btw - what you saw on TV is not "science" and it is not "rational." What experiments have you done? What have you proven from those experiments? And more importantly - where are even just basic figures so I may test them myself?(It astounds me that "Debunking 9/11 Myths" doesn't even MENTION Newtonian physics AT ALL![sure mentions Newton, but certainly not the equations he came up with that became standards in physics since...and it's Popular Mechanics for crying out loud!])

If you want, I will send you the same, along with experiment results on the Thermal Diffusivity, Coefficient of Expansion, and so forth on the LOW QUALITY STEEL I HAVE USED for the tests in these experiments.

You'd think theo would've liked this one

rationally and scientifically? state your science, theo!

You were taught in high school that gravity pulls things to the ground at 9.8 meters per second squared, correct?

9.8 meters is equal to 32.152231 feet

So, from the first second of a fall in a vacuum(no air to produce friction against, according to Newtonian Physics), a ball would have been traveling at 32.152231 feet per second, per second

In the First second - 0-32.152231 feet down from origin - 32.152231 feet per second
In the Second second - 32.152231 - 96.456693 feet down from origin - 64.304462 feet per second
In the Third second - 96.456693 - 192.913386 feet down from origin - 96.456693 feet per second
In the Fourth Second - 192.913386 - 289.370079 feet down from origin - 128.608924 feet per second
In the Fifth Second - 289.370079 - 421.131234 feet down from origin - 160.761155 feet per second
In the Sixth Second - 421.131234 - 614.04462 feet down from origin - 192.913386 feet per second
In the Seventh Second - 614.04462 - 839.110237 feet down from origin - 225.065617 feet per second
In the Eighth Second - 839.110237 - 1096.325085 feet down from origin - 257.214848 feet per second
In the Ninth Second - 1096.325085 - 1385.692164 feet down from origin - 289.367079 feet per second
In the Tenth Second - 1385.692164 - 1707.211474 feet down from origin - 321.51931 feet per second
(Tallest of the towers was around 1370 feet tall...thus, I stop here.)

Working FORWARDS - equation of a fall, based on the gravity of Earth IN A VACUUM.

Suffice it to say, it should have taken at least a minute and a half for those towers to fall, just by friction of the steel alone(even ASSUMING that all of the floor connectors gave way at the EXACT SAME MOMENT).

If you want, I can send you the blueprints - STATE YOUR RATIONALE!

still funny.

refer to the comment in the other vid - no shame in watching this, only shame in blindly accepting the story we are told. Blind acceptance of anything isn't a good thing, in any case(my opinion, at least)

In your case, I apologize, but I'm posting this for the people, like myself, that were there, lived through it, many of which are sick from it and just want to know what really happened. If you expect murderers to tell you they murdered your fellow citizens, well, you keep waiting man - **never met a murderer that told the truth**

powerful.

Do they update the "Tel-Aviv Israel <Year>" every year or something, on this commercial?

I swear I've seen this commercial as long ago as 2001-2002.

Agree that it's sensationalist, but one must note that a large amount of international demand for USD comes from other country's need to pay for oil with it.

Any vids similar to this one on string-net liquids?

you need to read this: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/petrov011606.html

Apologies for not responding to your full post yet - I've been quite busy. I'll get to it soon enough, though.

Ah yes - my bad - forgot about Senate confirmation.

I apologize - maybe I have not made this clear, but I will not discount the fact that there will be exceptions to every statement made. Paul Volcker is one such exception, but as you yourself pointed out - Greenspan made 180k per year. I don't know if you quite get this, but the average American makes around 33k per year. While he most certainly could have made more money, he is still quite out of touch with those that he ultimately affects, which was more the point of what I was saying.

"The Congress would always be pressured to lower the interest rates and stimulate the economy, regardless of long-term consequences."
Here's one question for you - assuming the Congress took over control of the monetary system(as they have the right to do), what would be the purpose of an interest rate? The interest rate only sustains the profits and dividends of member shareholders of the Fed - operating costs are covered by the budget of money the Fed has allotted itself to print. So why would there be a need for an interest rate?

FYI - I do not sustain any faith for the Capitalist system, as the end result of Capitalism is ultimately Plutocracy(which is what we are currently living under today - people that represent the richest 5% of the population control 95% of the population) - so, just so you know, I would have no qualms with abandoning the Capitalist system entirely.

Bank runs are only a bad thing for the banks in most cases, because it shows, to their clients, exactly the level of corruption of a central banking system. Yes, people will lose faith - and they should. Yes, people will take what little money the bank has left for them out of the bank - AND THEY SHOULD. They should be able to, as an exercise of power over the banks. In what is professed to be an ultimately Capitalist system, where is the competition to the banking industry that, should they mess something up, the public will exercise power over them?

If there is to be a central bank, it must be addressable by the people themselves, SOMEHOW. The public themselves must be able to exercise some form of power over the bank in order to keep that very system in check...otherwise, the public is not responsible for what happens, and must not be legally bound to abide by such a corrupt system.

Ultimately, if the banks are to be private, as the Federal Reserve currently is, the people should be allowed - encouraged, even, to create their own forms of currency to challenge the private form of currency. At the very least, that would still result in one form of currency being chosen over the rest, but the people themselves would be responsible for what happens with that form of currency.

T-bonds/bills - what is a bond? The OED essentially defines it as an "Obligation," or a "promise to pay."

That would make a bond essentially a letter by the issuer to whoever was "buying" the bond to, at a later date, pay it back - how is that NOT a loan?

Legally, that would make us obligated to pay that money back, or exchange for something of equal value - personally I'd rather give the Fed back everything it ever gave me - because essentially it's worthless - than have them exchange for resources and land equivalent to what we owe them....but neither I, nor most Americans, could afford the bill...so if we ever want to rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve System, well, we're going to have to give THEM the land we've fought for. Funny how that will work.

Can you imagine a form of currency that is not interest-bearing, that the people themselves CAN be held responsible for the rise or the fall of?

most...depressing...cartoon...ever.(and I have some depressing cartoons)

Firstly - the concept of a "lender of last resort" is one created by JP Morgan, himself. Secondly - you do know that JP Morgan helped to write the Federal Reserve Act, right?

Oh yeah, I guess it's fortunate that the government has just "some check" on the central banking system - not like they're supposed to be printing the money themselves or anything. Not like they ever have appointed anybody that wasn't already rich by inheritance(not by knowledge, mind you) to be governor, or lowered their salaries, or ever impeached anybody.

As for politics playing a greater role in monetary policy - what would be the difference? On the one hand, you have the politics of a small group of people controlling the monetary policy of the masses versus the politics of people who have to DIRECTLY answer to the people of the United States. Who currently benefits from the politics of a small group of people running the Federal Reserve?...Oh yeah, that's right - they aren't going to do something that is not in their best interests...if the government took direct control, whose best interests would they be required to answer for?

I think you maybe assume that the President would control the Fed if it came under direct governmental control - that's precisely the problem here - the only person that appoints the Chairman IS the President - neither the Congress NOR the Senate have any say in it. I am most certainly NOT suggesting that the President take direct control - I am suggesting that, what is stated in the Constitution, that the Congress and the Senate takes direct control.

It's very interesting that you've read "Secrets of the Temple(as you defend the value of the Federal Reserve so adamantly)," but, as you'll note - I do not reference Milton Friedman's monetarist theories - I reference his "Monetary History of the United States," more specifically his account of what caused the Great Depression, or, as he notes, the Great Contraction.

Have you by any chance read "The Creature from Jekyll Island?" Yet another interesting diatribe on the Federal Reserve that you might like.

We can extensively debate the causes of Yugoslavia's economic troubles, but I would hope you'd recognize the economic role that the United States played in their demise. In other words - what is stopping us from racking up the same amount of debt that they racked up with the IMF? As the IMF increases our credit to fund our various wars, they also retain the power to require that the loans we made with them be paid back, at any time of their choosing. Last I checked, that would equal what?...about $80,000 per American? I'll let you find the details of that on your own, but I hope that you do realize that most Americans do not have $80,000 to pay back the IMF loans that this country has taken out to fund our various wars.

So many things you say interest me - like why do you think it was a GOOD thing that the Fed didn't allow bank runs? I ask this mainly because, well, by doing so they didn't exactly curtail the spread of economic depression, as evidenced by the following 8 years - essentially they just held onto the little bit of money the people HAD earned instead of letting the people trade it as they would have otherwise - probably even lessening the devastation of the Great Contraction, but, well, we'll never know, because the Federal Reserve didn't do that.

Who could have made better choices? That's a good question - practically, a group of people that had closer ties to the caste of citizens that make up the working foundation of this country, and not a group of people that were neither a citizen of this country, or represented the caste of society that manages the working foundation indirectly.

In other words, I'd consider it a safe bet that the Congress and the Senate could have done a better job of managing the money supply - at least if and when the Great Depression happened, the people would have been required to take responsibility for it themselves, instead of theorizing about WHAT or WHO caused it, as we have done for almost the past 100 years.

Long and short of it - Americans have become complainers, mostly because they do not have responsibility over the various systems that affect them, and therefore they can NOT exercise any rights they DO have to make their own situations better - they can't take their cases to the Fed, they can't even petition for the Congress or the Senate to exercise control of the Fed, because both the Congress AND the Senate would just note the status of the Federal Reserve as a corporation, and, as such, it is not within their legal abilities to regulate a system that people themselves have prescribed to(by using Federal Reserve Notes).

Check this out: http://smallbusiness.dnb.com

Go there and search for "State of <state>" and pick the state. You'd be surprised at what is registered as a corporation these days.

My point is - we didn't NEED the Fed, in the first place, and it most certainly did NOT help the United States to get it.

Also, the examples you cite are somewhat flawed:
Argentine Currency Board - Based on the design of the Federal Reserve, and even linked the peso with the USD at a rate of 10,000:1

Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - "Despite Belgrade's non-alignment and its extensive trading relations with the European Community and the US, the Reagan administration targeted the Yugoslav economy in a "Secret Sensitive" 1984 National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133), "Us Policy towards Yugoslavia." A censored version declassified in 1990 elaborated on NSDD 64 on Eastern Europe, issued in 1982. The latter advocated "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties," while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented economy. [2]

Western trade barriers, dramatically reduced its economic growth. In order to counter this, Yugoslavia took on a number of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and subsequently fell into heavy IMF debt. As a condition of receiving loans, the IMF demands "liberalisation" of Yugoslavia. By 1981, Yugoslavia had incurred $19.9 billion in foreign debt. However, Yugoslavia’s real concern was the unemployment rate, at 1 million by 1980."

Wow, man, you're really making me realize how much the United States Government has used it's economic influence and power to mess up other countries - with organizations like the IMF and World Bank backing us the entire time.

Your arguments, while trying to show how the Federal Reserve benefits us, only seem to show that, once organizations like the IMF and World Bank(and, subsequently, some of the richest people in the world that ARE invested in our Federal Reserve) start pulling their money out, we're screwed - I don't doubt(after researching the countries you mention), that this country will suffer a worse fate - I mean, how could our Federal Reserve possibly PROTECT our currency from the same fate as that of the Argentinian currency?...especially when it WAS the same system that caused their collapse?

Again - I ask - If everybody else around the world is following a "fad," why argue for that international "fad," especially by ignoring the signs of damage that said "fad" has caused?