pool of blood, the little numbered tags the crime scene people put down, to mark the location of the shell casings.If its a hit and run, there is almost always the empty shoe.Always, sitting upright, (never on its side) on the asphalt.Then they cut back to the on scene reporter, well framed in front of police tape, or whatever background is appropriate, so you can see they are at the scene, as they continue their narrative. Then, as they finish there narrative, they sign off, and its "Back to you, Ted".
90% of the time, the information the on scene reporter is communicating, isn't anything that couldn't have been learned by phone call, and read by the anchor.On scene reporting is expensive; special equipped van, driver, camera man, reporter, and a technician in the van.A lot of $ just to give us the same info we could have got from the anchor. Why? Because television is a visual medium.If you have 2 local stations, 1 just has an anchor read the news, the other has the anchor periodically cut to on scene reports, people are going to watch the second. Even though they aren't really getting any more information.After all, if they were going to just watch someone read the news, they might as well listen to the radio, to get their news.
Now, how on scene newscrews do their job.As they are responding to the scene, they are listening to police and fire scanners, and already planning how they will report the story.Upon arrival, the reporter starts asking questions, of the officials, and, if appropriate, seeing if there are any bystanders/witnesses they can put on camera. Meanwhile, the camera man begins figuring out how they are going to frame the shot, i.e. whats going to be visible behind the reporter. And, he records the continuity footage, to give to the technician, in the van.i.e firemaen fighting the fire, shoe, blood pool or shell casings, etc.
The technician is setting up the microwave link with the studio, so they can transmit Live to the studio, and cues up the continuity footage, so its ready to go.
Now, a little about continuity footage.Seeing that empty shoe, while they are reporting a hit and run. It makes the story real.Its not just some anonymous person.Some viewers might even subliminally be imagining the person getting hit, and knocked right out of their shoes.
Actually, they show the shoe, because thats about all they have. The driver left the scene. The victim was quickly accessed at the scene, and then driven off in an ambulance, in most cases before the news crew arrived.The shoe is there (actually, both shoes, but they only ever show 1) because the paramedics removed them, to test for a Babinsky reflex, (a way to test for spinal/brain injuries) and to check for pulses. They leave the shoes because getting a critically injured persons shoes is not a priority for them. I saw a camera man kick a shoe off the sidewalk, out onto the asphalt. It landed on its side, so he went over and turned it upright with his foot.The shoe was a white tennis shoe. The side walk was white/grey cement. Much better contrast on the black asphalt.
Another continuity example, made up for illustration. An incident, doesn't matter what, happens on a city bus, and at a bus stop at 16th street and Watson.By the time the on scene crew arrives, its over. If anyone was arrested, their already on their way to jail, if anyone injured their already on the way to the hospital. The police got contact info on the bus driver and any passengers/witnesses, and advised them Detectives will be contacting them, and the bus continued its route.So, all the camera man has to film, for the continuity shot, is the bus stop.But then while the reporter is talking to the police, another city bus pulls up at the bus stop.The reporter quickly gets a shot of this bus, the bus stop, and then pans over to the street sign showing 16th St. and Watson.In the report, they don't bother to say "This isn't THE bus the incident occurred on, its just one thats just like it, tho." In there mind, they aren't deliberately misleading anyone, when they do this, or put the shoe where it will film better.Their just doing their job, cause "Television is a VISUAL MEDIUM. Otherwise, ya might as well get your news from the radio."
So, what might have happened on 9/11. #1Plane hits the tower. "Get someone over to the WTC complex right away."After some thinking along the lines of "How could this have happened?" ,..."Get someone over to ask air traffic control."
Upon arrival, reporter tries to find someone official to get information from. Cameraman chooses spot, to 'frame' picture. And then tries to get continuity shot.i.e. shot of air traffic control screen.But, Air traffic controllers are using screen, and they are blocking shot.Finally they move away for a short time, to confer with someone, and so he gets his shot.Its pretty chaotic and intense.They go on air.Reporter says "We're gonna try and get you a shot of the air traffic control screen" but cameraman shakes head no, as the shot is blocked. So, they go to the footage he shot earlier.This is fed into the signal by the technician, in the van, and goes to the studio as 1 segment. Any times recorded on the footage are the times broadcast/sent, not the original time the continuity footage was filmed.If I'm reading correctly, at the time the newscrew went on the air, the order had already gone out to bring all the planes down? If so, the air traffic controllers were extremely busy.Its not like the reporter could say, "Hey, you guys want to get out of the way, my cameraman needs to get a shot of your screen! Come on, your blocking our shot!"
On scene reporters do this kind of thing all the time.Look at the national news, with the reporters standing with the Whitehouse behind them.It may be that they didn't get the info. they're communicating to the viewers, from the whitehouse at all.But there is an inference.Anyway, if viewing the footage makes it obvious that this could not possibly be what happened in this instance, than I look foolish."There are no foolish questions", and thats really all I'm doing; asking questions.
My first to points would still apply, however.Why wouldn't they have done something to eliminate this evidence, in the days immediately following 9/11, and before anyone would realise its significance? Jim

[Joit]

Canadas Position to Israel.
YouTube - Fault Lines - Canada-Israel: The other special relationship
Ask yourself why it is Pro for Israel and not any other Countrys ie. Palestine.

[dutchdivco]

Regarding the cell phone calls

" 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."
No offence intended, Rick. You did say that unlike the Gov't you won't expect anyone to just accept anything you say.
Google is great, but it has its limitations. I simply couldn't find any information on what cell phones could and could not do, from airplanes, in 2001.If you know of any links which confirm this, it would be helpful.
As for what I know; I've never owned a cell phone, and doubt seriously I ever will. And I've never flown. I realise TV writers often take artistic license, to tell a story. I'm a big fan of the West Wing series, and have it all on DVD.
In its first show, first season, (started in 1999) Toby Ziegler, the Presidents communications director, is on an airplane. He gets a call, on his cell phone. The flight attendent says the captain is beginning his descent, and he'll have to turn off his cell phone, cause it can interfere with the planes navigation system.He replies "we're flying in a Boeing blah blah blah, that came off the line 18 mos. ago, it has a such and such state of the art navigation system, and your telling me I can flumox it with something I bought at radio shack?
Planes beginning descent, I'm thinking its over 5000 ft.
Another episode, 3rd season, so just after 911. Air Force 1's front landing gear won't go down.Can't land the plane.Lots of discussion about what altitude they are flying at. Shows a reporter, talking on a cell phone while at 25000'. (The plane, not the reporter). They try, for awhile, to keep the press on board from finding out about the landing gear, but eventually have to tell them. The reporters immediately start to use cell phones, both their own and the ones on the plane, to report the story. The press secretary orders all the planes cell phones turned off, and tells them if they are seen using a cell phone, (their own) it will be confiscated. As I said, i readily admit writers will fudge with reality in order to tell a story.But this is the only reference I have, as to what altitude a cell phone can and can not be used.
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.If in fact is was clearly impossible to make the cell phone calls from the planes, then I am even more confused.It didn't seem practical to me, for the planners to include this phony cell phone calls in their plan, as the risk outweighed the benefits. Now it seems that the risk has been changed to a certainty.
If I'm understanding you correctly, the planners went to all this trouble to fake these calls, and they had to know that the calls would be coming from planes, at an altitude that they couldn't possibly have been made from.Way to provide proof to the public.
Seems to me there are 2 kinds of errors, that can be committed in a project like this; errors in planning, and errors in execution.While either is, of coarse, possible, seems to me the former is more likely than the latter.
The Mark Bingham identifying himself to his Mom. While I have already addressed that, lets take your 'take' on that; either the person working from the script screwed up, or Mark was trying to send a message. Either way, that would be an example of an error in execution. Or, say, an equipment malfunction. Hey, stuff happens. You literally, have the eyes of the world on you, time pressure, and something happens.
In the planning, however. You have time. No ones watching. You can weigh carefully your options.To have included in your plan for the pasengers to make (faked, by either means) phone calls that they couldn't possibly have made is totally counterproductive. Might as well paint on the side of the plane YEAH, WE DID IT AND WE DON'T CARE THAT YOU KNOW WE DID!
To me, it makes no sense.
In the interest of full disclosure, It has occured to me that the phone calls could be totally authentic, without in any way detracting from or disproving the conspiracy.After all, the passengers were just reporting what they saw;Arab looking men shouting "ALLA AKHBAR" storming the flight deck, killing the crew and tossing them out, and then locking themselves in the flight deck. Nothing to say they didn't then set the auto pilot, or install additional devices to enable the plane to be flown remotely. Then, remove a floor panel and go down into the cargo hold and find their luggage, which contained parachutes, and bail out.Except, what about the plane in Pennsylvania? Why, if the passengers really did 'storm' the flight deck, didn't they get on the radio or their cell phones to say "There is no one on the flight deck, can you talk us down or something?" Ahh, the 'Terrorists" planned for that remote possibility; they set an explosive charge on the flight deck, with a motion detector.
Coarse, when the phoney terrorists opened the cargo hatch to parachute out, the passengers would have felt the decompression, (wouldn't they? I really don't know) And, the passengers were probably spending a lot of time looking out the windows, to try to figure out where they were.Might have seen the guys baling,...
I guess i fall back to my main point. If everything had occurred exactly the same on 9/11, except there had been NO cell phone calls from the passengers, what would have happened? Would there have been a tremendous hew and cry form the American People? Hey, this must be a Gov't (Or Jewish, Bugler) Conspiracy! Why? Because there were no cell phone calls from the passengers, thats why! If your answer is yes, most certainly, then the cell phone calls being faked had to be included as a part of the plan.
If your answer is no, there would have been no hew and cry, then I have to ask WHY would the people planning the operation include faking the cell phone calls? It just makes no sense, to me.Jim

[bugler]

I am beginning to think that the disinfo agent's intentions is to write long long answers (full of crap) to kill this thread.

So I will repost my last message:

Regarding the ruling class, have you read about the protocols of the elders of Zion?

Here is a short video that mixes the ruling class protocols (jewish criminal network)with 911.

YouTube - how to achieve world conquest in 10 min

upate: Funny. I just saw another article mentioning the protocols and how nicely they fit into nowadays situation: NO ONE TO VOTE FOR: IRELAND: Does 'Protocol 20' sound familiar?

update: another video about the jews behind 911: YouTube - Australians Watch This: "Enemies Inside the Gates"