Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
Where did I go?
9/11 Bullsh!t
- Thread starter originalstrain
- Start date
i quit stalking you. i don't know. i seem to be the only mod around lately. i was called a loser.
ViRedd
New Member
Who called you a loser? Whom ever it was is lame.i quit stalking you. i don't know. i seem to be the only mod around lately. i was called a loser.
Vi
Live2Die420
Well-Known Member
i belive it was set up to an impeccable amount that many people cannot even fathom. I don't think that the bush administration set it up at all. I think that George Bush himself planned it along with a team of experts. That I am not sure who of but idk read about backwater USA. People Like that would help with something like this. DO you know how much the WTC property is worth? Billions upon billions upon billions. So much money I cant even think that high. The WTC's were dead. They didnt do shit for the stock market and that was back to normal within a few months after the tradjety (spelling). They were nothing more then the two tallest building that noone would ever demolish because they were a "status" symbol of america's economy and power. So how do you take them down and capitalize on the property as a big business owner? You plan an attack with the president who wants a great reason to go into iraq of course! They take the towers down, big business get's money for land, Bush gets money from the trillions of gallons of oil we now own oil.
Another scary thing to ponder.
we control alaska, within alaska there is enough "known" oil to sustain the entire world for 13 years.
we know that right now oil controls the global economy.
If we control the oil, we control every large country in the entire world. No oil, there planes woulnt be up in the air very long.
I strongly beilive that the amount of oil left on this planet is dangerously lower then we are lead to believe in present day. Why would we be dying for it in iraq?
I also stronly beilve that our government (assuming my oil theory is true) knows that in a short amount of time oil will be running out. and that if we control it, we will control the world. America will be #1 and control every country.
Fact: America is also the only contry big enough/technologically advanced enough to fully sustain itself on non-fossil fuels for when we do run out of the good stuff. Either way we win.
I would even suspect in our lifetime we will see another large war similar to WW 1 and WW 2 for oil.
Its already happening on a smaller scale in iraq with us. what happens when we fully control all those middle eastern oil wells and we start jacking the prices to China and Russia? War.
Scary to think about.
Another scary thing to ponder.
we control alaska, within alaska there is enough "known" oil to sustain the entire world for 13 years.
we know that right now oil controls the global economy.
If we control the oil, we control every large country in the entire world. No oil, there planes woulnt be up in the air very long.
I strongly beilive that the amount of oil left on this planet is dangerously lower then we are lead to believe in present day. Why would we be dying for it in iraq?
I also stronly beilve that our government (assuming my oil theory is true) knows that in a short amount of time oil will be running out. and that if we control it, we will control the world. America will be #1 and control every country.
Fact: America is also the only contry big enough/technologically advanced enough to fully sustain itself on non-fossil fuels for when we do run out of the good stuff. Either way we win.
I would even suspect in our lifetime we will see another large war similar to WW 1 and WW 2 for oil.
Its already happening on a smaller scale in iraq with us. what happens when we fully control all those middle eastern oil wells and we start jacking the prices to China and Russia? War.
Scary to think about.
originalstrain
Well-Known Member
the real fucked up thing is that oil aint shit compared to war, war is the most profitable thing in the world, and with the united states federal reserve being privately owned and just printing paper without any thing behind it any more, we pay the WHOLE cost it's all interest now! every cent is pocketed and more is printed then we pay that.with war being the most expensive thing in the world and bush either owning part of the reserve or just being a puppet for them. hes gonna try and keep us in a perpetual war with everyone until we can print every ones money and then they can pocket that. so oil aint shit to them. which is REAL SCARY! ftw pntrsar
"The most powerful men in the United States are themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which has been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power is the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact is that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today"
If the media is unbiased, independent and completely thorough, why haven't they discussed the FED? Currently, half the states have at least a grass roots movement in action to abolish the FED, but there's no press coverage. In July, 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS. Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC.
In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose to 14.1% and NBC to 4.5% (through RCA, the parent company of NBC). The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7% of ABC, and today the percentage could be much greater. It only requires 5% ownership to significantly influence the media. This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them
Rockefeller also controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the sole purpose of which is to aid in stimulating greater interest in foreign affairs and in a one world government. Nearly every major newscaster belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations controls many major newspapers and magazines. Additionally, major corporations owned by FED shareholders are the source of huge advertising revenues which surely would influence the media. It can be no wonder why groups such as FED-UP(tm) receive minimal, if any, press attention. By law (check the Congressional record), we can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED's 300 shareholders, which is $450 million. If each taxpayer paid $25, we could buy back the FED and all the profit would flow into the U.S. Treasury. In other words, by Congress allowing the constitutionally illegal FED to continue, much of your taxes go to the shareholders of the FED and their bankers.The people who enacted the FED started the IRS, within months of the FED's inception. The FED buys U.S. debt with money they printed from nothing, then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government had to create income tax to pay the interest expense to the FED's shareholders, but the income tax was never legally passed. The FED is illegal, per Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Not one state legally ratified the 16th Amendment making income tax legal.
originalstrain
Well-Known Member
looks like you need to read your own rules since nothing "bad" was said until you disrepected me! on my respectful mature thread!we have rules here. we respect each other. we don't flame and we don't attack. we act as adults. this is your thread but as a moderator it is now mine. you will receive no infraction at this time, but you have been warned.
we are open to mature discussions. thank you.
iloveyou
silk
Well-Known Member
That's crazy talk. The larger the country, the harder it will be to use alternative energies. You can find that existing technologies develop more rapidly in smaller geographical areas. An example is internet bandwidth capability.
You might want to ease off the pot if you think your speculation is a fact. There are no grounds to prove what you are saying. If I'm wrong you could cite at least one reason in a publication...
silk
Well-Known Member
What's fucked up is you have no idea what the size of the oil industry is, or the defense industry. You also don't understand the argument against having a gold standard backed dollar bill. The U.S. always pays it's WHOLE cost of fighting it's share of military conflicts. The interest I am paying to you is this: what are you talking about?
ozstone
Well-Known Member
Here is a link to some discussion as to whether a small Nuke was used to assist in the collapse
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums [Powered by Invision Power Board]
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums [Powered by Invision Power Board]
medicineman
New Member
As I've said before, I wouldn't put anything past those neocon bastards, but the proof is very skeptical at present.
originalstrain
Well-Known Member
Silk,what are YOU talking about read in to it, its all facts! google it, pick up a book its all there! where do you think the government gets the cash from to fund it? its printed the reimbursed later by us through interest charges!
Let us say that the Federal Government needs $1,000,000,000 ($1 billion) more, after it collects the taxes, to continue financing its projects. (like war) Since it does not have the money, and Congress has given away its authority to create it, the Government must go to the Federal Reserve, which is now in charge of creating the money for the country. But the Federal Reserve does not just give its money away! The Bankers are willing to deliver $1 billion in money or credit to the Federal Government only in exchange for the Government's agreement to pay it back — with interest! The Congress then authorizes the Treasury Department to print $1 billion in U.S. bonds, which are then delivered to the Federal Reserve Bankers. The Federal Reserve then pays the cost of printing the $1 billion (about $1,000), and makes the exchange. The Government then used the money to pay its obligations. Now, what are the results of this transaction! The $1 billion in Government bills is paid, but the Government has now indebted the people to the Bankers for $1 billion, on which the people must pay interest! And, of course, the interest is not created! And, to top it all, on this $1 billion that the Federal Reserve received in bonds from this transaction, it is legally allowed to create another $15 billion in new credit to lend to states, municipalities, businesses, and individuals. Added to the original $1 billion, they could have $16 billion of created credit out in loans paying them interest, with their only cost being the $1,000 they spent for printing the original $1 billion lent to the Government. Is it diabolical? We should probably clarify the term “create”. When we use this term, we refer to the process used to bring money into existence. The Bankers create money out of nothing, simply by writing numbers in their ledger books, and then giving loans to the American people with this money, allowing them to write checks on the numbers written in their accounts, and then requiring payment with interest. Money is nothing but numbers, be it numbers in a ledger book, on checks, or on dollar bills. Using this process, most banks are legally allowed to lend out up to 50 times of what they have on deposit, creating the money out of nothing and then charging interest on it. the Federal Reserve prints the paper money we use in circulation, the Federal Reserve Notes, by having numbers printed on pieces of paper of little value, since a few cents will print a $1 bill or a $10,000 bill (at the same cost). Money is very cheap to make, and whoever has the legal right to create the money in a nation can make a tremendous profit. The United States has plunged itself terribly into debt since the Federal Reserve Act was passed. In 1910, before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the federal debt was only $1 billion, or $12.40 per citizen. State and local debts were practically non-existent. By 1920, after only 6 years of Federal Reserve “shenanigans”, the federal debt had jumped to $24 billion, or $228 per person. In 1960, the federal debt reached $284 billion, or $1,575 per citizen, and state and local debts were mushrooming. By 1981, the federal debt passed $1 trillion, and was growing exponentially, being the Banker's tripled the interest rates. State and local debts were more than the federal, and with business and personal debts, the total was over $6 trillion, 3 times the value of all land and buildings in America. In October, 2005, the federal debt reached the $8 trillion mark ($26,672 for each U.S. citizen), and it is continuing to grow wildly out of control. (For the fiscal year 2004, the interest payments on the U.S. federal debt were $321 billion.) And that's only the peak of the iceberg: the total debt (states, corporations, consumers) is over $41 trillion!
and we have to pay all that back!!
Let us say that the Federal Government needs $1,000,000,000 ($1 billion) more, after it collects the taxes, to continue financing its projects. (like war) Since it does not have the money, and Congress has given away its authority to create it, the Government must go to the Federal Reserve, which is now in charge of creating the money for the country. But the Federal Reserve does not just give its money away! The Bankers are willing to deliver $1 billion in money or credit to the Federal Government only in exchange for the Government's agreement to pay it back — with interest! The Congress then authorizes the Treasury Department to print $1 billion in U.S. bonds, which are then delivered to the Federal Reserve Bankers. The Federal Reserve then pays the cost of printing the $1 billion (about $1,000), and makes the exchange. The Government then used the money to pay its obligations. Now, what are the results of this transaction! The $1 billion in Government bills is paid, but the Government has now indebted the people to the Bankers for $1 billion, on which the people must pay interest! And, of course, the interest is not created! And, to top it all, on this $1 billion that the Federal Reserve received in bonds from this transaction, it is legally allowed to create another $15 billion in new credit to lend to states, municipalities, businesses, and individuals. Added to the original $1 billion, they could have $16 billion of created credit out in loans paying them interest, with their only cost being the $1,000 they spent for printing the original $1 billion lent to the Government. Is it diabolical? We should probably clarify the term “create”. When we use this term, we refer to the process used to bring money into existence. The Bankers create money out of nothing, simply by writing numbers in their ledger books, and then giving loans to the American people with this money, allowing them to write checks on the numbers written in their accounts, and then requiring payment with interest. Money is nothing but numbers, be it numbers in a ledger book, on checks, or on dollar bills. Using this process, most banks are legally allowed to lend out up to 50 times of what they have on deposit, creating the money out of nothing and then charging interest on it. the Federal Reserve prints the paper money we use in circulation, the Federal Reserve Notes, by having numbers printed on pieces of paper of little value, since a few cents will print a $1 bill or a $10,000 bill (at the same cost). Money is very cheap to make, and whoever has the legal right to create the money in a nation can make a tremendous profit. The United States has plunged itself terribly into debt since the Federal Reserve Act was passed. In 1910, before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the federal debt was only $1 billion, or $12.40 per citizen. State and local debts were practically non-existent. By 1920, after only 6 years of Federal Reserve “shenanigans”, the federal debt had jumped to $24 billion, or $228 per person. In 1960, the federal debt reached $284 billion, or $1,575 per citizen, and state and local debts were mushrooming. By 1981, the federal debt passed $1 trillion, and was growing exponentially, being the Banker's tripled the interest rates. State and local debts were more than the federal, and with business and personal debts, the total was over $6 trillion, 3 times the value of all land and buildings in America. In October, 2005, the federal debt reached the $8 trillion mark ($26,672 for each U.S. citizen), and it is continuing to grow wildly out of control. (For the fiscal year 2004, the interest payments on the U.S. federal debt were $321 billion.) And that's only the peak of the iceberg: the total debt (states, corporations, consumers) is over $41 trillion!
and we have to pay all that back!!
originalstrain
Well-Known Member
wow im done with this site everyone is so dumb its annoying im sick of teaching people things
silk
Well-Known Member
You should remember to use quotes so everyone can know what YOU are talking about. If you have a particular book you think I should read then please let me know the author(s) and Title; the ISBN number is very helpful as well.
U.S. citizens do not pay interest on the printing of cash. You can however say that taxpayers are paying the interest on the debt instruments created by the U.S. government because a portion of tax revenue goes to paying the interest or principle of that debt.
Let's assume you are correct. The Fed is just printing money. Wouldn't the valuation of the dollar go down and inflation go up? You can see these variables relating to the war in Iraq. However, can you tell us how much money has been pumped into the national or global economy and has decreased valuation and caused inflation? I don't think so... hand me a book please!
dannyking
Well-Known Member
This is a load of shit. The bible is propaganda written nearly 200 years after the death of jesus. And some even Later.
[youtube]J3D28Ys-dp4[/youtube]
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
--Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Father of deductive reasoning
Any historical document may contain bits of truth and some historical facts. That in no way validates everything contained therein. Did St. George really slay a dragon? It's recorded in historical documents, as well as many other real verifiable facts about his life.
How about the parts of the bible that can be shown to be historically inaccurate? Do you just ignore those and move on? Didn't the bible tell us of a worldwide deluge? There doesn't seem to be any sedimentary evidence for that, large regional floods, yes, but not one as described in the bible. Also, if we are going to use history as confirmation of past events rather than empirical evidence, what about the Egyptians, whose history stretches from at least 3100 BC - well before the Flood - through the pyramid builders of the Old Kingdom (2770-2200 BC) -- which includes the time of the Flood -- to the end of the New Kingdom (1087 BC) (Lerner et al 1993). Definably Egyptian art, architecture, and documents exist continuously through these ages. The earliest evidence of the Egyptians diverting the Nile for irrigation dates to 3100 BC, and by 1750 BC they had established river gauging stations to predict the height of the Nile flood (Officer and Page 1993:63). This civilization was obviously "tuned in" to floods. How come the Egyptians seem not to have noticed a global flood?