Zeitgeist: Moving Forward | Official Trailer-

[Baff1 0]

Some elements got deregualted, others did not.

So for the banking collapse, we had government regualtions in America forcing them to lend to poor people who couldn't pay it back.

And then government de-regualtions allowing banks to sell that debt off cheapily to other banks around the world in the form of deratives.

Turning a national collpase into an international collapse.

The problem was neither too much regulation nor too little. It was the law of unexpected circumstance.

Each regulation or de-regualtion had unpredicted side effects.

These are very complex situations and the very idea that a government can control them is laughable in the extreme. They can't regulate for what they don't understand.

Once you start attributing higher powers of omnisciesnce to "the goverment" then it's not going to be long before you start assuming they made all their errors dliberately.

I don't think of it the same way as you do. I don't think I am watching a great nation being destroyed from within, I think of it as watching a great nation that has flourished for so long by being the only industrial economic superpower in the world after WW2, now facing competetion from rebuilt or new industrial powers that before were it's customers only.

It's a gradual and expected decline the way I see it.

Painful, sure, but hardly cataclysmic.

And I don't think it's the fault of the American people who have now become too lazy or stupid to work and succeed either.

I don't think there is anything special about Americans that makes them obvious candidates for the no.1 slot... or nay of that sort of wooly mindedness.

Just the right place at the right time. Caught on a tide of history.

The sun shone, they made a lot of hay. Good luck to them.

It was always going to be a short time period of advantage only.

The American people haven't got worse, their competition has got better.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Baff1

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The problem was neither too much regulation nor too little. It was the law of unexpected circumstance.

Bullshit.

Do you even know the leverage against their reserves mandated by the Fed in the years 2006-2008 for banks?

You can attribute it to stupidity, unexpected side effect, but wise up and have some pity if you have any humanity left for the 320 million plus people who will be affected by a collapse of the dollar as a reserve currency OVERNIGHT; overnight Imports triple, all commodities: soft & hard go through the roof and you will have gas shortages within 48 days.

I'm trying to answer a question for myself: would I rather see gold rally 2% daily for a few years before a sell-off, or see this country back in the hands of the People with the Rule of Law reinstated?

Ed.: This might make sense the feeble minds of today, who are disabled to the point of not being able to look up a decent ticker blog in the past 5 years:

Every Breath You Take

3u2qRXb4xCU&feature=related

Edited October 15, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Baff1 0]

Bullshit.

Do you even know the leverage against their reserves mandated by the Fed in the years 2006-2008 for banks?

As I understand it....

Reserves are that part of the banks money against which zero leverage is held.

So the answer to your question is "zero leverage".

Edited October 15, 2010 by Baff1

[st_dux 26]

@Iroquois Pliskin:

You mention slashed interest rates after 9/11 as a problem, and then immediately afterward you blame deregulation for America's present economic situation. Slashed interest rates is the result of government regulation, though, so which one is it? You are contradicting yourself.

[Sira 10]

yeah, he wrote the paper that claims remains of thermite was found..which makes no sense. thermite isn't even an explosive, let alone used for demolition. In any case the 'residue' are iron spheres which you also get in other things like err paint

4RNyaoYR3y0

[TomatoArden 0]

hahahahahahahhahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA

How do you get 100s of tons of this 'explosive' into the building? Oh and the WTC7 has been perfectly explained. This guy appears to have ignored a load of evidence that has been presented plenty of times in plenty of places and the fact that the stuff has been investigated.That video is a load of trollop and the science has been discredited.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Oh and the WTC7 has been perfectly explained.

Got a link? Always wondered about that one.

[st_dux 26]

Got a link? Always wondered about that one.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[TomatoArden 0]

That page is good. The NIST report has had to change its mind a few times as to what most caused the building collapse as new evidence has come out and more tests and models have been done. Thats why it was such a log time before their report was final.

[mrcash2009 0]

The NIST report has had to change its mind a few times as to what most caused the building collapse as new evidence has come out and more tests and models have been done. Thats why it was such a log time before their report was final.

Isnt that moving the goalposts?

[pre-Vet 10]

I'll see you when WW 3 takes off, then. No questions asked, only orders.

EDIT: Close this thread, forum's full of active or reserve military; wouldn't want anyone with possible PTSD going L.H. Oswald on the old man, if one were to find out that the war he fought was based on fraud & lies, provided, of course, he wasn't duly compensated by the United States of America.

that was serious and funny at the same time! you must be fun at partys.

----------

About the thermite thing..

Could it the whole "inside job" story is based on the feeling of the people who thought the USA was the most powerfull country on earth and they just cant accept they where attacked by some crazy religious group who got their idea in a house made of cowshit?

So could it bee when they saw their vulnarabilitys they wouldnt fall from their believe about the USA being invincible. They could only conclude it must have been the goverment because some wierd abasade/frigate bombing group form afar could never have done something like that.

So the thermite story sounds nice, something to go with.

Remember thermite can be made from aluminium and corroded steel, a plane made from aluminium, a building made of steel.

[-Snafu- 77]

Isnt that moving the goalposts?

How is that moving the goal posts? Do you think the police have all the necessary evidence on a silver platter at a crime scene when they arrive? No, some of it will appear later, like forensic tests (which can take months), and if it reveals something that invalidates their previous theory they obviously cannot ignore it.

[mrcash2009 0]

How is that moving the goal posts? Do you think the police have all the necessary evidence on a silver platter at a crime scene when they arrive? No, some of it will appear later, like forensic tests (which can take months), and if it reveals something that invalidates their previous theory they obviously cannot ignore it.

If this came from an opposing side, would that be moving goalposts?

[-Snafu- 77]

If this came from an opposing side, would that be moving goalposts?

When conducting investigations evidence can be discovered that may or may not cause you to change your conclusion, significantly or otherwise. I do it all the time.

The basic fact is that the conspiracy theorists have failed to come up with credible evidence to demonstrate the current conclusions as incorrect. No, posting links to dubious websites and videos isn't credible evidence.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Snafu

[MrBump 10]

If this came from an opposing side, would that be moving goalposts?

Moving the goalpost is where you reject evidence to a claim and demand greater evidence, it is a logically fallacious argument used to backup a preordained conclusion. Changing your conclusion due to new evidence is the opposite of this, and is not logically fallacious.

[mrcash2009 0]

credible evidence to demonstrate the current conclusions as incorrect

How do you know without a shadow of a doubt that the conclusions your proving against are absolute fact? I mean people personaly? How do people who have this information KNOW this for a fact 100 percent?

Moving the goalpost is where you reject evidence to a claim and demand greater evidence, it is a logically fallacious argument used to backup a preordained conclusion.

What if the conclusion people are proving against are also preordained? How could you know for certain this is set in stone?

[Baff1 0]

I watched aeroplanes flying into skyscrapers live on TV.

Most of the population of the world did.

Personally, I have a lot of difficulty disputing this evidence.

[pre-Vet 10]

I watched aeroplanes flying into skyscrapers live on TV.

Most of the population of the world did.

Personally, I have a lot of difficulty disputing this evidence.

My thought exactly.

1 of them almost came out the other side, I dont think thermite is still needed to take that building down.

(hope this wont turn into the "ufo did it" discussion)

[mrcash2009 0]

I watched aeroplanes flying into skyscrapers live on TV.

Most of the population of the world did.

Personally, I have a lot of difficulty disputing this evidence.

Same here, although most of it is more than just that "bit" that people ask about.

(hope this wont turn into the "ufo did it" discussion)

Why did you feel the need to post that? Anything you want to tell us :)

[-Snafu- 77]

How do you know without a shadow of a doubt that the conclusions your proving against are absolute fact? I mean people personaly? How do people who have this information KNOW this for a fact 100 percent?

Historians don't know what exactly happened in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. They also do not know what exactly happened during the Suez Crisis in 1956. There are many more examples of this. However, people try to conclude what happened with the information that is available to them. Thinking about 'what if' is pointless and irrelevant.

We conduct investigations and make conclusions with the information available to us. Pondering over a possibility for which there is no evidence to support is a complete and utter waste of time. The WTC conspiracy theories will remain so until they produce credible evidence and not speculation and BS.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Snafu

[pre-Vet 10]

Why did you feel the need to post that? Anything you want to tell us :)

Well , lets say some people think it where not actual aeroplanes that struck the towers. Google-> WTC UFO

[MrBump 10]

What if the conclusion people are proving against are also preordained? How could you know for certain this is set in stone?

...by looking at the evidence.

[mrcash2009 0]

Google-> WTC UFO

Gawd ... :confused: ... I think I might not :D

...by looking at the evidence.

Subjective though, right. You have "official" and a section "un official" ... I sit between the two mainly. I dont take official as gospel, but that's just my take. Theres this massive difference with conspiracy which is a badge for UFO/Paranoid/madness etc, but then there is also a middle ground between staunch official version of events and information (which to some is never questioned or compared) and then alternative information.

Some of it is pure B.S and then some of it isnt. Id rather be warey of both than fixed to official without question / everyone else on the "other side" are somehow mad which is the vibe of this thread in places.

But hey, thats just me :)

Slightly OT from the OP ...

Heres a long but worthy information ref nuclear based detonation examples:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C2BE98E0B84144F9B7A4102C8EA9B886/911thology-wtc-nuclear-demol.aspx

Take as you find of course, slam out of hand without watching in its entirety is something else though.

Edited October 22, 2010 by mrcash2009

[-Snafu- 77]

Subjective though, right. You have "official" and a section "un official" ... I sit between the two mainly. I dont take official as gospel, but that's just my take. Theres this massive difference with conspiracy which is a badge for UFO/Paranoid/madness etc, but then there is also a middle ground between staunch official version of events and information (which to some is never questioned or compared) and then alternative information.

Some of it is pure B.S and then some of it isnt. Id rather be warey of both than fixed to official without question / everyone else on the "other side" are somehow mad which is the vibe of this thread in places.

But hey, thats just me :)

Slightly OT from the OP ...

Heres a long but worthy information ref nuclear based detonation examples:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C2BE98E0B84144F9B7A4102C8EA9B886/911thology-wtc-nuclear-demol.aspx

Take as you find of course, slam out of hand without watching in its entirety is something else though.

While there are 'official' views it is nonsensical to judge them as incorrect just because they are 'official' unless you have evidence to support that. Furthermore, 'official' view on Sept. 11 attacks is backed up by unofficial experts and reports. The idea that the US government would kill thousands of its own people and destroy a piece of New York to go into Afghanistan is lunacy. For starters there are other and far more simpler ways to gain support and justification for a war. If Sept. 11 was a government attack on its own citizens then there would be clear cut credible evidence of that by now. The operation would obviously be complex, involve hundreds if not thousands of people, have a large paper trail as it would be necessary to put such complex orders to paper, require millions of dollars and so on and so forth. There's no way that could be kept secret. If a simple White House affair cannot be kept secret I fail to see how such a complex and expensive operation could be.

The bottom line is that without evidence your argument is worthless.

[Baff1 0]

Any evidence provided towards a ludricrous assumption doesn't have worth. In fact it has negative worth as by compiling it you have wasted both your own time and the time of all those who read it.

Apply the common sense test.

The internet being what it is I can provide a wealth of evidence towards any stupidity.

It doesn't change that stupidity is stupidity. You can't validate it, only invalidate yourself by attempting to.