The American Ruling Class

[jibbguy]

Well, some would wonder if the point above is to make us all look like frigging

RACISTS.....

Which i assure you all, is not the case; not by a long shot

[bugler]

Well, some would wonder if the point above is to make us all look like frigging

RACISTS.....

If I am critic of the italian mafia am I racist or anti-italian?

If I am critic of the russian mafia am I racist or anti-russian?

Then why If I am critic of the jewish criminal network I am racist or anti-jewish?

Do you look for the truth or an easy to swallow one?
Truth is not racist. Truth is essential for us no matter how dusgisting the hidden powers make it appear.

[rickoff]

I've responded to the Berman call.

I think you mean the Mark Bingham call. Yes, you, did, by supposing that Mark was probably a guy that rarely, if ever, called his mother, and thus would have used his full name to identify himself, saying, "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." By all accounts, Mark and his mother (Alice Hoaglan) had a very close and loving relationship, so that theory just doesn't jive. In this video interview with Alice, done the day after 9/11, Alice laughs (yes, laughs, the day after her son is supposedly killed) about Mark giving his full name, saying he must have been quite "rattled" (nervous) to have done that. She further goes on to say that Mark did not use his cellphone, but rather made the call on a seat back airphone. This statement directly contradicts the media and 911 Commission reports that Mark had used a cellphone, but is fully supportive of the FBI testimony at the Moussaoui trial, stating that only two cell phone calls were made from flight 93, at low altitude, with neither attributed to Bingham. Why then did the 911 commission report, and government reports to the media, state that at least 10 cellphone calls had been made from flight 93? If the reports of cell phone use on flight 93 were falsified, as is obviously the case, then why do you continue to cling to the idea that all reported cell phone calls on 9/11 are probably valid?

While we are on the Mark Bingham subject, here is a little tidbit of information that totally blows away all credibility of the official Mark Bingham story. Very quickly after 9/11, CNN posted photos and obituary information of the 9/11 "victims" on a special Internet memorial page, including a photo of Mark in his 1993 graduation gown and cap. The photo is shown below:



Notice the caption at the right lower photo border, reading, "(Family Photo/AP)." This caption was edited as an addition to the original photo, and is not simply printed to the right of it. This fact can be verified by downloading and viewing the actual photo, which was saved in an Internet archive. After clicking the photo link, right click on the photo image and choose "Save picture as:" and save it to your hard drive. Then open it and you will see it is exactly as shown above, including the caption. The reason why this is so important is that news photos are embedded with not only the digital photo data that displays the image, but also with International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) data that identifies the photographer, the news organization having rights to the photo (AP in this case), and the date the picture was taken (or last edited), along with several other factors. This information can be found in the photo's Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) data, which can be viewed using various EXIF info viewers such as this free EXIF Reader.

Now here's an image taken from one such EXIF reader:


Notice that the "Taking a picture day" field data is "20010830." This signifies that the photo was either taken on August 30, 2001, or edited on that date. Since the "Caption" field info states that this photo is of Mark's 1993 University of California graduation, the Taking a picture day" field obviously refers to the date the photo was last edited, to include the addition of the AP credit at the right side of the photo. So, although this photo was displayed by CNN after 9/11, it was actually prepared for display on August 30th, 12 days before 9/11! Certainly makes us wonder, doesn't it, how "they' knew, well in advance of 9/11, who the "official" reported victims would be. Incidentally, someone must have realized that this blunder might be detected, as Mark's CNN memorial page photo (and those of many other "victims") was deleted afterwards, as can be seen here at the CNN 9/11 memorial website.

So no need to speculate about Mark Bingham's "cell phone call" being authentic or not. The entire Mark Bingham 9/11 story is a pre-planned scam that we can easily see through if we just look for the truth. Again, why even speculate on such matters that for some reason "don't make sense" to you, when overwhelming and irrefutable proof of 9/11 being an inside job is what you should be focusing on. Why do the planning and actions of the conspirators need to make sense to you? After all, the people who planned and executed the events of 9/11 were surely madmen with totally warped minds.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

jibbguy

Its the whole free marketplace of ideas concept.Anyone viewing this thread is free to read Buglers posts and follow the links, and reach their own conclusion. Likewise for my posts, Rickoffs, and yours.I hope few will read any one persons posts, and conclude everyone posting on this thread shares that persons views. Besides, I like Buglers posts. He makes me luk like a gud speler.;-) Jim

[dutchdivco]

Rickoff

I must admit, at first glance, I'm tempted to say "O.K., you got me!" This does seem to be compelling and disconcerting.Looking a little closer at the text in the box, I see a couple of areas of question. I am a sceptic, remember.
There are 2 categories, titled at the top. The first is "Item Name", and the second is "Information". The 6th line down, under "Item Name" says "Record Version", and under information says "0002". My plain interpretation would be that this is the second version of this information, and causes me to ask, "What was #0001?" Doesn't neccesarily dispute anything one way or the other, but it could mean this info had been edited, changed, compromised in some way. Would be useful to look at other photos recorded in this 'archive', to see what they have in this category, or in some way clarify what this means.
The other ? that jumps out at me; All the other item names are very straightforward and seem to be self explanatory, until you get to the key entry, the 15th one down. "Taking a Picture Day". What the heck is that? Very poor gramatically. Sounds like something our friend Bugler would say, or someone for whom English isn't their first language.Date picture taken, or date picture processed, or recorded, etc.Something like that, yeah, but "Taking a Picture Day"? Also, the entry under Information for this Taking a Picture Day does say 20010830. While it may seem I'm stretching, could this mean 0830 as in a.m.?Just my initial thoughts/questions. I will attempt to follow the links, so to speak, and then see if I can figure out a way to view other photos in the archive, to see what they have in their information/text, for comparison.At first glance, I gotta say, you have my attention!(So to speak).;-) Jim

[dutchdivco]

Downloaded program.Found another victims picture, off CNN site, and copied to my computer, as well as MB's picture.When I open picture, doesn't open program. I will play with it for awhile, and see if I can get it to work.
Looking at the above post, I see another,...anomoly. In the text, it says "was killed aboard" there is something between the a and b in aboard. Looks kind of like alboard.May be a minor thing, but CNN is a News organization, (has editors, proofreaders, etc.) they created this site to be a permanent Memorial to the "Victims".I would think those who were creating this would have seen it as a noble or sacred project, and would have made an effort to catch and correct any errors.Even if the error was done initially in the haste to deal with 3000 victims, I would think they would have corrected it by now.
Regarding Marks Mom laughing in the interview; laughing is a common way to cover for embarrassment.And yes, even on the day of a son's death.Again, the Mom is not likely to agknowledge on Nat'l TV that her son called her so seldom he needed to ID himself to her by full name.Actually, since the issue is no smoking gun, and there is plenty of other stuff to discuss, I would just as soon move on, and away from speculating on a Mother/Son relationship. Seems poor taste, to me.Jim

[rickoff]

" 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.

No problem. This first link is to a research project undertaken by mathematician and technical writer Alexander Dewdney, professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario. His tests, using four cellphones in common use on 9/11/2001, were conducted at 2,000ft altitude intervals up to 8,000 feet, flying a circular pattern in a slow moving light aircraft above a large metropolitan city having numerous cell stations. His results show that the success rate of calls falls off quite dramatically at altitudes above 6,000 feet. This is probably the best article on the Internet for explaining how cellphone towers operate, what their limitations are, and what makes cellphone use at high altitudes virtually impossible. A must read, and be sure to also read the several posts at the end of the article, written by persons who have attempted cellphone calls while flying in commercial airliners.

This second link is to an article written by Brad Mayeux, a senior design RF cell phone engineer. He explains the important terms "down-tilt" and "handoff" which are reasons why cell phone usage in commercial airliners on 9/11, both at low altitude and high altitude, was practically impossible.
Brad also points out that cell phones attempt to use the closest cell station, and that at high altitudes this would be directly below the plane. The aluminum body of the plane acts as a radio frequency (RF) shield that greatly diminishes the probability for transmission or reception of signals, and cell phones are rather weak to begin with. FCC allows a maximum hand held cellphone power rating of 0.6 watts, and most cellphones operate on 0.4 watts power.

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.

No, that's not at all the case. In a plan of this nature, someone provides the rough sketch, or flowchart you might say, as a brief outline of the overall plan they want to implement. This plan is then separated into its various segmented components, and assigned to individuals who, amongst the small group of conspirators, would have the best know-how in the related endeavors, and they would formulate the planning for those segments. One of these planners would have dealt with the PR/media aspects. This would include preparing several types of releases for media publication or broadcast - like the CNN published 9/11 "victims" website I mentioned in my last post, or the TV news broadcast stating that WTC building 7 had fallen (when it was still standing in the background of the live broadcast). The planning would have been perfect for the TV news release if it had occurred shortly after building 7 fell, but either the news release mistakenly went out 20 minutes too early to the TV station, or the execution of the demolition was late in accordance with the plan. But that doesn't take away from the fact that building seven was definitely planned to fall and be reported as a collapse. Likewise, while the person responsible for coordinating the media releases may have done a nice job arranging the "victim list" to be released to CNN, they obviously did not have the expertise to understand that the EXIF data could trap and expose them in a lie. The conspirators obviously made several mistakes in their attempts to make the planning and execution blend together seamlessly. No plans are ever perfect. As Robert Burns said, "The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry." To look back upon a plan with hindsight, as you are doing in an effort to show that the plan "makes no sense" because of the failings I have pointed out does not invalidate that plan as being a ludicrous fantasy contrivance.

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?"

That was flight 93, the one that Mark Bingham and other "victims" were supposedly on. I never said that Mark and some of the other passengers stormed the flight deck, and took over the aircraft. That was the "official" government story, and story by Mark's mom, that was handed to the media and drummed into the heads of public listeners and viewers. Isn't that where you got this from? It certainly wasn't from me. My version actually had flight 93 landing in Cleveland, Ohio.

Rick

[rickoff]

The 6th line down, under "Item Name" says "Record Version", and under information says "0002". My plain interpretation would be that this is the second version of this information, and causes me to ask, "What was #0001?" Doesn't neccesarily dispute anything one way or the other, but it could mean this info had been edited

I told you that the photo had been edited to add the AP credit. I would expect, however, that "Record Version" actually relates to the EXIF record version. For example, the format of EXIF record data can be updated from an earlier version (say version 1) to a newer version 2, and a newer camera would have the newer version built into it. Here's how the EXIF data looks for a modern digital camera when viewed with a high tech reader. More info, and much better English. Notice the "EXIF Version" field.

The other ? that jumps out at me; All the other item names are very straightforward and seem to be self explanatory, until you get to the key entry, the 15th one down. "Taking a Picture Day". What the heck is that? Very poor gramatically. Sounds like something our friend Bugler would say, or someone for whom English isn't their first language.

Yes, the EXIF viewer software depicted was obviously created by a foreign language programmer, perhaps Japanese. You see a lot of this when they translate software programs, or even automobile manuals, to English. It has no effect on the reliability or accuracy of the reader, however.

Also, the entry under Information for this Taking a Picture Day does say 20010830. While it may seem I'm stretching, could this mean 0830 as in a.m.?

Nope, not a chance. "Taking a picture day" as a foreign translation to English is like us saying "Day picture taken," or "Date picture taken. It is obviously a reference to date, and not time. Does 8:30am on 2010 have any valid meaning?

[jibbguy]

FACT:

The vast majority of those yelling "Zionists!" All the time don't give a rats ass about the plight of the Palestinians (except maybe as just another "bullet point" to help spread their "philosophy").... they would gladly KILL them the same as virtually every other group on this planet.... that does not look or sound like themselves.

Oh, i think we all here know the "differences" now between genetic and religious "Jewish", and political "Zionist".

What is so disturbing, is that those who are clever enough to make such a "fine" distinction, yet do not understand that criminality and sociopath behavior EXISTS IN EVERY SINGLE CULTURE, RELIGION, POLITICAL GROUP, and GENOTYPE...

... as does Compassion and the desire to improve our collective lot.

[bugler]

Why do I think it is not worth trying to reason that the 911 official version is a lie.

There are so many facts that are irrefutable so if someone can't see it, no matter the amount of evidence or reasoning you do that they will never get it.

1. The 2nd plane, is clearly not the commercial plane we were told.

The official version is a lie. Period.

2. The hole in the pentagon is smaller than the fuselage (what about the wings, engines, etc?).
The official version is a lie. Period.

There are literally hundreds of irrefutable facts that debunk the 911 official conspiracy theory but how many does one need to see to see the truth?

That's why I don't bother nowadays to discuss 911. Too obvious.

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

While I am sceptical, I do recognise the possibility of a conspiracy. And I certainly agree that such a conspiracy plan would include a disinformation program, to discredit conspiracy theorists. An obvious ploy would be to falsify evidence which seems to be a 'smoking gun'.Then wait for a zeolous conspiracy theorist to find such falsified evidence, and hold it up to the world, saying Ah,Hah! They could then simply wait for it to be discredited, or give a nudge if neccessary.Once discredited, the conspiracy theorists are discredited as 'faking' evidence.Obvious ploy.Therefore, any such evidence must be examined most critically, with no assumptions made.Much of what we have discussed so far is open to interpretation.You believe something is clear evidence of a conspiracy,such as the phone call, I believe there could be another explanation.
This material seems of a different nature. It appears to clearly show the "Memorial" for the victims was prepared prior tp 9/11.Both because this could, in fact,be "Smoking Gun" evidence, and could be falsified, it seems to me it demands greater scrutiny.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to make the downloaded program work to view the photos. Don't know whether it is deficient equipment or operator error.However, you and/or others reading this thread can do what I was going to do.
Firstly, I would scroll thru the CNN memorial site, and randomly copy 4 or 5 other pictures of victims. Then go on the site of a major newspaper; NYTimes, New Orleans Picayune, whatever. Copy several pictures from them. Then 'run' them all thru the same program.Firstly, this may clearly show that all the victims pictures, and hence memorials were prepared prior to 9/11. Secondly, it would resolve my concerns regarding the aquward (sp) phrasing of the 1 heading.I agree as to your explanation, except.I have had instructions which were obvious translations. They are usually full of such indelicate phrasing. In this case this is the only one. Anyway, this would be an easy way of resolving that.Secondly, looking at the 0002 ? I think my concern is obvious; that this is, possibly, an indication of tampering or altering the data. It wouldn't resolve the question entirely, be would be helpful to know what other photos show in this category.


"I told you that the photo had been edited to add the AP credit. I would expect, however, that "Record Version" actually relates to the EXIF record version." You use the phrase "I expect". Not to put words in your mouth, but "I assume" would also be accurate. I don't know how to pin this down, but there must be some way of knowing, for sure, exactly what the information does and does not reflect.

Finally, it appears this is not the only program that enables one to view this encrypted in the photo information. Might be useful to view the photos with another program.

If, in fact, ALL the photos of the 911 victims are shown to have been in the hands of AP before 911, and there is no reasonable explanation for these encrypted in the photos, than I would agree this is most disturbing evidence.

However, as I said, diligent effort and scrutiny in order to positively confirm is required. If Only the Bingham photo shows this, I would speculate that this indicates a possibility of tampering.With the "Lets Roll" quotes, etc. he was one of the victims most in the public eye.

Anyway, If my expressed concerns can be addressed, without making assumptions, and the possibility of tampering can be ruled out, I am prepared to say this is very disturbing. How in the hell could AP have had victims photos well before 9/11? This is the first thing in the "Pro" conspiracy theory arguments, that makes no sense to me.

Please take these actions to try to resolve my outstanding questions/concerns and post the results.Jim

[Moe R]

For some reason most people belive that 2 buildings fell on 911. Whenever I'm around people discussing 911. I bring up WTC building 7 which fell at free fall speed and did not get hit by a plane. They usually say ,"Building What?" There is so much info and it all leads to 911 being an inside job.
Just google "Building What" Tons of info and even Geraldo is starting to have some doubts.
Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven

[Joit]

Moe, seems it is a big Problem, that some Peoples only do get it
vvvveeeerrrrryyy ssssllllloooowwww ow.

And i wonder, if Rickoff will convince one more Person,
what will do happen, anything will suddenly change? But just maybe.
And when i compare, is the effort this worth.......?

Actually when you look with a sober Mind on the Story and even find 2,
or lets say 5 major Mistakes, then you know it stinks.
And i can find more then 5 easy. Tons of Nanothermites at the remains,
what usual only the Army can use and have, because of the Restriction from this Stuff.
The Manner how the buildings did fall and crash, the elapsed Time, till they did,
what are actually so ridculous obviously Evidence,
And not one Building, 3, at the same Manner.
I wonder when they will come into the Guinness Book of Records
for the first Buildings what crashed from an Impact of an Aircraft after a short Time.
The Planers of the WTC must have builded before Tothpicks Houses,
because it seems like they had no Clue from savety instructions,
even, when they have allready stated,
that the Buildings could handle 2 Plane impacts in a Row without crashing.
The Delay at the News, the high Amount of Videos from a lot Aspects
around the Buildings, what been suddenly there,
(compare that with any other Event at any bigger City)
The uncounted and unheared domestic Stuff,
what clearly heard explosions, and, just beside, the sloped cutted girder,
where a lot Peoples do know, this is the best way to bring a Building down.
But the biggest Mockery from all that is, that they found the the ID Card
from one of the Terroist at the top of this Pile.
Seriously how naive someone need to be, to still buy this Story.


But actually, i would just show some more 'Racists'.
I found a Palestine Forum over the Wikileaks theme,
take a look at it, and think about it, if someone still feel comfy with Israels Politic.
Al-Qassam English Forum - Powered by vBulletin

[rickoff]

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?

Glad you brought that up. FAA air traffic controllers did report that transponders were turned off in some 9/11 flights. It should be noted that flight 175 was in fact reported have some very strange transponder oddities. The signal went off for 30 seconds at 8:46am, then came back on as a signal that was not designated for any plane on this day. Then, within the space of a minute, it is changed to another new code. But New York Center air traffic computers do not correlate either of these new transponder codes with Flight 175. Consequently, according to an early FAA report, “the secondary radar return (transponder) indicating aircraft speed, altitude, and flight information began to coast and was no longer associated with the primary radar return.” Therefore, while controllers were able “to track the intruder easily… they couldn’t identify it.” However, Dave Bottiglia, the New York Center air traffic controller responsible for Flight 175, was at that time trying to locate the already-crashed Flight 11, and therefore supposedly does not notice the transponder code changes on Flight 175 until 8:51 a.m. Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001

If you want to approach this from the "doesn't make sense" angle, it really wouldn't make sense for the purported terrorists to have even worried about the transponder. It is common knowledge among pilots that, if a transponder does fail, the plane still continues to be tracked on radar. It's like someone sitting at a conference table with us and removing their name tag from their shirt. We may forget his name now that we can't see it, but we still see him sitting there. You can't hide from radar unless you are in a stealth aircraft. Regardless, there definitely was a transponder signal showing flight 175 still flying an hour and 22 minutes after it was said to have struck WTC2, as demonstrated by the CNN broadcast that I pointed you to.

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.

No, not at all. And even if 'they' had been watching closely, 'they' would not notice this until it had already been broadcast, by which time someone (or several people) had already recorded this newscast on videotape at their home. Many people turned on their video recorders on 9/11, since it was an event of such great magnitude. I know I did. Destroying the TV studio tape would not affect those who recorded 9/11 TV broadcasts at home.

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 [FAA flight controller] screen! Come on, your blocking our shot!"

This is definitely not the scenario as shown in CNN's captured TV broadcast. Why waste the time of creating a long and entirely speculative post as to what might have occurred in the broadcast when all you need do is watch it and see for yourself? It is quite obvious that the entire broadcast segment was being done in real time, and that the screen view showing flight 175 was not something that had been taped earlier in the day at FAA headquarters. Obviously you never read the information found at this link, which I pointed you to in post #979 on Novemeber 21st. As I suspect that you still may not bother to read what I pointed out there, I'll make it easy for you by showing the nitty gritty of it here:

At 2 minutes and 40 seconds [elapsed time of the above linked video], the reporter tells us that they are going to try and show us a screen view of their "Flight Explorer." This is a computer program that takes real-time live feed supplied by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), and shows a screen view depicting current locations and identifications of in-flight aircraft. As the live view comes up, the reporter notes how very few planes are still flying in the northeast region[which of course would not have been the case if the view had been recorded earlier, before the WTC2 impact, since the NY/NJ area is well known for its high air traffic volume], and that only three aircraft are left flying at this time in the general vicinity of New York City. As he points at each of these planes, the identifying information for each one appears. If you pause the video at 3:04 elapsed time, you can read in the top line of the flight info box that this is "UAL 175." See a Flight Explorer live snap shot of all current North America flight locations here: Sabre Flight Explorer - US Traffic

Or go here, and scroll down near bottom of page to see a live snapshot of the region centered at New York City area:
Airport Information and Security Checkpoint Delays from Sabre Flight Explorer
If you look between 10:00 and 10:30am, on any given day, you should see a large number of planes in this area. So, what was shown in the broadcast was definitely after the all-flight grounding call went out
at 9:45am, 42 minutes after wTC was impacted.

Anyway, if viewing the footage makes it obvious that this could not possibly be what happened in this instance, then I look foolish.

Well yes, that's one thing you are correct about. Sorry about that, but this could easily have been avoided by reading the above transplanted information that I referred you to earlier, and/or viewing 5 minutes of video, rather than spending what was probably 10 times that amount of time composing your entirely speculative post. As we move on from here, please just take the time to review the information I have given you before responding to it. You will be doing yourself, and all the rest of us here, a big favor. And as I suggested to you earlier, let's leave all unprovable speculation out of posts, and concentrate only upon factual and verifiable evidence. It's fine to speculate all you want at home, but in this forum it only clouds and distracts from the issues. I would hope that is not your intention, but if you continue to post speculations, rather than facts and evidence, your credibility among forum readers will suffer and your intentions here will become rather questionable. As I have said before, I am very receptive and responsive to answering any pertinent questions that may arise, and I encourage people to ask questions when they don't understand something. Such questions can be posed and limited to a sentence or two that do not require being embellished with any speculative statements. Please keep this in mind and post accordingly, thank you.

Rick

[thedude]

David Icke, Alex Jones, Jessie Ventura and George Green - The End Game

I don't mean to inspire fear on these forums. Only awareness is my intention. I'm not here to argue in the name of conspiracy. All evidence should stand for itself. Some would say that the individuals in my post title represent the problem and are "Zionists" who are undermining society with lies. I've seen no proof of this at all. Feel free to debate this video and its message, but i'm not here to defend it, only to help bring it in to view for some discussion.

David Icke, Alex Jones, Jessie Ventura and George Green - The End Game

I'm sorry if it is disturbing. Given the line of discussion in this thread, I'm certain its not too much of a surprise at this point.

Love and Light!