On Experiencing Jim Fetzer

[gumboot]

To be fair TruthSeeker1234 is correct - a laser weapon is being used in Iraq. It's the ZEUS laser which is used to disable land mines. Another currently suspended development is the Israeli THEL air defense system.

The important note here is all laser related weapons are being developed to intercept and destroy enemy projectiles - missiles, rockets, mortars, artillery shells, etc. They're a purely defensive piece of equipment. They certainly can't destroy buildings.

-Gumboot

 

[twinstead]

Therein lies your problem.

It is not true at all. Smoke colour is not an indicator of oxygen levels or temperature. It's a myth.

Truthydude, I'd like you to deal with gumboot's post. Anybody who knows anything about fires knows that the color of the smoke can be meaningless. Do you acknowledge that you might be wrong, or do you directly challenge any experts who discount the 'color of the smoke' when it comes to the fires that day?

 

[Gravy]

Ace, when you figure out that airliners were used on 9/11, give us a ring, okay? Now shuffle off and get to work. You have lots of research to do. I know you can't find rubble at Ground Zero, but perhaps you'll do better hunting those planes. You may even be able to locate one or two people who claim to have seen them!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Who said anything about Congress? We are talking black ops. Since when has your Constitution been obeyed? Remember when Cheney announced that 2 1/2 trillion dollars was "missing"? Wasn't that Sept. 10, 2001?

This missing money was on-budget, and missing. Also consider that the executive branch of the U.S. government, with it's partner-in-crime the Federal Reserve, can simply print dollars and spend them.

so if the fed can just print money by the trillions and spend it why are they embezzling it from the DoD?

also, maybe im not looking int eh right places but i havent noticed any of the hyperinflation thats usually associated with introducing trillions of dollars of new money into the system

and you never answered my question about the gold standard, how do we back a 12.5 trillion doillar economy with 164 billion dollars worth of gold?

 

[Gravy]

Here is what is sinister. First, I believe it is generally true that, other things being equal, darker smoke indicates less oxygen.

Ace is right. Look at these smoldering fires.

​

 

[Orphia Nay]

Gravy scores again. Pwnage!

Pomeroo, some of your comments to Ace really make me chuckle. Speaking of amateur psychological analysis, I'm reminded of your 'body language' when you were introducing Dylan and Jason in the Gravy debate. This is you just as you're about to utter the words "the Loose Change team" :

 

[pomeroo]

Gravy scores again. Pwnage!

Pomeroo, some of your comments to Ace really make me chuckle. Speaking of amateur psychological analysis, I'm reminded of your 'body language' when you were introducing Dylan and Jason in the Gravy debate. This is you just as you're about to utter the words "the Loose Change team" :

Well, at least you had the good taste to refrain from using the shot of me throwing up.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

so if the fed can just print money by the trillions and spend it why are they embezzling it from the DoD?

Because they can.

also, maybe im not looking int eh right places but i havent noticed any of the hyperinflation thats usually associated with introducing trillions of dollars of new money into the system

The dollar is currently worth less than 1% of what is was in 1913. The only explanation for a sustained general rise in prices is an increase in the money supply, beyond the increase in the production of goods and services. (The quantity theory of money).

and you never answered my question about the gold standard, how do we back a 12.5 trillion doillar economy with 164 billion dollars worth of gold?

Any money supply is optimal. Prices will adjust accordingly. If the supply of gold becomes lower relative to the supply of goods and services generally, then prices will go down, increasing the purchasing power of anyone holding money. Demand for gold will then increase, making gold production become more profitable, stimulating an increase in gold production.

Had we not abandoned the gold standard, the production of gold would have kept pace with the production of goods and services generally, because on the market, there is a strong tendancy for the rate of profit to equalize among all industries, including the prodcution of gold.

If gold ever became too scarce to satisfy the demand for it, people would seek substitutes, as they do with any other commodity. There is nothing wrong with this. Precious metals are the correct money, not because I say so, but because the market says so. The world gold standard evolved sponaneously over countless centuries. The switch to paper fiat money was forced upon people by those with the power to do so.

The overall economy cannot be made richer simply by creating more money. If it could, we could not explain why there is even a single poor country anywhere, for all any country would need to do is print more money, and become rich.

To debunk your confusion, listen to the second mp3 below, Rothbard. The chapter is called "The decline from weight to name". He clearly explains the fallacy present in your notion that there is "only 164 billion dollars worth of gold".

Competition is good, monopolies are bad.

Listen to Rothbard on the subject.

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/money/5.mp3

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/money/6.mp3

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The dollar is currently worth less than 1% of what is was in 1913. The only explanation for a sustained general rise in prices is an increase in the money supply, beyond the increase in the production of goods and services. (The quantity theory of money).

thats nowhere near hyperinflation, read up on what happened in germany after ww1 (they printed more money to pay reparations, didnt work out too well)

Had we not abandoned the gold standard, the production of gold would have kept pace with the production of goods and services generally, because on the market, there is a strong tendancy for the rate of profit to equalize among all industries, including the prodcution of gold.

actually from what i understand the gold standard was abandoned because the economy was expanding faster than gold could be procurred to back it

when the gold standard was abandoned in 1934 GDP was over 4 times the value of the gold reserve (assuming 164 billion in gold) why hadnt gold production increased to meet the demands of the economy?

If gold ever became too scarce to satisfy the demand for it, people would seek substitutes, as they do with any other commodity.

hmm, i wonder why the gold standard was substitued with something else...

The overall economy cannot be made richer simply by creating more money. If it could, we could not explain why there is even a single poor country anywhere, for all any country would need to do is print more money, and become rich.

exactly, see my above statements on hyperinflation and explain again how the fed is able to covertly print trillions of dollars for secret government spending without any aparent problems

 

[JamesB]

Because they can.

The dollar is currently worth less than 1% of what is was in 1913. The only explanation for a sustained general rise in prices is an increase in the money supply, beyond the increase in the production of goods and services. (The quantity theory of money).

Any money supply is optimal. Prices will adjust accordingly. If the supply of gold becomes lower relative to the supply of goods and services generally, then prices will go down, increasing the purchasing power of anyone holding money. Demand for gold will then increase, making gold production become more profitable, stimulating an increase in gold production.

Had we not abandoned the gold standard, the production of gold would have kept pace with the production of goods and services generally, because on the market, there is a strong tendancy for the rate of profit to equalize among all industries, including the prodcution of gold.

If gold ever became too scarce to satisfy the demand for it, people would seek substitutes, as they do with any other commodity. There is nothing wrong with this. Precious metals are the correct money, not because I say so, but because the market says so. The world gold standard evolved sponaneously over countless centuries. The switch to paper fiat money was forced upon people by those with the power to do so.

The overall economy cannot be made richer simply by creating more money. If it could, we could not explain why there is even a single poor country anywhere, for all any country would need to do is print more money, and become rich.

To debunk your confusion, listen to the second mp3 below, Rothbard. The chapter is called "The decline from weight to name". He clearly explains the fallacy present in your notion that there is "only 164 billion dollars worth of gold".

Competition is good, monopolies are bad.

Listen to Rothbard on the subject.

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/money/5.mp3

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/money/6.mp3

Who cares, the living standard has increased exponentially since 1913. The nominal value of money is irrelevant, only the real value is important.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar97.pdf

 

[pomeroo]

Ace, listen closely:

Trillions of dollars are not "missing" from the Pentagon. Fetzer made it up. The Pentagon doesn't have trillions of dollars. Fetzer got the figure of $2.3 trillion from Rumsfeld himself. No money is "missing."

Judy's Super Beam weapons will not be available on Earth for quite some time. Earth is where we live. The military doesn't have those Super Beam weapons, although they probably wish they did. If those weapons existed, they would probably be used by the military, not by Dick Cheney's crime syndicate. It's unlikely that EVERYONE in the military would agree to use their futuristic weapons to blow up buildings in New York City. There's a good chance that someone would complain about the criminal use of a secret weapon that won't exist for decades.

You can fight this thing, Ace.

 

[CHF]

Who said anything about Congress? We are talking black ops.

Oh right - so let's overlook your lack of evidence.

We are talking black ops after all.

 

[CHF]

Ace is right. Look at these smoldering fires.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790462988ea2a655.jpg
​

Let's not forget the oxygen-starved fires that engulfed the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991....the ones that gave off enough black smoke to blot out the sun and somehow managed to burn for the better part of a year.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Let's not forget the oxygen-starved fires that engulfed the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991....the ones that gave off enough black smoke to blot out the sun and somehow managed to burn for the better part of a year.

lots of black smoke there

 

[pomeroo]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/f9_5.gif

lots of black smoke there

It's not black, dammit! It only looks black!

 

[Hokulele]

There are several people standing in this photo, and the steel columns come up to about mid-shin.

OK, so you are saying that the steel you see in the top layer of this photo is resting directly on the ground. In the background of this image, you can see several buildings as well as heavy machinery. Do they look like they are below the elevation where the people are standing, at the same elevation, or higher?

Any answer?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Here's visual confirmation of Ace's theory:

(by Chundermonkey in this week's b3ta image challenge)

 

[Mancman]

TS1234 has stated on numerous times that 'the north wall of WTC1 was not down in WTC6'. Usually accompanied by an aerial photo in which the the bottom of the WTC6 pit is obscured.

Here is a photo taken in the pit:

TS1234 also claimed that 'If you all want to believe that "it all went in the basement", I would point out that you are doing so on the basis of no credible evidence.'

However, there is evidence. Will TS address it?

The primary challenge facing workers below ground is how to remove debris from the WTC's 16-acre basement without tipping over the Center's slurry wall. The three-foot thick slurry wall surrounds the periphery of the basin of the site and extends down roughly 60 or 70 feet, where it is socketed into rock - mica schist. The slabs of the basement's six floors provided the lateral support for the wall, which keeps the Hudson River and surrounding sediments from entering the foundation and basement. When the twin towers of the World Trade Center crashed down, so too crumbled the six supporting floors, "so the slabs are not there, the floors are not there, but the debris is doing what the floors used to do," says Daniel Hahn, senior associate engineer at the consulting company Mueser Rutledge.
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov01/NNwtc.html

 

[Gravy]

Mancman seems to have seen advance copies of the Hardfire shows!

 

[Mancman]

Mancman seems to have seen advance copies of the Hardfire shows!

Indeed. I have contacts. Our NWO handlers were in the same year at sooper-seekrit NWO college™.