Very, Very Informative Video

[CrashConnoisseur]

2. With the UK now at 1.2 trillion debt, i.e the banks have flooded the UK with tonns of "debt money", Why has this not caused inflation to rocket? [Meditating Hamster]

House Price Inflation has. For Retail Price Inflation a possible explanation is given in 'The Business Online: Deflation Is Not About To Happen -- It's Already Here.'

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=20419

3. The UK Gov is about £10 Billion in debt (is this right?), but in debt to whom? Who do they borrow from?

Future taxpayers.

[New Bear]

I have only just caught up with this thread. Actually I found it interesting and it has made me want to read more about curreny reform. But like most conspiracy theories it seemed to me to mix up real issues with a lot of melodrama and more than a touch of right wing paranoia. Disparate ideas become connected together in a quite bewidering way. There is a continual slippage from conjecture to innuendo to 'fact'. Anyway, it took so long to watch the film that I didn't' have time to read through every posting, so I hope these are not questions raised by others.

The video raised two main technical issues about money - debt based money and fractional reserve lending. Are these necessarily linked? Would government backed notes rule out the latter? Would we want to abolish fractional reserve lending by banks? What would the effects be? (My guess is permanently higher interest rates.)

Isn't the problem with government backed notes that, in a democracy, really sticking to the rules and resisting an inflation of the money supply would be difficult for politicians to accomplish? Expanding the supply of money creates boom conditions. These are short-term and come with a cost - but political horizons are short-term. There are many examples of governments creating short-lived and ultimately harmful booms in order to win elections. If money supply, or interest rates, were put to a vote wouldn't there usuallybe a majority tempted to go for lots of money and low interest rates and ignore the medium term consequences of this? Taking short term pain to create a long-term good is not usually such a popular or appealing suggestion. Doesn't there have, therefore, to be some disconnection or buffereing between the control of the money supply and democracy?

Wasn't there a rather 'fortress America' tone to the video? And not just on economic matters but all that UN bashing, for example. Quite a few people on this site attack the decision to go to war against Iraq on the basis that it was an illegal war (and I agree with them). But the basis of that view is that it broke UN rules. Is it really right then to agree with a film that attacks the UN as a secret conspiracy of international bankers? Personally I would rather live in a world with some sort of international rule of law. The view of the UN shared by Bush, the neocons and this film, that it is a dangerously internationalist set up seems to me to be frankly barmy.

But sticking just to economic issues, how does the US isolationism of the video sit with an internationalised economy? Overpowerful international finance might be a problem (and actually I think it is) but how is it proposed to enjoy the benefits of international economic relationships (like trade) without having some sort of international banking system? Does anyone really think we can practice economic autarchy - even North Korea has abandoned that fantasy. Isn't there a need for some sort of regulation in a global economy that seems to live on the edge of chaos?

Finally does anyone really think that economic cycles are the deliberate and capricious creation of a secretive clique of bankers? Yes banks have been involved in slumps by calling in loans, tightening credit etc - but they do so because they are part of a chain of action and reaction. They follow the same logic as other players in the economy in trying to limit their own exposure bad debt. That's why they do it - not because they think 'it's about time we induced a slump' or 'we have just received our orders from the secret organisation that really controls us'. People on this forum, for example, have been happy to see Barclaycard and Nationwide recently tighten their terms of lending. Those organisations have been doing so to reduce their exposure to bad debt as they begin to realise the growing possibility that this is a problem - not because they are acting on the secret orders of a mysterious cabal (and not to bring about a house price slump either, though that may be one of the effects).

There are, after all, such things as unintended consequences, there are effects that are more than the sum of their parts and not every bad (or good) thing that happens in the human world is cause by the malevolent (or benevolent) intention of some other person. Is, for example, global warming really something intended by some person or group rather than an unintended consequence of actions that at an individual scale seem harmless and convenient?

But no, come to think of it, it must be part of a plot to destabilise the world's weather by a secret organisation dedicated to force us all buy air conditioners which thay have been covertly cornering the world market in? You see I noticed the other day in the gents that the hand drier was made by a company called "The World Drier Corporation". I thought at first it was just over-ambitious but now I begin to see its true meaning. The firm is based in Berkeley, California. An accident? I think not. The philospher Berkeley, it has been rumoured by some experts I happen to know (sorry I can't name them, they are too close to the inner workings of the CIA), well he was a member of a secret society allied to an even more mysterious group known only as "The Hyggeri", from the Danish "hygge" meaning "warm and cosy". This group was secret alliance of leading theologians and scientists of the seventeenth century who believed the weight of human sin was so great that the fires of hell were bound to be felt in this world rather than the next. They devoted themselves to finding a machina, as they dubbed it, which would be ready to cool the world as this began to occur. This group still exist! Over the centuries their aims became perverted until they actually began to try and create the conditions for global warming so that we would all end up in their clutches. To do this they had to infiltrate the centres of finance and industry. Some think Brunel was a member too. You see once you know the truth everything falls into place and takes on a new, more sinister meaning...Most shocking of all, Eddie George is their Grand Master!

Sorry, it's way past my bedtime but I think you might see my point.

[BuyingBear]

Hi,

Just finished watching the money masters video last night, and was left absolutely stunned.

Very educational.

However, It did leave me with a few questions that I feel a very important, but am struggling to find answers to.

1. The BoE was nationalised in the 1940's and the shareholders compensated by the government.

If the BoE was/is no longer privately owned then this surely means the "money changers theory" is not applicable to the UK today?

2. With the UK now at 1.2 trillion debt, i.e the banks have flooded the UK with tonns of "debt money",

Why has this not caused inflation to rocket? Surely the more people have money, the less it is worth?

3. The UK Gov is about £10 Billion in debt (is this right?), but in debt to whom? Who do they borrow from?

Hrm, That £10b figure is the hole in the "current budget balance" that was partially filled by additional North Sea windfall tax.

The UK is running a £36.7 billion budget deficit this financial year, that is new borrowing and doesn't equate to the entire national debt. The Debt Management Office issue bonds/gilts and they're in the process of issuing £65b of gilts right now, they borrow from the markets and you used to be able to buy gilts directly from National Savings but the bulk of the money comes from foreign governments, banks or pension funds balancing their liabilites, obviously in return they get an interest yield (the coupon). There is also a large Europewide secondary market for government bonds (CitiGroup in particular knows how to play this market well).

As for the total amount of outstanding debt, well, this gets murky because there are liabilites like public pensions, PFI and off balance sheet debts that ultimately rest with the state, these are fudged politically to ensure Brown meets his "golden rule" of maintaing debt to GDP under 40%. Acknowledged debt is in the region of £460b or ~36% of GDP, the figures are pretty meaningless because they're so well cooked on so many levels to such a degree that the ONS has lost a large amount of credibility and are now to be made independent of the HM Treasury, which kind of casts doubt on all the stats produced over recent years when they were just pretending to be independent. The Treasury site links to a document showing a debt of £438b from 3 years ago

Anyway, if you count out standing debt and true liabilities you get to a figure of £1,308 billion, this is using the same accountancy model that private companies are compelled to use to measure all their outstanding pension costs, unfunded public pensions come to £650b 'officially' (some estimates say as much as £800b). Anyway, that ~£1.3 trillion is actually larger than what our entire economy generates in a year with debt at 105% of GDP, or £52k per person. It's even greater than total personal debt, that stands at £1,138b as of end of Oct 2005, please remember this is seperate and is in addition to the national debt.

The government spends in the order of £30b a year in interest just servicing the national debt, as always the ONS has a typically useless page on this. Anyway, by comparison that's about the same as we spend on defence each year (including the wars), about half the education budget (not excluding money counted twice), equivalent to over one third of the NHS budget (which is huge as the governments second biggest bill), and the transport budget is tiny in comparison at around £6b, though road transport generates over £40b in revenue, something to ponder when you're stuck in a traffic jam... if nothing else you're paying interest on the national debt with a tiny bit left over for the road itself.

You can also look at it in a slightly different way, if you take that £36.7b of new borrowing this year this is only sightly more than debt interest payments, so you can say that the government is borrowing further just to pay interest on existing debt, basically like taking out a new credit card to just pay the interest on your old card, we've all reads articles about how people get themselves in real trouble when they let debt cascade like this. If you think the UK is impressive the US figures will scare the bejesus out of you.

But lets face it, this is tiresome stuff and involves large numbers so people essentially don't give a damn, that's why things spiral like this.

Edited December 11, 2005 by BuyingBear

[marko]

You take your historical perspective from the film 'JFK'!?

The Americans didn't sink submarines, crack codes, escape from camps and develop weapons to single handedly secure victory and liberate the whole of Europe just for you lazy bums to sit back and learn history from Hollywood films!

Buying Bear, why on Earth are you talking about the film 'JFK'!?! I was talking about the film that I posted the link to at the beginning of this thread! I was just making sure I was not just selecting the evidence to suit my perspective, but trying to understand if JFKs executive order was really a potential cause of his assasination. The MONEY MASTERS film (not 'JFK'....good grief...where did you get that from!?) did not mention it, which indicates to me that the Executive order was NOT a reason for the banks to have JFK assasinated.

p.s. the Americans didn't join in for years in case you forgot. And it was Bletchley Park where the codes were broken, in ENGLAND.

Personally I don't buy the conspiracy angle on this. It only serves to discredit the arguments for greater transparency and discussion of the issues around the financial system and its effects on all of us as individuals and societies.

To look for a small number of individuals who profit from the system directly is simplistic and damaging as it is responsible for the branding of any discussion of the matter as crazy conspiracy theory nonsense or worse.

The fact is we live under a massively complex organic system over which none of us have any control. It controls all of us. Some people see much better outcomes than others, but all of us are acting in our own interests. The problem lies in the design of the system, not the people who work under it or suffer its ill effects.

This is right I think...this much is said at the end of the film (no, not "Alien 2" Buying Bear)...they say that it is irrelevant to try and pin the thing on particular individuals. Mind you, the banking sector as a whole does benefit from the system at the expense of everyone else, and I would expect resistance to reform from the banking sector because it benefits them of course....historically this has been the case.

Edited December 11, 2005 by marko

[marko]

But no, come to think of it, it must be part of a plot to destabilise the world's weather by a secret organisation dedicated to force us all buy air conditioners which thay have been covertly cornering the world market in? You see I noticed the other day in the gents that the hand drier was made by a company called "The World Drier Corporation". I thought at first it was just over-ambitious but now I begin to see its true meaning. The firm is based in Berkeley, California. An accident? I think not. The philospher Berkeley, it has been rumoured by some experts I happen to know (sorry I can't name them, they are too close to the inner workings of the CIA), well he was a member of a secret society allied to an even more mysterious group known only as "The Hyggeri", from the Danish "hygge" meaning "warm and cosy". This group was secret alliance of leading theologians and scientists of the seventeenth century who believed the weight of human sin was so great that the fires of hell were bound to be felt in this world rather than the next. They devoted themselves to finding a machina, as they dubbed it, which would be ready to cool the world as this began to occur. This group still exist! Over the centuries their aims became perverted until they actually began to try and create the conditions for global warming so that we would all end up in their clutches. To do this they had to infiltrate the centres of finance and industry. Some think Brunel was a member too. You see once you know the truth everything falls into place and takes on a new, more sinister meaning...Most shocking of all, Eddie George is their Grand Master!

Sorry, it's way past my bedtime but I think you might see my point.

p.s. mind you I also think there is such a thing as intended consequences as well. Seeing the huge contraction of money supply that occurred during the depression arouses my natural suspicion!

Edited December 11, 2005 by marko

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

As far as I am a aware, the Greens are the only monetary reform-aware party with any sort of base. Even with the Green Party, it's a little buried - I think last year's manifesto didn't even mention it int he Economy section.

As I said earlier this whole debate has been shifted miles out of the mainstream, but it has far more bearing on political and social issues that how much (debt money) to spend on schools, whether a penny should come off income tax or not, or whether kids should get an ASBO or not.

As vast interest-bearing loans take their toll services have to be cut back agressively, companies have to close and workers sacked even though they are just as capable of working as before. Education suffers a damaging spend-and-cuts cycyle, even though there are people to teach, buildings to teach in, or people able to build buildings to teach in - all that's wrong is that debt-money eventually strangles the nation, as is happening now.

Why the heck should banks take on greater and greater ownership of every single resource in society? Why can't at least some money be 'spent' into the economy and not lent? There is no reason and we'd all be happier.

Why is there any need to have vast intranational standardised central-bank controlled currencies, when all the evidence suggests a plurality of currencies would be better for everyone - retailers can make currency with Nectar, entreprenuers can offer gold currency via things like Goldmoney, local people can create 'hours' schemes or LETs schemes. Some European cities issue public transport vouchers and cimema vouchers in exchange for bags of recyclables - making currency out of unused seats otherwise going to waste!

It's a world of opportunity.

Anyway, here's some minutes from the Greens' Autumn conference.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/confere...agenda3.htm#O01

O01. Monetary Reform

Synopsis

The present Monetary Policy section of the MfSS resulted from the narrow defeat of a motion to strengthen the Party’s policy on money creation by government, and resulted in the removal of its previously existing policy on this. This motion aims to remedy this situation.

Motion

In EC512, delete and empowered to create credit at interest rates sufficient only to cover administration when and add comma before channelling.

[Present EC512 reads:

Policies to increase local investment and the circulation of local finance within the community, include the development of democratically accountable Community Banks, designed to encourage local people to invest in local economic activity {and empowered to create credit at interest rates sufficient only to cover administration when} channelling local savings into economically and environmentally sound community enterprises. They should include removal, where necessary, of national restrictions. We will promote Credit Unions and skills exchange schemes, along with researching the best use of local currencies and encouraging their adoption. (see EC662)

]

In EC662, after financial, add profitability and.

Add at end: Since these interest-bearing loans currently constitute almost the whole of our money supply (i.e. about 97%), this also gives them power as creditors over the whole nation, including its government.

[Present EC662 reads:

The current banking system enables commercial banks and financial institutions to exert an unacceptably large influence on the economy as a whole. These commercial banking institutions work to a purely commercial agenda in which the desirability of making loans is assessed only in terms of its financial viability to the lenders.

]

Delete EC663 and replace with:

EC663 In the past, the creation of money involved a struggle between a royal prerogative, and private interests which sought to usurp it for their own profit and power. The evolution of the present banking system arose from the fraudulent lending practices of wealthy goldsmiths, and has been the subject over the last several centuries of much controversy and legislation. As recently as 1948, however, as much as about 50% of our money supply - the notes and coins - was created by government, and spent into circulation, to the benefit of its citizens, without incurring any debt or interest charges. The reduction in the use of notes and coins (the ‘fiduciary issue’) and the failure of governments worldwide to compensate by creating their own credit-money has been disastrous for the economy of all nations, creating the growing problems of un-repayable debts at all levels of society except for a few very rich individuals.

[Present EC663:

The banking system should be largely brought under democratic control, preferably at a local level. This will allow the process to work in the best interests of the community as a whole, rather than principally in the interests of commercial banks and their shareholders.

]

In EC664, delete the setting of base interest rates and insert

will be responsible to regulate the size of the money supply by creating any increase needed and passing this to the Treasury to become part of the Government’s revenue, to be spent into circulation, or requiring the payment to itself from the Treasury for cancellation, of any sum required to reduce its size. Commercial banks will be progressively restricted in their power to create money by making loans, by re-establishing and progressively increasing their legally required reserve/asset ratio, while the Bank of England adjusts the money supply as above.

Delete the final sentence.

[Present EC664 reads:

The Bank of England will continue to be the institution for the regulation of the national currency and {the setting of base interest rates}. However, it will not focus on narrow economic indicators such as the rate of inflation, but instead will take a broader view on the impact of its decisions on the economy as a whole. {Final decisions on the setting of base interest rates will be made by a democratically accountable committee made up of representatives selected from the different regions of the country.}

Edited December 11, 2005 by CrashedOutAndBurned

[Meditating Hamster]

Hrm, That £10b figure is the hole in the "current budget balance" that was partially filled by additional North Sea windfall tax.

The UK is running a £36.7 billion budget deficit this financial year, that is new borrowing and doesn't equate to the entire national debt. The Debt Management Office issue bonds/gilts and they're in the process of issuing £65b of gilts right now, they borrow from the markets and you used to be able to buy gilts directly from National Savings but the bulk of the money comes from foreign governments, banks or pension funds balancing their liabilites, obviously in return they get an interest yield (the coupon). There is also a large Europewide secondary market for government bonds (CitiGroup in particular knows how to play this market well).

As for the total amount of outstanding debt, well, this gets murky because there are liabilites like public pensions, PFI and off balance sheet debts that ultimately rest with the state, these are fudged politically to ensure Brown meets his "golden rule" of maintaing debt to GDP under 40%. Acknowledged debt is in the region of £460b or ~36% of GDP, the figures are pretty meaningless because they're so well cooked on so many levels to such a degree that the ONS has lost a large amount of credibility and are now to be made independent of the HM Treasury, which kind of casts doubt on all the stats produced over recent years when they were just pretending to be independent. The Treasury site links to a document showing a debt of £438b from 3 years ago

Anyway, if you count out standing debt and true liabilities you get to a figure of £1,308 billion, this is using the same accountancy model that private companies are compelled to use to measure all their outstanding pension costs, unfunded public pensions come to £650b 'officially' (some estimates say as much as £800b). Anyway, that ~£1.3 trillion is actually larger than what our entire economy generates in a year with debt at 105% of GDP, or £52k per person. It's even greater than total personal debt, that stands at £1,138b as of end of Oct 2005, please remember this is seperate and is in addition to the national debt.

The government spends in the order of £30b a year in interest just servicing the national debt, as always the ONS has a typically useless page on this. Anyway, by comparison that's about the same as we spend on defence each year (including the wars), about half the education budget (not excluding money counted twice), equivalent to over one third of the NHS budget (which is huge as the governments second biggest bill), and the transport budget is tiny in comparison at around £6b, though road transport generates over £40b in revenue, something to ponder when you're stuck in a traffic jam... if nothing else you're paying interest on the national debt with a tiny bit left over for the road itself.

You can also look at it in a slightly different way, if you take that £36.7b of new borrowing this year this is only sightly more than debt interest payments, so you can say that the government is borrowing further just to pay interest on existing debt, basically like taking out a new credit card to just pay the interest on your old card, we've all reads articles about how people get themselves in real trouble when they let debt cascade like this. If you think the UK is impressive the US figures will scare the bejesus out of you.

But lets face it, this is tiresome stuff and involves large numbers so people essentially don't give a damn, that's why things spiral like this.

Many thanks Buying Bear for taking time to write this, very informative (and very disgusting that a government should have to borrow anything at all!!). Glad we have so many altruistic folk on HPC willing to share knowledge.

I've been on the ONS website before but concluded that it was all a load of obsolete rubbish, why the hell can't they publish up-to-date figures. For gods sake, if the government have these figures, why not just pass them onto the ONS, or am I just being naive.

http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debtstats.htm

have some very interesting stats

What is staggering is that if you take the 1.2 trillion pounds of debt, assumed a measly 5% interest to be paid per year, then it would mean people are paying 60 Billion pounds in interest from debt. Not so bad if this money stays in our own economy, but who knows?!

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/.../oct/provm4.pdf

from what I could gather from the above recent document, M4 i.e the total money supply for the UK is rising at over 9% per year which will create inflation at approx 5%.

Would I be right in thinking then that...

1. The increase in debt based money supply is increasing at a lower level than we would expect because much of the money supply (created in the form of debt by private banks) is leaving the UK, and also over production in China is giving us a plentiful supply of cheap goods?

2. As private banks in the UK create over 90% of the new money in the form of debt, and the private banks set their own interest rates (competatively & above the BR), then we will very likely see the banks doing what the credit card companies have done, and raise their interest rates regardless of the Base Rate to compensate for bankrupcy and IVA losses?

3. As Buying Bear says "the bulk of the money comes from foreign governments, banks or pension funds balancing their liabilites". Does this mean that if foreign central banks increase their base rate then the UK government has to pay more interest, and (with billions £ debt) we become at the mercy of the Fed/ECB/World Bank?

[Starcrossed]

Great posts from New Bear and BuyingBear - could I ask that this thread goes onto the "Classics" board when it's time here is done?

[BuyingBear]

3. As Buying Bear says "the bulk of the money comes from foreign governments, banks or pension funds balancing their liabilites". Does this mean that if foreign central banks increase their base rate then the UK government has to pay more interest, and (with billions £ debt) we become at the mercy of the Fed/ECB/World Bank?

Not directly, there isn't an actual peg but if other currencies have better yields then money will naturally flow in that direction, when the Fed raises again soon in the US their rates will be on parity with the BoE, so if you're holding dollars what incentive is there to move into sterling? There is no premium for holding pounds aside from the vague hope of gaining from speculation. The Fed is able to raise rates because growth is still roaring ahead and there is the real threat of inflation down the line, even if you're bearish on the dollar you have to acknowledge US economic growth is outpacing the UK and Eurozone, sterling faces the same threat of inflation without the same levels of growth because things are driven by external factors.

The ERM debacle demonstrated that governments do not have direct control over their own currencies, back then they tried to keep the pound artifically high which meant they could then keep interest rates artifically low, but the markets were having none of that and the bank got burned, badly.

So the BoE is perfectally able to cut rates to 1% tomorrow if they wanted, they have the freedom to do that in theory, but the consequence would be a run on the pound and that would then drive up IR's to high levels in order to prop up the currency.

If it wasn't for the fact the USD is under pressure itself then sterling would have taken a battering by now, even more than the current 10% YoY fall, if you look at the price of gold weighted against a basket of major currencies you can see the sorts of pressure they're all under.

Edited December 11, 2005 by BuyingBear

[curious1]

But no, come to think of it, it must be part of a plot to destabilise the world's weather by a secret organisation dedicated to force us all buy air conditioners which thay have been covertly cornering the world market in? You see I noticed the other day in the gents that the hand drier was made by a company called "The World Drier Corporation". I thought at first it was just over-ambitious but now I begin to see its true meaning. The firm is based in Berkeley, California. An accident? I think not. The philospher Berkeley, it has been rumoured by some experts I happen to know (sorry I can't name them, they are too close to the inner workings of the CIA), well he was a member of a secret society allied to an even more mysterious group known only as "The Hyggeri", from the Danish "hygge" meaning "warm and cosy". This group was secret alliance of leading theologians and scientists of the seventeenth century who believed the weight of human sin was so great that the fires of hell were bound to be felt in this world rather than the next. They devoted themselves to finding a machina, as they dubbed it, which would be ready to cool the world as this began to occur. This group still exist! Over the centuries their aims became perverted until they actually began to try and create the conditions for global warming so that we would all end up in their clutches. To do this they had to infiltrate the centres of finance and industry. Some think Brunel was a member too. You see once you know the truth everything falls into place and takes on a new, more sinister meaning...Most shocking of all, Eddie George is their Grand Master!

[MattLG]

I have considerable training in physics and I can tell you they certainly do not! Pre placed demolition explosives my friend!

I also have considerable training in Physics. I admit I do not know all the facts on WTC7, so I can't really comment on that, but it does not require the high temperatures claimed to bring down the twin towers. The metal doesn't have to "melt" to bring it down, it just needs to be severely weakened. So, it does not need to reach melting temperatures. The apparent explosions around the edge of the buildings jusst before they collapsed are the concrete snapping. On close up videos you can actually see this for yourself (sorry I don't have a link).

Due to the conductivity of the steel in these buildings, the heat would very quickly travel around the entire building, weakening the entire building and allowing them to collapse on their own footprint. If you look at a full depth analysis of the official report, it really does make sense. That doesn't mean it wasn't a conspiracy, it just means that it was perfectly possible for the planes to bring the buildings down.

MattLG

[New Bear]

Wild conspiracy theories apart, here is a page of UK links on the idea of monetary reform, some of it very interesting:

http://www.oldknobbley.com/links_pages/monetary_reform.php

(Sorry if this has been posted before but this thread is getting so long its hard to keep up)

[sp1]

Dear all, my reading is currently about a page behind so please forgive me if this has been mentioned.

Regarding the 6% dividend, think out of the box a little more, there is nothing stopping them using the income from bonds to pay for over priced works contracts like “advise” or “consultancy fees”.. We have not audit of the bank accounts to proves where the money goes, So while the public limitations may give the impression of one thing the truth may be quite another remember ENRON….

And about wikipedia bear in mind also that it is very easy to guide individual and even “schools” of academics through funding grants and by “cultures” within some or all academic institution. What we really have is the historical facts of the undemocratic conditions through which the money trust pushed their policies through. Sp1.

[sp1]

I also have considerable training in Physics. I admit I do not know all the facts on WTC7, so I can't really comment on that, but it does not require the high temperatures claimed to bring down the twin towers. The metal doesn't have to "melt" to bring it down, it just needs to be severely weakened. So, it does not need to reach melting temperatures. The apparent explosions around the edge of the buildings jusst before they collapsed are the concrete snapping. On close up videos you can actually see this for yourself (sorry I don't have a link).

Due to the conductivity of the steel in these buildings, the heat would very quickly travel around the entire building, weakening the entire building and allowing them to collapse on their own footprint. If you look at a full depth analysis of the official report, it really does make sense. That doesn't mean it wasn't a conspiracy, it just means that it was perfectly possible for the planes to bring the buildings down.

MattLG

Without Diverting this important thread;

1) No steel sky skrapers have ever collapsed in history from fires even ones that blaze for days. The specification of the steel used and samples provied by the manufacturers do not weaken at the tempratures of jet fuel. Only explosives can weaken that specification of metal!

Your idea on the conductivity is not borne out by the lab test done by the manufacturers of that specification of metal. Go down to the engineering department and speak to some civil engineers or metalugarists.

Actually read the whole of this boefore your next reply please;

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Edited December 12, 2005 by sp1

[IPOD]

Can all the nutters who think the World Trade Center was not destroyed by two fully-laden jumbo jets flying into them please move to the Off-Topic forum.

[Justice]

MattLG

“I also have considerable training in Physics. “

Yes truly amazing physics is and it explains how a aeroplane can fold it’s wings before impact with the pentagon

“I admit I do not know all the facts on WTC7”

Does anyone because Bush and other co conspirators will not releaser the evidence, I wonder why not as more than enough people are calling for answers and the Pentagon is covered my 1000’s of CCTV.

“but it does not require the high temperatures claimed to bring down the twin towers.”

Yes it does need very high temperatures, a lot more heat than can be produced by burning petrol inside a burning build where all the oxygen has been removed. Do you know why we get black smoke ? see the images for yourself.

“The metal doesn't have to "melt" to bring it down, “

True but these buildings were built to withstand six times their design load and what about WT7 that was not even hit by a plane. Search the net and you will see images where building are totally consumed by flames and yet they didn’t fail down.

Only three steel structured building have ever succumb to fire and fell down. CAN YOU GUESS WHICH ONES THEY ARE.

“jusst before they collapsed are the concrete snapping”

What the puffs coming out ten floors below the crashing floors is all down to concrete snapping ! come on smell the Coffey

“Due to the conductivity of the steel in these buildings, the heat would very quickly travel around the entire building, weakening the entire building and allowing them to collapse on their own footprint.”

So on one hand we have a heat sink but this contributes to the collapse. I better remove the heat sink on my PC then.

Are you hiding because you know that if you except the truth then you should do something about it and you just don’t have the guts or are you simply too afraid

Edited December 12, 2005 by Justice

[Smell the Fear]

Justice et al

I'm sure there are some great structural engineering forums on the web who would be delighted to hear your comments.

However on this thread, it looks like you are trying to deliberately tar the discussion of monetary reform with the "conspiracy" brush.

Why not start a topic on this if you are so keen to discuss it?

[marko]

As far as I am a aware, the Greens are the only monetary reform-aware party with any sort of base.....

Nice post. Somewhat unfortunately for the cause of monetary reform the BNP also have a position on it:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/monetary_reform.htm

They may be a bunch of booted skinheads, but the bad news is....I agree with them!!! Sh1t!

This is just another example of why monetary reform needs to be brought out of the cold into the mainstream.

Edited December 12, 2005 by marko

[BuyingBear]

Without Diverting this important thread;

1) No steel sky skrapers have ever collapsed in history from fires even ones that blaze for days. The specification of the steel used and samples provied by the manufacturers do not weaken at the tempratures of jet fuel. Only explosives can weaken that specification of metal!

I've seen steel framed warehouses collapse very quickly, steel losses its ability to carry loads swiftly without having to 'melt' and without the aid of tons of aviation fuel either. The floor beams in the towers had very poor fire proofing and floor plains were badly anchored and collapsed and cascaded down.

I think this forum is undeserving of such crackpottery and we shouldn't dignify responses.

Some people will always be inclined to believe that the world is full of conspiracy specifically designed to fsck you over, wake up, you are not that important!

[fiddlethefigures]

I've seen steel framed warehouses collapse very quickly, steel losses its ability to carry loads swiftly without having to 'melt' and without the aid of tons of aviation fuel either. The floor beams in the towers had very poor fire proofing and floor plains were badly anchored and collapsed and cascaded down.

I think this forum is undeserving of such crackpottery and we shouldn't dignify responses.

Some people will always be inclined to believe that the world is full of conspiracy specifically designed to fsck you over, wake up, you are not that important!

Mysticism is defined as: 1. Any mental or physical attempt to recreate, evade, or alter reality through dishonesty, rationalizations, non sequiturs, emotions, deceptions, or force. 2. Any attempt to use the mind to create reality rather than to identify and integrate reality. Mysticism is a disease -- an epistemological disease that progressively undermines one's capacity to think, to identify reality, to live competently. Mysticism is also a collective disease that affects everyone who looks toward others, or the group, or the leader for solutions to his or her own problems and responsibilities.

http://www.homoexcelsior.com/omega.db/datu.../mysticism/8659

[marko]

Mysticism is defined as: 1. Any mental or physical attempt to recreate, evade, or alter reality through dishonesty, rationalizations, non sequiturs, emotions, deceptions, or force. 2. Any attempt to use the mind to create reality rather than to identify and integrate reality. Mysticism is a disease -- an epistemological disease that progressively undermines one's capacity to think, to identify reality, to live competently. Mysticism is also a collective disease that affects everyone who looks toward others, or the group, or the leader for solutions to his or her own problems and responsibilities.

http://www.homoexcelsior.com/omega.db/datu.../mysticism/8659

Oh for the love of God, now we have a bloody extropian posting!

This 'definition' of mysticism is not the one you will find in the Oxford English Dictionary...it is the fantasy of some extropian 'ooooh, let's all augment ourselves, wetware blah blah etc.' knob.

I notice the 'memetic database' you linked has such well grounded in reality entries as 'dyson sphere', and 'ringworld'....been playing a lot of Halo have we? This techno-future extropian nonsense...THAT is avoiding reality.

This thread was about monetary reform...and now we have wandered into extropianism....sheesh!

p.s. this is my last post on this forum...I have become far too addicted to it...I was hoping for a house price crash, and now it is just beginning, I don't think I need to hang around here anymore! It has been fun in it's way, and I have learnt a lot. I hope everyone downloads and watches the video I posted, and takes the time to learn about monetary reform...and why we need it.

I am now just going to concentrate on my work, and will be popping back once a month or so to check on peoples opinions regarding calling the bottom of the housing market. I hope everyone enjoys the crash and gets the opportunity to live somewhere for a reasonable cost.

Bye!

[slapper slater]

Oh for the love of God, now we have a bloody extropian posting!

This 'definition' of mysticism is not the one you will find in the Oxford English Dictionary...it is the fantasy of some extropian 'ooooh, let's all augment ourselves, wetware blah blah etc.' knob.

I notice the 'memetic database' you linked has such well grounded in reality entries as 'dyson sphere', and 'ringworld'....been playing a lot of Halo have we? This techno-future extropian nonsense...THAT is avoiding reality.

This thread was about monetary reform...and now we have wandered into extropianism....sheesh!

p.s. this is my last post on this forum...I have become far too addicted to it...I was hoping for a house price crash, and now it is just beginning, I don't think I need to hang around here anymore! It has been fun in it's way, and I have learnt a lot. I hope everyone downloads and watches the video I posted, and takes the time to learn about monetary reform...and why we need it.

I am now just going to concentrate on my work, and will be popping back once a month or so to check on peoples opinions regarding calling the bottom of the housing market. I hope everyone enjoys the crash and gets the opportunity to live somewhere for a reasonable cost.

Bye!

Very sorry to lose you marko. All the best.

[KTeetwo]

Very sorry to lose you marko. All the best.

Ditto.

You do know you can/will return - there is no charge.

KT

[MattLG]

Without Diverting this important thread;

1) No steel sky skrapers have ever collapsed in history from fires even ones that blaze for days. The specification of the steel used and samples provied by the manufacturers do not weaken at the tempratures of jet fuel. Only explosives can weaken that specification of metal!

Your idea on the conductivity is not borne out by the lab test done by the manufacturers of that specification of metal. Go down to the engineering department and speak to some civil engineers or metalugarists.

Actually read the whole of this boefore your next reply please;

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

It's all complete cobblers. Even if they have a valid argument, they've completely lost any credibility by introducing so much crap to it. To rely blindly on the honesty and infallibility of so many people is unscientific and belongs in the realms of all the other wackos.

I don't think we're going to resolve this here, we should just agree to disagree and get on with the thread in hand.

MattLG

[New Bear]

There does seem to be an attraction about monetary reform for cranks and extremists.

To the US ultra-right it seems to appeal because it is understood as a way of laying problems at the door of conspiratorial foreigners. (This avoids having to take a hard look at US foreign policy and its effects, really understanding why so many people around the world hate the US, or question the US refusal to join in so many potentially beneficial international intitiatives).

To neo-nazis everywhere it appeals because banking can be represented as a part of the (mythical) Jewish conspiracy. (In fact Jews became involved in mediaeval European banking partly because anti-semitic laws excluded them from many other trades and professions. Also they were seen as exempt from the Catholic church's opposition to charging interest on loans . It was convenient to have them do necessary but 'dirty' work. In other words Jews were placed in the classic double-bind of the outgroup).

However, if you could strip away all this vile racism and ultra-nationalism, there might just be a rational kernel in there.