Follow the Money

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I always enjoy reading your posts especially after you take a little vacation.

Have you tried following the real money Dave?

Yep, and so far the only ones I'm seeing actually making money these days is Apple. The gov't is hemmoraging money on the war. Silverstein is hemmoraging money on rebuilding the WTC. Dunno how much money Bush makes on his memoirs and speakign engagements but I doubt he's going to be buying too many yachts off of it.

What's your point?

I know that you think it's very important to warn every conspiracy theorist on those damned fool conspiracy websites that truthers are under attack from Alex Jones, Richard Gage and producers of that "Loose Change" flick. Especially about Korey Rowe because he made so much money on that "loose change flick" that he had to resort to selling heroin. This obviously proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Loose Change was made to make money off the gullible truthers.

But I must admit that I am impressed... You actually remembered Silverstein, Bush and even the war... But that's not what I mean when I say follow the real money.

Follow this money Dave...

Federal Reserve: Hiding 9-11 evidence?

“The currency component of M1 (Federal Reserve Notes circulating outside of banks) rose especially rapidly in July and August 2001. In fact, up to and including August 2001, that month (August 2001) was one of the three fastest growing months for the currency component of M1 since 1947, on a seasonally adjusted basis, even on the heels of significantly above-average growth in July 2001. Much of the July-August surge (over $5 billion above-average) seems to have been in the $100 denomination. Among other explanations, persons aware of any imminent terrorist attacks and concerned about possible asset seizures such as those that arose after the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and the 1998 embassy bombings could have been trying to liquidate their bank accounts in July and August 2001. The money trail could provide important clues about people aware of, if not responsible for, the attacks. I looked at some internal data bearing on this issue that was available to anyone within the Federal Reserve’s internal computer network; after going back to look at this important data again a week or two later, it was no longer freely available, but password protected.”

Originally posted by NWOwned
I only used the Empire State crash to illustrate a few points, namely, planes (whatever size) tend to break up when they come into contact with large hard things like skyscrapers. That and they tend to leave evidence of themselves right in the gash. The Empire State plane did, it was just a small bomber lost in the fog. That guy who crashed into the tax building, his small plane was hanging out of the hole.

On the 9/11 North Tower hit you have no visible plane wreckage in the gash, which I think is at least strange because it was a much bigger plane than the bomber or the tax guy's plane and therefore would leave more "pieces".

We do not have any other examples of large buildings hit by planes at more than FOUR HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR.

9/11 is unique. So most talk about what should and should not happen to the planes is bullsh!t.

psik

Originally posted by maxella1

But I must admit that I am impressed... You actually remembered Silverstein, Bush and even the war... But that's not what I mean when I say follow the real money.

Follow this money Dave...

I've read, reread, and read this excerpt, but for the life of me I still have no idea what it is you're saying. The "currency component of M1" has been rising steadily since forever, as shown by this graph:

Currency in Circulation 1947-2012 (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis )

You'll notice there have been even LARGER increases, most notably 2008 to 2010, during which time Mr. Hopey Changey was in office and during which time a US recession was recorded. I have to conclude there's a stronger relationship between "increasing the supply of money" and "trying to patch up a stalled economy" than there is "increasing the supply of money" and "sinister secret plots to take over the world".

In short, you are deliberately misrepresenting a repetitive event to make it look like an isolated incident, which- BIG SURPRISE- just happens to be situated right before the 9/11 attack, which- BIG SURPRISE- makes it look relevent in some way. Please explain to me how you're not simply manufacturing your own proof to suit your argument, here.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

In short, you are deliberately misrepresenting a repetitive event to make it look like an isolated incident, which- BIG SURPRISE- just happens to be situated right before the 9/11 attack, which- BIG SURPRISE- makes it look relevent in some way. Please explain to me how you're not simply manufacturing your own proof to suit your argument, here.

Wait are you addressing me or Federal Reserve senior analyst William Bergman?

I'm not a financial analyst , he is. And he's saying that there might be a connection between the M1 rise and 9/11 and that when he wanted to look into it he was blocked and forced to resign by the Federal Reserve. Are you saying he's a truther and is making this up? Because to me it looks like he's a whistle blower who saw something weird happen. Here listen to him explain what he's talking about...

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Wait are you addressing me or Federal Reserve senior analyst William Bergman?

I'm not a financial analyst , he is. And he's saying that there might be a connection between the M1 rise and 9/11 and that when he wanted to look into it he was blocked and forced to resign by the Federal Reserve. Are you saying he's a truther and is making this up? Because to me it looks like he's a whistle blower who saw something weird happen. Here listen to him explain what he's talking about...

OR, you're quoting an article that quoted another article that quoted someone making unprovable accusations based on innuendo, the process of which is actually called "grasping at straws".

The only thing we decisively know is that this guy claims he was sacked after asking questions that noone wanted to answer...and then eleventy billion conspiracy web sites picked up the story while saying "Isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)." I absolutely positively guarantee there's more to the story behind that, since "You asked a question noone wanted to answer" is never a reason that's put on a guy's pink slip. Since you're the one who brought this up, it's now your obligation to let us know what the reason is that they DID put on the pink slip. If the reason turned out to be "the guy lies through his teeth to everybody" then it puts the credibility of his accusations under a whole new light, doesn't it?

You asked me to "follow the money" and somehow we wound up "following some analyst's career". That's also a process called "bait and switch".

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The guy clearly explains what he means, there's no need for me to add anything else to it. It's not a conspiracy it's a coincidence right?

And the reason he got a pink slip is irrelevant, i'm talking about what anomaly he claims that he found and he does a good job explaining what are the possible reasons for the anomalies.

I'm disappointed with you Dave. You need new material because you're not even funny anymore just very annoying.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

The guy clearly explains what he means, there's no need for me to add anything else to it. It's not a conspiracy it's a coincidence right?

No, it's deliberately taking a story out of context. That news article was published back in 2007. The even bigger spike in the increase in the money supply that I pointed out happened afterwards, between 2008-2010. The misrepresentation isn't being caused by him since the author wouldn't have known this was a reoccurring event back in 2007. The misrepresentation is being caused by you because you do know it's a reoccurring event now that it's 2012 and yet you're pretending that it isn't.

Nice try.

reply to post by NWOwned

Maybe the picture is a forgery, this could be accomplished by someone who knew computers. Did anyone actually check if the footage is real? If you look at this the opposite way you may be onto something. Plenty of people saw the plane hit the towers from what I read.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

The guy clearly explains what he means, there's no need for me to add anything else to it. It's not a conspiracy it's a coincidence right?

No, it's deliberately taking a story out of context. That news article was published back in 2007. The even bigger spike in the increase in the money supply that I pointed out happened afterwards, between 2008-2010. The misrepresentation isn't being caused by him since the author wouldn't have known this was a reoccurring event back in 2007. The misrepresentation is being caused by you because you do know it's a reoccurring event now that it's 2012 and yet you're pretending that it isn't.

Nice try.

Ahhmm...

The interview you ignored is from July 15, 2012.

And here's another interview for you to ignore.

Bill Bergman Follows the Money Around 9/11
by PETER B. COLLINS on OCTOBER 17, 2011

Now what?

reply to post by maxella1


It's interesting how you seem to discover these principles you want to apply ('follow the money') after you find an article telling you to think this way.

Not trying to imply anything, just find it funny that you are now one of the most prevalent posters and you've fallen into the old pattern of posting barely relevant disconnected statements and inferring a conspiracy from it.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by maxella1

 

It's interesting how you seem to discover these principles you want to apply ('follow the money') after you find an article telling you to think this way.

Not trying to imply anything, just find it funny that you are now one of the most prevalent posters and you've fallen into the old pattern of posting barely relevant disconnected statements and inferring a conspiracy from it.

I'm not sure what you're saying and I really don't care anyway. But I didn't just discover it, in fact I already posted this interview a long time a go...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is so interesting.

9/11: The Official "Unofficial" Conspiracy Theory
www.youtube.com...

But how could airliners flown by humans hit the towers that accurately?

Were the airliners switched with robot planes?

psik

Well to hit the towers wouldnt it be sufficient to enter the appropriate coordinates in the Autopilot? Wouldnt a programming of the Autopilot result in a direct hit? Or am I wrong? How accurate are those things.