The American Ruling Class

[aussieaussieaussie]

Rickoff,

Your post on the fireproofing is..... WOW!

Ozy

[DrStiffler]

So is everyone happy?

Well now that the election is over and the voters changed the makeup, I was wondering just how many feel anything is going to change?

Here is my take and I hope upon hope I am totally wrong and all screwed up in my thinking.

ObamaCare, minor change, allowing more exemptions but the common citizens will still get screwed alone with the seniors in a big way.

Nothing will happen with the Patriot Act, indeed I feel it will be far expanded. Good example is surveillance cameras (fed paid for) going up at every intersection in the city of Houston. Everyone's email is now embedded with an intercept key, each online query, purchase or click is now available to the great powers.

The fed payroll will expand, not decline.

We will have the food control bill passed and enforced, cops to your door enforcement if you dare to disobey.

Money is going away and you will have a card with the mark of the beast (a number that is you). They will control and know every last detail of your life.

Well this is enough sadness for one post, yet I feel comfortable that I will not have to eat to many of my words. In the year 2013 we that are left shall not have inherited the earth, we shall only be the dumb ones that had the ability to survive.

[rickoff]

Rickoff,

Your post on the fireproofing is..... WOW!

Ozy

Yes, the information in that post is definitely the most startling "smoking gun" evidence concerning the WTC twin towers. After all, what are the odds of the impact/failure areas in just one tower, let alone both towers, being precisely the same as the areas where "updated fireproofing" had been applied? Any suggestion that this is mere coincidence is laughable at best, and unbelievable by any other standard.

Rick

[Aaron]

security update

Updated fireproofing?

What about GW Bush's cousin being in charge of the WTC complex's
security? Months before 9/11, new wiring, cables for cameras, etc...
whatever, were installed throughout the towers - aka - explosives
probably.

[rickoff]

Updated fireproofing?

Yes, so-called "updated fireproofing," in which older and less effective fireproofing of steel beams was removed and supposedly replaced by modern intumescent coatings, which would have greatly extended the fire ratings in those areas where done, which just happen to be the precise impact and failure areas of the WTC towers. You see, if the updates had actually been intumescent coatings, this would have greatly extended the safe exposure time of the steel in the impact areas, but if coated with nanothermites, this would have assured rapid failure and molten steel. To my thinking, this is way more of a smoking gun than the fact that Bush's cousin, Wirt Walker, was CEO of Securacom (the WTC security provider), or that Marvin Bush was the company's director, since those facts only present themselves as allegations of possible or likely collusion which can't actually be proven by evidence. Incidentally, Securacom was also the security company at Dulles Airport, where AA flight 77 supposedly departed from on 9/11. Although these factors are quite interesting, and certainly relevant to a proper investigation, in and of themselves they prove nothing. The facts concerning the "updated fireproofing" can be proven, however, and this presents a viable conclusion as to how nano thermates (aka super-thermite) could have been applied to the steel with very few people knowing about it. The collusion of Bush's cousin, and younger brother Marvin, would have been helpful, of course, but not really necessary.

I certainly don't mean to play down the importance of the "security system updates" during the weeks prior to 9/11, and this was the most likely period of time during which the controlled demolition explosives and wiring was installed. This would have been absolutely necessary, of course, to ensure that the tower structures below the point of impact would offer no resistance to a collapse of the damaged upper floors. What is important to keep in mind, however, is that the whole premise of a collapse theory revolves around the upper stories initiating a collapse sequence, and to make sure that this was at least somewhat believable the conspirators had to ensure that the damage to these upper stories was both substantial and highly visible. And what better way to ensure this than the application of sol-gel superthermite coatings on the steel structural members at the floor levels of the impacts?

As Kevin Ryan pointed out in this report, sol-gel nanothermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials, can be sprayed onto a surface, and ignited in many different ways. And who developed sol-gel nano thermite? It was researchers working at the government's Lawrence Livermore Laboratories (before 9/11), and this is what they had to say about it:


The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus.

"self propagating when ignited by a thermal stimulus" - Such as a fire, of course. No detonators or wiring would have been necessary, and the coating could have easily been made to look like an intumescent coating, or applied beneath a thin layer of paint, or actual intumescent coating. Sol-gel nano-thermite coatings have the ability to quickly melt steel, cut through steel beams, and to cut off high strength bolts and rivets, which is exactly what was needed to prepare the upper floors of the towers for the collapse sequence that would follow.

Interestingly, NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nanothermites, at least as early as 1999. Even more interesting is that NIST never even investigated for possible use of explosives or thermite at WTC, even though their investigative researchers were some of the most knowledgeable people in the field of thermite research and development. The above linked report in this post, written by Kevin Ryan, lists the top ten connections between NIST and thermite, and if you read these connections I am quite sure they will astound you.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Just my thoughts re;Change

"Well now that the election is over and the voters changed the makeup, I was wondering just how many feel anything is going to change?"

The voters were voting for Obama, for a generalised promise of "Change".
As in "Hows that touchy-feely Change thing working for ya now?"

At least this time, I feel like the voters have been very specific in the CHANGE they have voted for; a rollback of Obamacare, a rollback of socialist Government overreaching and intrusion in and control of our lives, etc.

Whether our votes will translate into any significant action, remains to be seen.Conspiracy theorists would say the "Ruling classes" will never give up their power, and this is all part of their plan. I think of it more that We, collectively, have created an uncontrolable (by anyone) system. Kind of a Frankenstien monster.Even Reagan was only able to chip away at the margins, in reducing the size of gov't.

Regarding the "Hopey-Change thing, actually many voters believed they were voting for specific changes;Close Guantanamo, end indefinite detentions and military tribunals, end or reduce predator drone attacks, comprehensive immigration reform, end don't ask don't tell, etc. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, I gotta say I can't think of a recent President whose failed to deliver on Campaign promises more.

So, he's not only stiffed the right, he's totally stiffed his own base.His one 'signature accomplishment' (Obamacare), he didn't push for single-payer, which the Left wanted Badly.I know past Presidents have had problems 2 years in their first term, but I gotta say, I don't see how he's gonna get re-elected, as things stand right now.

Anyway, I too am not optimistic about our near term future.Best thing you can say, its not going to be Boring!Watching events unfold is like the ultimate reality TV show.Jim

[DrStiffler]

"Well now that the election is over and the voters changed the makeup, I was wondering just how many feel anything is going to change?"

The voters were voting for Obama, for a generalised promise of "Change".
As in "Hows that touchy-feely Change thing working for ya now?"

At least this time, I feel like the voters have been very specific in the CHANGE they have voted for; a rollback of Obamacare, a rollback of socialist Government overreaching and intrusion in and control of our lives, etc.

Whether our votes will translate into any significant action, remains to be seen.Conspiracy theorists would say the "Ruling classes" will never give up their power, and this is all part of their plan. I think of it more that We, collectively, have created an uncontrolable (by anyone) system. Kind of a Frankenstien monster.Even Reagan was only able to chip away at the margins, in reducing the size of gov't.

Regarding the "Hopey-Change thing, actually many voters believed they were voting for specific changes;Close Guantanamo, end indefinite detentions and military tribunals, end or reduce predator drone attacks, comprehensive immigration reform, end don't ask don't tell, etc. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, I gotta say I can't think of a recent President whose failed to deliver on Campaign promises more.

So, he's not only stiffed the right, he's totally stiffed his own base.His one 'signature accomplishment' (Obamacare), he didn't push for single-payer, which the Left wanted Badly.I know past Presidents have had problems 2 years in their first term, but I gotta say, I don't see how he's gonna get re-elected, as things stand right now.

Anyway, I too am not optimistic about our near term future.Best thing you can say, its not going to be Boring!Watching events unfold is like the ultimate reality TV show.Jim

@Jim
Well all is not well and good by any way of looking at it. Until 'We The People' find something gut wrenching enough to force each and every person with the intelligence to understand what is taking place to stand up and face this total take over by a criminal government and be willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice to remove it, then we all are lost.

The voters only voted in the second team, why do people think any different? They are all cut from the same mold, they all follow the same script. Talk, talk and more talk about what is happening, no one is willing to put a stop to it all as our founding fathers presented a viable option.

[dutchdivco]

Regarding Pentagon

"3. AA flight 77, said to have crased 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. "

My understanding of the Official Version, is that they aren't saying the plane 'hit' the Pentagon, although some reporters may have used that expression, as a kind of short-hand.My understanding, from news stories and Frontline (PBS) "in-depth" shows; "They" say the plane actually hit the ground, just before it would have hit the building, and the momentum carried the explosion into/onto the front of the building.Supposion seems to be that the inexperianced pilots 'stalled' the plane.I am not a pilot. Never even flown as a passenger. I have a friend who is a pilot; air force(retired) and small private planes. We weren't talking about 911, just flying in general. If I understood what he was saying, 'stall' is a combination of both speed and 'attitude'; not sure I'm using the correct term. Basically, the levelness (?) of the plane in relation to the ground.He was saying if you get into a 'stall' situation, simply increasing speed will not correct the situation. You need to 'correct the 'attitude'. If you have lots of altitude, you have plenty of lee-way to do this.To simply give it more gas, is like when driving a car, and realising you are heading towards a building or another car; give it more gas, you just crash sooner. You have to steer away from the obstruction.
He also said its very common for inexperianced pilots to give it more gas, in a stall, which only makes the situation worse, and that the 1 place you want to avoid a stall is at low altitude, (usually while landing or taking off). I extapolated from my (admittedly) limited understanding of this to figure this is what happened to the plane that hit the pentagon.They 'stalled', and crashed into the ground before hitting the Pentagon, and the momentum carried the fireball and wreckage into the building.They did not 'hit' the building in the sense that we can see whatever plane hit tower 2 clearly HIT the building.Obviously if it had 'hit' the Pentagon, like the plane on tower 2, the damage would have penetrated much farther into the building, and been far more extensive.
Regarding the unburned or undisturbed papers on the desk.If the desk was at a higher elevation than the source of the fire, the bottom of the desk top could have 'sheilded' the papers from the heat.
Saw a video on safety, as part of my EMT training.Real video. Fire engine arrived at a house fire.1 firefighter had his 'turn-out' pants (I think they are called), boots, helmet with face shield, etc. However, he hadn't got his turnout coat on.On his torso, he just had a tee shirt, and the suspenders that hold the turnout pants up.They put a ladder up to the second floor window, and he ran up the ladder.Just as he got to the window, there was a 'flashover' ( I think its called). A ball of fire came exploding,..out the window and he was knocked off the ladder. They showed pictures from the ER.His whole upper torso (front) was,...well, cooked. Massive 2nd degree burns.Except for 2 clear vertical strips where the suspenders had been, which were totally unburned.And, no burning on his back.
My point being that heat is energy, and it travels from the source outward, in a more or less straight line.Therefore, if the desk was on a higher elevation than the source of the blast, the desk top may have 'shielded' the papers from the blast.Jim

[dutchdivco]

Regarding flight path of Pentagon Plane

There is a thing that pre-law professors regularly do, you may have heard about it.A couple of minutes into the lecture, there is a disturbance. A guy 'snatches one of the female students purse, and runs out of the auditorium. The students are all instructed to take out paper and write as detailed a description as they can, of what they have seen, description of the suspect, etc.
Invaribly, several will be willing to swear they saw the suspect strike the girl several times, and descriptions of the suspect will range from short, white, blond hair clean shaven, bareheaded, to tall, Black, facial hair and hat.
Reviewing the video of the event, it will be clear no blows were struck, and difficult to see how, from any angle anyone could have thought there were.
And, bringing the 'suspect' in, it is usually seen that very few if any of the descriptions were accurate.
So, "I believe nothing I hear, and only 1/2 of what I see" is probably a lot more prudent than "I believe it if I see it", and eyewitness descriptions of the flight path, on final approach, are hardly conclusive, to me, of evidence that the plane flew at the pentagon, and at the last minute, accelerated and flew over it, which seems to be what you are saying. Jim

[DrStiffler]

There is a thing that pre-law professors regularly do, you may have heard about it.A couple of minutes into the lecture, there is a disturbance. A guy 'snatches one of the female students purse, and runs out of the auditorium. The students are all instructed to take out paper and write as detailed a description as they can, of what they have seen, description of the suspect, etc.
Invaribly, several will be willing to swear they saw the suspect strike the girl several times, and descriptions of the suspect will range from short, white, blond hair clean shaven, bareheaded, to tall, Black, facial hair and hat.
Reviewing the video of the event, it will be clear no blows were struck, and difficult to see how, from any angle anyone could have thought there were.
And, bringing the 'suspect' in, it is usually seen that very few if any of the descriptions were accurate.
So, "I believe nothing I hear, and only 1/2 of what I see" is probably a lot more prudent than "I believe it if I see it", and eyewitness descriptions of the flight path, on final approach, are hardly conclusive, to me, of evidence that the plane flew at the pentagon, and at the last minute, accelerated and flew over it, which seems to be what you are saying. Jim

*With all due respect*
This is all B.S., a waste of time, a distraction of thinking while the world crumbles around us. This is History, wrong and a gross action by governments, yet its History..... Today, tomorrow, untold decisions are being made against you and I and our children and grandchildren. We must draw the line (TODAY), stop further erosion and then and only then do we have the (Liberty) to go back and explore History!

What? are we only allowed to play catch up????

[bugler]

So, "I believe nothing I hear, and only 1/2 of what I see" is probably a lot more prudent than "I believe it if I see it"

It is funny that this kind of "logic" is common among those who believe everything fed to them by the desinformation media (Homer Simpson syndrome).

For some reason, those who believe everything in the media, see themselves as critic with the information they are exposed to and see those of us, who read contradictory information all the time, as people who believe everyting we read.

Funny.

[ABCStore]

My understanding, from news stories and Frontline (PBS) "in-depth" shows; "They" say the plane actually hit the ground, just before it would have hit the building, and the momentum carried the explosion into/onto the front of the building.

Then "they" got back and fixed the lawn...

ABC

[rickoff]

My understanding, from news stories and Frontline (PBS) "in-depth" shows; "They" say the plane actually hit the ground, just before it would have hit the building, and the momentum carried the explosion into/onto the front of the building.

Sorry Jim, but how do you then account for the fact that there was no disturbance of the ground in front of the impact area, or the fact that James Schwartz, assistant chief of the Arlington County Fire Department, said that, "The aircraft did not strike the ground before it hit the building."


How also do you account for the fact that the wings and engines, which should have struck the building but did not, were nowhere to be seen either outside or inside the Pentagon?

Jim, you are attempting to make a case for an inexperienced pilot not being able to fly over the Pentagon. The said hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, certainly was inexperienced. In fact, he was so inadept at flying a plane that he was refused solo flying privileges in a single engine Cessna 172 after being checked out by flight instructors at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland, just three weeks before the Pentagon event. And yet we are supposed to believe that Hani Hanjour took a 757, with zero time in type, did a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive from 7,000 feet at 2500 fpm while only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a Cessna 172 because he couldnt land it at 65 knots?

What's more, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB the Flight Deck Door (the door to the cockpit) was never opened in flight. The status of the door was polled every 5 seconds from 12:18:05 GMT to 13:37:09 GMT, and each poll logged the door as closed (a CSV file of the log can be downloaded here). This shows that, since the door remained closed, neither Hani Hanjour nor any other terrorist entered the cockpit to fly the plane into the Pentagon or anywhere else.

As to your idea that the eyewitnesses must have been wrong, consider this: The Pentagon security officer who was fueling his vehicle at the north end of the Citgo station was standing underneath a canopy which would have obstructed any view of the plane if it had passed at the south side of the station, and yet he had a clear view of the plane north of the north end. We are supposed to believe that the plane passed to the south of the Citgo because that is where the "downed lamp poles" appeared. In truth, though, even the NTSB provided flight path animation shows the plane flying a path north of the Citgo. The north end of the Citgo is pointed out at 15 seconds elapsed time of the animation, and the plane is north of that - exactly where the eyewitnesses all said it was, while a red line to the south of the Citgo shows the "official" path that would account for the "downed poles" and the Pentagon damage. What's more, the NTSB flight data recorder info shows that the plane was too high to have possibly hit any light poles. Pilots for 911 Truth, which analyzed the NTSB data and animation, had this to say about it:

"We have determined, based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles. We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

The screenshot shows the very last frame of the recorded data. It stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet.

This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down."

Jim, if the plane was too far north to have hit any poles, and too high to have hit any poles, isn't it reasonable to suggest that it may very well have been high enough to have easily flown over the Pentagon, rather than into it? In fact, that is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn.

Rick

[aljhoa]

@Jim
Well all is not well and good by any way of looking at it. Until 'We The People' find something gut wrenching enough to force each and every person with the intelligence to understand what is taking place to stand up and face this total take over by a criminal government and be willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice to remove it, then we all are lost.

The voters only voted in the second team, why do people think any different? They are all cut from the same mold, they all follow the same script. Talk, talk and more talk about what is happening, no one is willing to put a stop to it all as our founding fathers presented a viable option.

Takes generations of pushing before "sunrise" e.g. "Russian Experiment".
YouTube - " Conquest of Paradise " - Dana Winner (with Lyrics)
Al

[rickoff]

Until 'We The People' find something gut wrenching enough to force each and every person with the intelligence to understand what is taking place to stand up and face this total take over by a criminal government and be willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice to remove it, then we all are lost.

That is right, and while so much of what is stated in this thread is past history, what could be more gut wrenching than the realization that the events of 9/11 were planned and executed by the very government that is sworn to serve and protect us? Unfortunately, there are still a great many people who believe the "official" story of what happened that day, and for those people it is only through our presentation of undeniable facts, and debate, that we can hope to awaken them to the truth. Not talking about it simply lets it fade away into oblivion.

Talk, talk and more talk about what is happening, no one is willing to put a stop to it all as our founding fathers presented a viable option.

Basically, there are two ways our Founding Fathers gave us to put a stop to it all: The ballot box, or the bullet box. In the past, the ballot box hasn't worked that well, but only because people didn't understand that the power of the ballot lies in our ability to remove the corrupt career politicians and replace them with true patriots. Instead, the masses got sucked into a Republican vs Democrat mindset, which will never serve to change what needs changing. The coming about, and success of, the Tea Party in this latest election offers a glimmer of hope, as it shows that a party of We The People can in fact effectively win elections and displace establishment politicians if enough people get behind it. This initial change in the makeup of the House and Senate surely isn't yet enough to overpower the corrupted establishment politicians, but at least the People's view will now be heard in fiery speeches on the House and Senate floor. Also, we now have the opportunity to build on this initial momentum and educate others to what is necessary to maintain and increase our position dramatically in 2012, and I really do think that is where our greatest chance for success lies. If we should fail, and bad only goes to worse in our government, then of course there would only be one option left to true patriots. I'm willing to take a defensive stance against a tyrannical government to preserve liberty, if push comes to shove, but I would not advocate that our current situation can only be resolved through violent means.

Rick