The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Is there any untruth in the quotations you've provided regarding the "parasitic" nature of the Zionist Agenda?

I don't dispute that there are Jewish elites who are deeply involved in a conspiracy or Zionist Agenda. I am only saying that it is wrong to villify an entire ethnic group, Jewish or otherwise, as both Mullins and Hitler have. If you read Mullins' book, The Biological Jew, he goes into great detail to explain why The Jewish people are parasites, and makes no exceptions whatsoever. I'm saying that is plain wrong, outright racist, and that it rightfully does offend me. I am not Jewish, but my sister married a Jewish man and has two sons who were raised in the Jewish faith. Her husband is anything but a parasite. His father died when he was a young boy, and he worked his way through college by driving a taxi at night in New York City. He put himself through medical school, with no outside help, and later pursued additional studies to become an eye surgeon. Today he operates his own eye clinic and has two other doctors working with him. He is certainly well to do now, but he earned every bit of it the hard way and the honest way. Every year he spends two weeks traveling to third world countries to teach sight saving techniques to other doctors, while at the same time treating multiple patients free of any charges. Would you say that he is a parasite? Would you say that my sister, who now says that after being married more than 30 years to this man considers herself Jewish, is a parasite? Would you say that my nephews are parasites because they were born and raised in the Jewish faith? Mullins would, and so would Hitler.

[bugler]

Why is no one talking about the farm bill? It is another 1000 page monstrosity that has the potential to be bad news.

In my opinion we have to go to the root of the problem. If we get rid of the jewish criminal network then there will be no farm bills or similar criminal laws against all of us.

Let's solve the problem once and for all.

[Aaron]

two articles

Two articles to read, the second begs all of our action, please!

U.S. Pursues Sweeping Insider-Trading Probe - WSJ.com

Senate Bill 510 vote delayed until after Thanksgiving - Take action now to oppose food tyranny

[rickoff]

Your thread links both conspiracy theories, which is interesting, as mainstream thinking seems to feel that Obamas citisenship ? is a "right wing" issue, whereas 911 Gov't (BUSH) conspiracy is a "left wing issue". First time I had seen them linked, which may be an indication of my naivete in this area.


Perhaps you can answer some questions my friend was unable to answer, regarding 911. Were the planes which flew into the towers real airliners with real passengers, or were they Gov't. planes painted to look like airliners?

As you may know, there were four commercial airline planes said to be involved in the 911 incidents as "officially" reported by the government and media. These were:

1. American Airlines (AA) flight 11, said to have crashed into the World Trade Center (WTC) north tower (WTC1) at 8:46 am. Actually, neither AA flight 11 nor 77 (the Pentagon plane) were ever recorded as actually having taken off on 9/11. See the flights that never flew. While we will probably never know exactly what planes struck the twin towers, video and still photos show a bright flash occuring before both of the so-called flights 11 and 175 impacted with the towers. This mysterious flash definitely wasn't caused by sunlight reflection, as it can be seen in photos taken from several varying angles. This could quite likely be due to either impact from a missile fired from below the fuselage, or an explosive charge planted in the building wall and detonated just prior to impact. These flash sequences can be seen in slow motion in the video Loose Change, along with much other compelling info.

2. United Airlines (UA) flight 175, said to have crashed into the WTC2 south tower at 9:03 am. The plane shown in videos and still photos as crashing into WCT2 was not UA flight 175. The tail markings and paint job just doesn't match. Even more compelling is the fact that live FAA feeds showed that flight 175 was still flying an hour after it supposedly struck WTC2!

3. AA flight 77, said to have crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 am. In actuality, no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. (read posts 16 and 17 at this link, and view the video links) The damage to the Pentagon was caused by either a missile, or by carefully placed Thermite explosive charges, or a combination of these. The penetration damage was a much smaller, and single hole, than what would have been caused by the large aircraft and enormous titanium engines said to have crashed, and yet no significant debris was found on the ground outside. We were told that the raging fire, from all the jet fuel, consumed all the debris from the plane. Strange, then, that books and papers exposed on an office desk directly adjacent to the entry hole were not even singed. I believe this was clearly shown in the video 911 - In Plane Sight.

4. UA flight 93, said to have crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 am. No bodies, seats, luggage, or airplane parts such as engines or fuselage were found at the reported crash site. It is interesting to note that UA flight 93 was reported as having landed safely elsewhere.

To top it all off, the 911 Commision rejected its own report as based on government lies.

I went over, with my friend, about how the towers coming down looks just like a building being demolished, "You can even see the squibs going off!" and provided him with an alternative explanation he couldn't refute, and more importantly, that works for me.

How then do you explain the fact that traces of Thermite was found in the dust of the towers, or the collapse of WTC7, which was not struck by any plane, or that these three buildings were the only steel reinforced structures in history to completely collapse "due to fire"?

If you have a problem viewing videos that I link to, then you really need to get out to a friend's house to watch these. The evidence shown is very compelling, and will knock your socks off. Perhaps you could revisit the friend whom you debated, and you could both go through my post together.

Rick

[SeaMonkey]

I have studied the Obama eligibility question in depth, and have kept up with the many court cases. In none of them was there a decision upholding Obamas eligibility to serve as POTUS, and never has proof of Obama's eligibility been validated by any lawful evidence. So far, all cases were either dismissed simply as being frivolous (one judge had the gall to say that the question had already been vetted on the Internet), or dismissed on the grounds that those who brought the cases had insufficient legal "standing" to do so.

The Supreme Court has long held that "standing" is a status conferred only on those who have suffered a direct, concrete injury, and that an ideological objection to a government action, no matter how strongly felt, is insufficient for standing. To my reasoning, any person who voted in the 2008 Presidential election suffered a direct and concrete injury. Since the inclusion of Obama's name on both the primary ballots and final ballots was allowed without proper vetting to determine whether or not he was Constitutionally eligible to run for or serve as POTUS, everyone who did vote for Obama suffered the injury of having voted for a bogus candidate. And all who voted against Obama suffered the injury of their vote being nullified due to an ineligible candidate.

Some of the cases are still pending on appeals, but none have as yet been accepted for hearing by the Supreme Court. I believe that the Terry Lakin courmartial case, due to proceed to the final stages in December, is perhaps the most likely case to be finally overturned by the Supreme Court. Lakin's case is based upon the fact that he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and to obey only lawful orders. He contests that his order to deploy to Afganistan somes from a chain of command that is broken, and therefore illegal, if Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as POTUS and Commander in Chief (CIC). When reporting for a duty assignment, Lakin has to show his long form birth certificate, so he rightly reasons that the CIC should also be willing to, and compelled to, show his long form birth certificate.

Corporation U.S. must maintain an illusion that
the America of old is still intact - it does so by
clever manipulations. No formal "decision" will
be forthcoming which would expose the lie.

The "persons" who cast votes in the "elections"
in America are "registered voters." These "persons"
are an extension of the Corporation Created
"citizens" with NAMES and NUMBERS (Legal Entities)
and are NOT the People of the Constitution.
Since participation by those "persons" in any election
is voluntary how can there be any "injury?"

Corporation Elections are conducted in accordance
with the rules of the Corporation Constitution -
different from the Original Constitution and
applicable ONLY to the Corporation and all of its
CREATION.

The Corporation President (POTUS) is not the same
as the President of the Republic who was elected by
the state electors. Those elections of early America
no longer exist. Corporation U.S. has replaced the
Original Jurisdiction. The Constitutional "People" have
been replaced by NAMED and NUMBERED corporation
created LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY PERSONS.

All of this has been done Constitutionally (via several
'loopholes' in the original Constitution) and Legally.

The People have "volunteered" for what they have
received.

Every "official" whether "elected" or "appointed"
within the United States Government is filling a
Corporation Created Office as a Corporation Created
Business Entity Legal Person. This includes all
Military Officers.

Yes, unfortunately, "The People" have no "standing"
in this scheme of things.

The Social Security Act of 1935 enabled what we
have today: The New Deal.

[SeaMonkey]

I don't dispute that there are Jewish elites who are deeply involved in a conspiracy or Zionist Agenda. I am only saying that it is wrong to villify an entire ethnic group, Jewish or otherwise, as both Mullins and Hitler have. If you read Mullins' book, The Biological Jew, he goes into great detail to explain why The Jewish people are parasites, and makes no exceptions whatsoever. I'm saying that is plain wrong, outright racist, and that it rightfully does offend me. I am not Jewish, but my sister married a Jewish man and has two sons who were raised in the Jewish faith. Her husband is anything but a parasite. His father died when he was a young boy, and he worked his way through college by driving a taxi at night in New York City. He put himself through medical school, with no outside help, and later pursued additional studies to become an eye surgeon. Today he operates his own eye clinic and has two other doctors working with him. He is certainly well to do now, but he earned every bit of it the hard way and the honest way. Every year he spends two weeks traveling to third world countries to teach sight saving techniques to other doctors, while at the same time treating multiple patients free of any charges. Would you say that he is a parasite? Would you say that my sister, who now says that after being married more than 30 years to this man considers herself Jewish, is a parasite? Would you say that my nephews are parasites because they were born and raised in the Jewish faith? Mullins would, and so would Hitler.

People are people whether "Jewish" or otherwise.

Whether any person chooses to lead their lives as
"Parasites" is dependent upon their upbringing and
the "programming" implanted by means of societal
and familial contact.

The Zionist Agenda is indeed parasitic in nature.

Any who support the Agenda might be considered to
be "parasitic" as well. There is ample legal precedent
for such thinking. Whether the support is rendered
wittingly or unwittingly.

The parasitic nature of the Zionist Agenda has many
levels of activity - most are not readily discernible
by the people at large. There is much deception.

The most effective and efficient way to accomplish
badness is by promoting the illusion of doing good.

If you are able, visit a Synagogue to observe. Ask your
Sister and her husband to invite you into their inner
circle of Synagogue friends and associates.

Report back to us your observations.

[dutchdivco]

Alas, my friend died.

No conspiracy, he had a brain aneurism (stroke) with massive bleeding and damage to the brain, and died. No Conspiracy involved.

How then do you explain the fact that traces of Thermite was found in the dust of the towers, or the collapse of WTC7, which was not struck by any plane.

Can you supply me with the sources regarding the Thermite? My friend could not. The collapse of WTC7 is the easiest to understand, to me.Its a wonder more buildings didn't come down.When you think about the tremendous forces involved in having both towers come down, it was like an earthquake, and I recall was actually picked up on siesmographs. But, it wasn't an earthquake, it was much more localised, to the area. So, as I say, I am prepared to believe that that building came down, and several others were severely damaged, (structurally). I recall after Haite, as well as other earthquakes, that people are warned not to seek shelter in surviving buildings, until they are inspected for structural integrity, as they may collapse from relatively minor aftershocks.

It may seem logical that a building that survives a level 6 earthquake would withstand a subsequent level 1 aftershock.Which is sometimes the thinking of survivors.Problem is, the level 6 earthquake takes the building right to the edge of collapse, structurally, and the aftershock 'pushes it over the edge'.Anyway, I can understand how this COULD be a reasonable explanation for building 7 coming down.

As for never having a steel framed building collapse before in history, well, never before in history has a steel framed building 110 stories high had (allegedly) an almost fully fueled airliner fly into it.

I do know that a 20" steel beam has a lower fire code rating than a 20" wood (glue-lam) beam. This is because the wood beam has to be almost entirely burned thru, before it will give way. The steel beam will give as soon as it gets really hot ( I don't know the exact temperature, but it occurs quicker than the time it takes for a wood beam to burn).

They test this by supporting a length of beam on each end, placing a load in the middle, and setting a fire underneath. They time how long before the beam fails to continue to support the load.Wood wins every time.To try to address this deficiency in steel beams in skyscrapers, they spray them with a light weight expanding foam KIND of insulation. Not saying its expanding foam, saying its similar. You can see it in stairwells, or up in the suspended cielings of skyscrapers.

I did see films of the which seemed to show a fireball explosion on the back of the buildings.That is on the side opposite the side the planes hit.Thinking of the plane, with all that fuel as being like a giant Molotov cocktail, the ignited and expanding fuel fireball would have blown anything loose (papers, etc)out the windows, and set anything flamable on fire that was not blown out the backside; carpet, partitions, desks, file cabinets. Everything would have been soaked with jetfuel. There was simply too much for it all to have been consumed in the fireball.

Same thing happens in a airliner crashes into the side of a mountain; jetfuel saturates the land around the crashsite. You can smell it.

So, you've got the fireball blasting the insulation off of the beams, leaving them exposed to the tremendous heat of the fire, as kerosene soaked combustible material burns. And you've got the 'load' of all the weight of the floors above bearing down. Until the beam fails, just like it does in fire rating tests.

So, you've got the 20+ floors above the floor thats now failed, dropping 10-12', onto the floor just below the fire. Its like dropping a 20 floor building onto the roof of another building.

There are places in any structure that are key stress points. To simplify, look at the room your in. Look at a corner, now follow it up to the cieling.Where you have those 3 planes meeting, thats a stress point; a key load bearing area. Place a small explosive in all such areas, and the building comes down, as demolition experts know.Put those stress points under pressure many times what there capable of handling, and they will also fail.

Take something in your shop. Something which is fairly hard, but which your confident you can crush in a bench vice.Place it in the vice and start tightening.If its hard enough, it will maintain its integrity, till it doesn't, and then it will crush.And thats applying the pressure fairly slowly, much as is usually done in structural testing.i.e they gradually increase the pressure, until the point of failure. (In order to establish how much 'it' can take).
But, in this scenario, we're talking about suddenly putting many times the max. amount of pressure these stress points were designed or capable of handling. And when you do that, things explode.

Coal miners leave 4' square columns of coal, every so often, to support the 'roof' of the cavern. Heard someone talking about this, after a coal mine accident. There was an earthquake, and he said those columns would have/did explode as if they had dynamite in them. But it wasn't dynamite, it was because they were suddenly put under pressures much greater than what they could support/handle.

And so, the floor of the fire collapses, dropping all the floors above the fire, down onto the floor below, which can't handle the sudden pressure. Its stress points fail catastrophically, (explode), dropping the whole mess down on the next floor, and so on, causing pancaking.It makes logical sense to me, as an explanation for what COULD have happened.

I must say, the Conspirators seemed to have planned this part of it right; the second building to get hit, came down quicker (less time between being 'hit by the plane' and collapsing) than the first. Logically, cause the second plane hit quite a bit lower than the first plane.Which had the effect of greatly increasing the load on the (now) uninsulated beams being heated up.So, from a structural engineering point, it makes sense the buildings collapsed when they did. How is it the conspirators got that right, and couldn't even get the painting of the phony planes they crashed into the buildings right?

How massive of coverup must this be? All the real passengers of the flights, and the flight crew, and their families, and all the people at the airports who saw the real planes land. The airlines, from the Head of the Company, to the ticket takers, who had to know it wasn't really 'their' plane that was involved? How in the world would you keep such a massive conspiracy?

Pursuade me. Jim

[ABCStore]

I do know that a 20" steel beam has a lower fire code rating than a 20" wood (glue-lam) beam. This is because the wood beam has to be almost entirely burned thru, before it will give way. The steel beam will give as soon as it gets really hot ( I don't know the exact temperature, but it occurs quicker than the time it takes for a wood beam to burn).

Please stop smoking whatever you're smoking. Also, it helps if you checked the facts before you post.

ABC

[dutchdivco]

Out of line

If you follow this thread, Rickoff and I have been having a conversation. We have agreed, I think, that we will each keep an open mind, and agknowledge when we are wrong or the other is right. I have already done so, in fact.
We have also agreed that when one of us posts something that the other refutes, we will offer citations or other 'proofs' to support our position.
While this is in no way a private conversation, it would be most productive and enlightening if we all try to do this.

To wit; If you maintain that a 20" I beam will withstand a fire test, under load, and maintain structural integrity LONGER than a 20" glu-lam (wood) beam, PLEASE, By All Means, provide such proofs or substantiation.Otherwise, pass the pipe, Dude

[bugler]

Can you supply me with the sources regarding the Thermite?

You really look like a disinfo agent?

See this video about thermite: Prof. Steven E. Jones about thermite melting WTC-steel

Have you seen this video 9/11 Mysteries (full length)

And this one: 9/11 Missing Links

If you see them and still believe that 19 arabs (9 of them still alive) did it then you will be forever in the dark or you just need to see it on tv to believe it (Homer Simpson syndrome).

[rickoff]

Can you supply me with the sources regarding the Thermite? My friend could not.

Yes, this was a scientific study of dust debris taken from the WTC site, and you can read about it here: Nano-engineered super-Thermite found in WTC dust. And here: Scientists find explosives in WTC dust.
It should also be noted that several people who worked at, or were visiting the Pentagon, and were familiar with Cordite explosives, said that they smelled Cordite after the incident there. One was Don Perkal, who said to MSNBC, "Even before stepping outside I could smell the Cordite. I knew explosives had gone off somewhere."

The collapse of WTC7 is the easiest to understand, to me.Its a wonder more buildings didn't come down.When you think about the tremendous forces involved in having both towers come down, it was like an earthquake, and I recall was actually picked up on siesmographs. But, it wasn't an earthquake, it was much more localised, to the area. So, as I say, I am prepared to believe that that building came down, and several others were severely damaged, (structurally). Anyway, I can understand how this COULD be a reasonable explanation for building 7 coming down.

Take a look at the WTC complex layout shown here:



The towers are WTC1 and WTC2. The buildings directly adjacent to them (WTC3, WTC4, and WTC6) were also destroyed. WTC5 suffered damage, but was not destroyed. Some of the buildings in the World Financial Center complex (WFC) suffered fires, as did 90 West Street and the small building pointed to at 130 Cedar Street. Notice that building 7 is separated from the main WTC complex, and sandwiched between the Verizon building and the US Post Office. Neither of those buildings collapsed. Come on now Jim. Tall and large buildings are brought down by demolition experts all over the world on nearly a daily basis without causing directly adjacent buildings to collapse or suffer any appreciable damage unless the building being brought down topples sideways, and that wasn't the case with the twin towers. Your theory just doesn't hold up.

As for never having a steel framed building collapse before in history, well, never before in history has a steel framed building 110 stories high had (allegedly) an almost fully fueled airliner fly into it.

It would seem that you are forgetting about the 10 ton B25 bomber that slammed into the 79th floor of the 102 story steel framed Empire State Building (ESB) at 9:49 am on a Saturday morning in July of 1945. Offices inside the building were engulfed an an explosion of flaming high-octane fuel. The burning gasoline traveled through hallways, stairwells, and elevator shafts, reaching as far as four floors below the point of impact as the building shook. Fire and debris rained upon the surrounding area, mostly onto nearby structures.

One of the bomber’s engines completely penetrated the Empire State Building, and fell from the opposite side. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and severed the cable of an elevator car carrying two women, sending it into free fall. The impact left a hole in the north face of the Empire State Building eighteen feet wide by twenty feet high. Photographer Ernie Sisto captured this incredible image from the 90th floor, where he had two other newsmen dangle him out the window by his legs so he could get the shot past the ledge.


As we all know, Jim, the structural integrity of the Empire State Building was not compromised, and the building did not collapse. The WTC towers were built to withstand earthquakes and plane crashes, and had many advanced safety features which made them far safer than the ESB.

The steel beam will give as soon as it gets really hot ( I don't know the exact temperature, but it occurs quicker than the time it takes for a wood beam to burn).

Several very tall steel framed buildings have become blazing infernos for as much as 48 hours and more without those buildings collapsing. WTC1 itself was subjected to a serious fire in 1975 that started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for 3 hours. How could WTC1 withstand a 3 hour blaze but collapse from a two hour blaze? I know you will say it's because of all the jet fuel, but according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's chief WTC-investigator the jet fuel burnt itself out in less than ten minutes. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Chief of the NIST Materials and Construction Systems Division, stated:

"Now, several of you have heard about or thought about the fact that the jet fuel would have burned, caused the building to burn, and probably think the jet fuel played the sole role in the fires. The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings." — Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City — February 12, 2004

If ten minutes or less of high intensity heat was enough to cause failure of the steel beams, each of the towers would have fallen after that amount of time. Beyond that time, the fires were no more damaging than fires in other steel frame buildings as linked to above, and none of them collapsed.

How is it the conspirators .......... couldn't even get the painting of the phony planes they crashed into the buildings right?

It would appear that they weren't all that concerned. They probably figured that most people near enough to see would look up at the speeding plane a split second before it crashed, and not recollect anything about the paint job or tail markings. I only realized it myself after very careful study and comparison to the actual flight 175 plane. I have not seen this pointed out by anyone else on the Internet. Most people are fixated either on the strange object on the underbelly, or the flash that occurs just before impact. The photographic evidence I showed concerning UA flight 175 is positive proof that the plane shown was not UA flight 175, and of course how could it possibly be if flight 175 was still flying one hour after the crash? Can you explain any of that?

How massive of coverup must this be? All the real passengers of the flights, and the flight crew, and their families, and all the people at the airports who saw the real planes land. The airlines, from the Head of the Company, to the ticket takers, who had to know it wasn't really 'their' plane that was involved? How in the world would you keep such a massive conspiracy?

Of course it is one big bad-ass conspiracy obviously involving many key high level people. Look at the solid evidence I cited concerning the planes and then tell me if you can punch holes in anything I stated. Even if just one thing I stated holds up under scrutiny (and I'm confident that all of it will), then obviously there was a conspiracy and cover-up, and we were lied to. No one, other than federal and security officials at the Cleveland-Hopkins airport, witnessed flight 93 landing. The airport was cleared of all people, who were told that a plane was landing with a suspected bomb on board. The plane was directed to the NASA headquarters building there, which had also been evacuated of personnel, and the passengers disembarked and went into that building. No one knows who these passengers really were, or what became of them afterwards. Same goes for the other planes supposedly involved. Perhaps the planes said to have been associated with AA flights 11 and 77 actually did fly on 9/11, but either empty or under a different flight number. There almost certainly were some actual passengers that day who never came home. That would be necessary for such a conspiracy to succeed. It should be noted that another planned conspiracy, authored by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and called Project Northwoods, planned to use simulated and real airline hijackings and crashes, mourn for fake as well as real victims, use explosives in US cities, apply new id numbers to aircraft involved that were not actually destroyed as the public would be told, and to blame all of this on non-US terrorists. You can read about this and click links to see the actual government documents at the following link, and I think that most of your questions can be answered by reading this post:
Is a conspiracy really out of the question?

Your turn, Jim.

[aljhoa]

Changing Education Paradigms

A talk by Sir Ken Robinson
YouTube - RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms
Al

[dutchdivco]

You really look like a disinfo agent?

No, I'm not. Perhaps I can share a little bit about myself.(This is the I-net, after all.) I am a 55y.o married white male.
Ever since I was a teenager, I've heard how "THEY" are putting Floride in our H2o, and its poisoning us, making us sick.I always discounted this as nutty.
After all, what do "THEY" and their families drink, and why would "THEY" do this?

About 10 years ago I began to get sick; major fatigue, muscle aches, difficulty concentrating.It interfered with my work, tried changing occupations, didn't help. Dr.'s said every test was normal.I had to stop working and file for disability. Dr.'s said it was "Fibromyalgia, and Rx.'d "treatments" which didn't really help. So, I began researching it on my own, and looking at "alternative treatments". Tried many things, lot of it 'snake oil', some helped a little; more than the 'mainstream treatments', but nothing that got me to near 100%.About 2 years ago, my wife began to get sick; extreme fatigue, muscle aches, digestive problems, low blood pressure; barely palpable/audible at around 80, couldn't really get 2 #'s,weight went from normal of 115Lbs. to 87 Lbs. in 4 mos.

Took her to 8 different specialists, they ran every test and said, according to the tests, she was "fine"; no cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. During this time she developed peripheral neuropathy in her legs, and had to walk with a cane.

This spurred me to do additional research. Googling peripheral neuopathy, I saw the 1st cause listed as Chronic undiagnosed, and therefore untreated Diabetes. Redid a home test, and ruled that out. Second cause listed; Undiagnosed and therefore untreated chronic Hypothyroidism. Dr.'s tests had ruled this out.But, there really weren't any other explanations, so I began doing additional research on hypothyroidism. Symptoms all described my wifes condition; Low body temp, cold extremities, chronic constipation, etc. The only symptom she didn't have was overweight or weight gain.

Her Mother had been Dx'd hypothyroid in High School, which is about the time my wife began to have some of these symptoms.She , (the Mother) had always been very thin, however. So, I concluded genetics could overrule the symptom of weight gain.

I then began to research the history of treatments for hypothyroidism, and of the tests for diagnosing it. Eventually I got to the underlying cause.The thyroid takes iodine/iodide from our blood, concentrates it and combines it with an amino acid to make Thyroid Hormones, which play a variety of crucial regulatory functions in our body.

Iodine/iodide is a Halide, I think it is, anyway that is the name for a family of similar chemicals. Others in the family are Floride/Florine, Bromide/Bromine and Chlorine/Chloride. Our cells have receptors for Iodine/Iodide. They are like locks, and the iodine/iodide molecule is like the key. Problem is, these other chemicals are similar enough that they fit in the lock, blocking the Iodine/Iodide from getting in.

In short, Florine/Floride in our water (and toothpaste) IS poisoning us. My research has convinced me that my wife and I, and a significant percentage of the population are being made sick as a result of totally inadequate levels of iodine in our diet, as well as excessive amounts of these other halides.

The various 'epidemics' we keep hearing about on the news; Obesity, Diabetes, Heart disease/stroke, Cancer, osteoperosis, Rheumatoid arthritis and other auto immune diseases, etc. are all, I'm convinced, largely or totally a result of undiagnosed and therefore untreated Hypothyroidsm and the resulting Adrenal Fatigue.

The main thrust of my research has been to try to learn and implement ways to undo the damage for me and my wife.BTW there are Thousands and Thousands of people worldwide who are pursueing this. Just Google STTM; Stop The Thyroid Madness.ANyway, my research hasn't primarily focused on the "why" behind this, as getting better is my primary concern. However, some delving into those areas has been inevitable.

My conclusion is this is not some massive conspiracy. Its a combination of Hubris and individual and institutional Ego, ( of which the medical profession has long suffered), and everyone focused on their little area, their own percieved best interest, etc. i.e There is no massive Conspiracy. Dr.'s aren't telling their families,"Don't drink Floridated water, but don't tell anyone.". In fact, some of the best info has come from Dr.'s who themselves got sick, and realised just how unsatisfying the 'standard line' was, and so reserched further to 'cure' themselves.

Mind you, I fully agree with whoever said, "Morally, the Big Pharma make the Tobacco guys look like choirboys!" Big Pharma definetly profits enormously from this, as they sell "treatments", (as opposed to cures) for all the results of untreated hypothyroidism and adrenal fatigue;Statins and beta blockers, (and bypass operations), etc. I just haven't seen any compelling evidence that this wasn't a result of human nature; Hubris, ego, narrow minded focus, etc. And no evidence that it was part of some deliberate conspiracy.

So, sorry, just a little background on me, and where I'm coming from. Think of me as a healthy sceptic, and as like the whatever percentage of the public that DOES'NT poll as believing 911 was a Gov't. conspiracy, and (until recently) was eaqually sceptical regarding Obama's citisenship.

I firmly believe that, as a matter of human nature, we tend to make decisions; What to buy and when, Who to vote for, and WHAT TO BELIEVE IN,based largely on EMOTIONS, and then find logical reasons to justify our decision once we've made the decision. Like the 40 something male having a 'mid0life crises' who buys the red sports car, and then raves about the great mileage. Yes, it does get great mileage, but thats not why he bought it.

Advertisers capitalise on this all the time. Watch TV commercials; the best ones (most effective) appeal to our emotions, while simultaneously giving us logical reasons we can use, to justify our (largely) emotional decision.

When I heard that Floride was unhealthy, on an emotional level I didn't want to believe. And so I discounted it as foolishness. Didn't want to believe that I and my family were poisoning ourselves, every time we drank some water.
Emotionally, it was far easier for me to believe anyone saying this was a "nut".

If you are going to convince me and others that 911 was a conspiracy, etc. you need to recognise this phenomenon.Some people will believe right away, cause they WANT to believe. Others will reject it right away, cause they don't WANT to believe.To simply label such people as 'disinfo agents' is not going to get you any closer to your stated goal, of "Spreading the Truth".At this point, I would hazard a guess that those who want to believe are convinced. If you want to increase the # of people who are enlightened as to the truth, you need to convince us. That means not just with evidence, but also taking into account that emotionally, we don't want to believe; A) that our Gov't. would do this, and/or B) that such a massive conspiracy could be perpetrated.For me, I don't think I have a problem with A.After the history I've lived through, and my experiances of dealing with the beurocracy, I'm not real trusting of our Gov't.

Again, I just am inclined to attribute things to the nature of beurocracies, and of humans working in such beurocracies, and of humans in general.In the end, because, I suppose, its what I want to believe.

For 80+ percent of those applying for Social Security disability, it takes 4 years to go thru the process. (Going from memory here, but the exact #'s are available on the I-net.) You apply, are denied, appeal, are denied, appeal AGAIN, and are finally, for the FIRST time, giving an actual hearing to try to present your case.

This has the effect, undoubtedly, of weeding out most 'fakers'. Its hard to go 4 years without an income. I don't have any evidence that some group of people made a conscious decision to set the system up this way, deliberately as a way to weed out 'fakers'. Its just the beurocracy in action, focusing on stting things up in a way thats best for it.

Its like this thing with the airport screenings.I don't see a conspiracy, just the beurocracy focused on its narrow perspective.Human nature. Jim

[dutchdivco]

Rickoff

Regarding steel beams, etc. Remember, the material I posted earlier, which is MY understanding of the 'official' explanation for why the towers came down
requires an 'explosion' which blasts the foam insulation off of the steel beams, so that they are exposed to the intense heat. Comparing fires in the WTC or other buildings which don't have this loss of insulation are not valid comparisons. Thats WHY they put the insulation on the beams; to extend or expand the fire rating.
I did not 'forget' the incident of the plane hitting the empire state building. In all the News coverage of 911, I never heard it mentioned.Doesn't mean some documentary somewhere didn't cover it, just saying I never heard about it till now. My first thoughts are I don't think they had this spray on foam insulation when the Empire State Building was built, or even as a retrofit prior to the crash your talking about.They may have dealt with the issue in a different way; By using much larger beams, and or more brick, less metal for the superstructure. They may have 'insulated' the steel components with a different material, less likely to be blown off like the spray on insulation. For instance, one of the main selling points for sheetrock is as a fire barrier.I do recall hearing that the method for building the WTC was different than previous skyscrapers, with, if i recall, more emphasis on a steel superstructure, and less brick.This was part of what enabled them to go so high, again IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.Got to walk the Dog, Jim

[SeaMonkey]

...

My conclusion is this is not some massive conspiracy. Its a combination of Hubris and individual and institutional Ego, ( of which the medical profession has long suffered), and everyone focused on their little area, their own perceived best interest, etc. i.e There is no massive Conspiracy. Dr.'s aren't telling their families,"Don't drink Flouridated water, but don't tell anyone.". In fact, some of the best info has come from Dr.'s who themselves got sick, and realized just how unsatisfying the 'standard line' was, and so researched further to 'cure' themselves.

Mind you, I fully agree with whoever said, "Morally, the Big Pharma make the Tobacco guys look like choirboys!" Big Pharma definetly profits enormously from this, as they sell "treatments", (as opposed to cures) for all the results of untreated hypothyroidism and adrenal fatigue; Statins and beta blockers, (and bypass operations), etc. I just haven't seen any compelling evidence that this wasn't a result of human nature; Hubris, ego, narrow minded focus, etc. And no evidence that it was part of some deliberate conspiracy.
...

Those who are guiding the "Agenda" are far
cleverer and capable than you are inclined to
give them credit for.

It is not a "conspiracy" in the sense that you've
looked for it. That is not how they prefer to wield
their power. Their goals are accomplished far
more insidiously by those who are "persuaded"
to do their "bidding." Corruption is their game.

With sufficient wealth any number of "miracles"
are possible. Or "disasters." Or "enigmas."
Or "Wars." Or "famine" or "disease."

Whatever.

Why do you suppose they've devoted so much
time to gaining complete dominance over the
monetary and financial systems of the world?

The "end-game" of the great show is about to
begin.