Who really controls the govt? (Conspiracy Theories thread)

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

World Currency on track for 2018

Post  Shelby on Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:20 am

He says they've reaffirmed recently they are on schedule for Phoenix by 2018, but this will first involve regional blocs like the EU, where nations loose their autonomous legal capability to print money, and by 2025 is the big push to a complete world currency and government.

http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/guest-expert/2011/09/02/dennis-l-cuddy-phd/the-master-plan-a-global-currency-and-global-central-bank
http://www.google.com/search?q=phoenix+2018 (original Economist article)
http://www.oldthinkernews.com/?p=496

I don't know if this is significant, the Abomination of the Desolation (i.e. Dome of the Rock) in the Bible, predicts that Jesus will return in 2024:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t157-dome-of-the-rock-2023-jesus-returns

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Former BP CEO Haywood, Nat Rothschild, Gaddafi, & George Osborne British central bank

Post  Shelby on Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:25 pm

Connect the dots on the above names, also Glencore IPO, etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathaniel_Philip_Rothschild&oldid=442095264#Controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer&oldid=446226452

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-24/tony-hayward-gets-a-life-post-bp-as-investors-write-blank-check.html

So who do you think is driving the Arab Spring? Hint: Nat Rothschild.

And who does Wikileaks Assange work for? Hint: Nat Rothschild.

And who does Seth Gadaffi really work for? Hint: Nat Rothschild.

The power circles are very intertwinded, and you can see that all they know about is industrial capital (they can't control knowledge):

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3a8cd690-1ebd-11e0-a1d1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1X5OT0Q4l

The nature of competition in large capex projects of industrial capital, is the need to control the government in order to have competitive leverage over competitors, and to insure stability. Also central control over large swaths of resource production, enables large scale manipulation gyrations, hedging, etc..

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

My 5 best questions about 9/11

Post  Shelby on Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:33 pm

Can anyone answer these?

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3722&cpage=2#comment-322738

Shelby wrote:
I am not following events too closely lately, but I did read the first responders were not allowed to attend.

I am not going to press this point beyond raising it, and observing any feedback. I feel we owe it to the victims, to do good science.

I have few questions which I would appreciate if anyone can apply the scientific method and give me sound scientific answers, not hand waving. Trying not to sound like a kook, and I am not implying that I support totalitarian regimes. Just that the data that I am aware of appears to be inconsistent.

1. How was it possible that our F15s were not able to intercept these planes, given that a commercial airplane turning off course and becoming non-respondent is I assume an emergency actionable offense for air traffic control to report? The plane that hit the Pentagon did so over 1 hour after the first hit WTC. Why is all the evidence not available for peer review? I remember the AGW scam, and the importance of peer review to good science.

2. Why was the BBC reporting both on the text on the screen and the reporters verbal announcement that WTC7 had fallen, while I was watching this with the building still standing in the background behind the reporter? I can provide a link to this video if anyone doubts.

3. Why was it reported Bin Laden's body dropped in the ocean without a single photo of public evidence to eliminate all possible doubt? What is the explanation for interviews (I have seen, links can be provided), of local villagers saying that the helicopter never landed at the compound, that they farmed vegetables inside the compound, and that Bin Laden was never there.

4. Why are independent (peer review) investigators not allowed access to the evidence, specifically the structural steel debris etc? Is this good science?

5. Why is 9/11 so conveniently correlated with the governments massive onslaught of the destruction of rights, including Habeas corpus, sexual violation at airports purportedly expanded to include schools, other mass transport, entertainment events, etc.. I am not aware of statistical history, but it seems I see an upsurge of prosecuting people for filming the police, including one case seeking in life in prison. The state national guards have been federalized and used to fight wars not on the homeland. Local police have been deputized by the feds. Local clergy have been deputized by the feds. Etc.. Is this all just circumstantial, incidental without directed intention? Where is the peer review of all these developments?

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

checkmate

Post  Shelby on Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:42 pm

Here you will learn how to out-chess any one in any debate you ever have. Always set your enemy up to argue for the position he is against. First you draw him in with bait, then you let him dig his own hole.

I hope you all listened to the recording in the link at the very end of this post. The F15 squadron leader says in real-time that the commanding officer ordered them out over the Atlantic ocean instead of towards the Pentagon.

Read the entire linked blog page for background evidence assertions I made.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3722&cpage=3#comment-323045

Shelby wrote:
The intention of my prior post and this one, is to put an end my blogging.

I have not lied, nor do I intend to imply a top-down conspiracy on 9/11. With hard evidence, the conspiracy theories (speculation) will mute.

The drug war as a front for drug running and the attacks on gun rights, is not a top-down conspiracy, quite the opposite, no one is in control of the Olsen scramble.

dishonest or insane

Provide proof that I knowingly told untruth or my medical records. else you are arguing both for and against speculative assertions.

wrecked your argument ... the WTC1 tennant

No. I want the good science of investigating potentially relevant data, not doing a google search on personality. The relevant data is the alledged 20 years of nearby air force base activity reports.

All of our defense measures were ... from outside the country

Hard data, not hearsay subjective noise.

rampant speculation without evidence

Ditto the official reports, which will remain the case until a statistically significant sample of the structural steel. Occam's Razor doesn't imply the scientific method, which requires the falsifiable hypothesis. We can't falsify lost evidence.

Telling us all witnesses are lying leaves you nowhere

Personal truth is speculation. Statistically significant evidence is science.

The “government” cannot prove it was not involved

To say I am not satisfied with the science, doesn't logically mean that I am implying I am implicating the government. If A not proven, doesn't mean B is implicated. The response of "how could it be possible for any other outcome...yadayada", is irrelevant.

Why do you want so desperately to believe that the American government concocted the 9/11 attacks?

Why do you make a false assumption about what I think?

trust his elders’ unanimous word

You are not my elder. You haven't provided complete government documents about activities and procedures.

Really? Where? Examples, please

You present some hard data first.

The winner of this argument understands technology is growing, and not the elder dinosaurs who clings to what is dying.

former senior executive at the F.A.A., ... on the condition that I not identify him

Hearsay is not admissible in court.

They were working with the Sauds’ enemy

Simplistic and one-dimensional speculation. Data?

Neither of us know. It is likely very complex, with competing interests within the various governments. You play checkers, and I play Spock's multi-level chess.

[Lockerbie] The major damage was in the lost plane

Killed may have included a joint team of CIA, FBI, and govt drug war agents related to the heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley. Tangentially are Gary Webb's forensic expositions on the drug war's connection to drug trafficking.

what reporter ... would hold off on reporting it until it had been ... “vetted”?

Speculation. Investigate.

Would this be evidence of some kind of conspiracy?

Who here said it was.

actual protocol for handing hijackings

Thousands of military protocol documents and activity reports please, including Pentagon protection.

@Milhouse: you are unable to prove I KNOWINGLY stated an untruth. You are making wild speculation, given I simply typo-ed and forgot a single word "core". Many of my comments demonstrated that I often unintentionally omit words. And it doesn't change the statistical point. Here follows the relevant quote.

“only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).
NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”

which implies that the core got even hotter than that

@Jessica Boxer:
Feel free to call me immoral if you like.

It is not an issue of morality. As demonstrated by the recent revelations alleging two women in the CIA were able to stop information from reaching Counter-Terrorism chief Clarke, the so called oversight can fail, and it can be you one day on the waterboard. Armstrong's case is another example. But it is okay, I know this is what societies subconsciously tolerate. We will never stop humans from doing heinous acts of injustice.

My only hope of ending this phenomenon, is my open source technology work which I have already explained in the prior blogs. I want a technical solution, because as evident by comments here, it is impossible to convince people with logic. People only ultimately do (on the statistical aggregate) what the entropy forces them to do. Yeah I realize this comment will fly right over the head of most readers, so be it. My IQ is simply too high for them for ever keep up. It is lonely being 1 in 10,000+.

nice we finally agree on something

Ethically speaking I agree. Entropically speaking, this is natural apparently. Hope we can change it with technology, because I don't see much hope with logic and widespread IQ.

Speculation. Data?

If you accuse the government of a coverup

I have not accused the entire government of anything. Individuals do things. The government is an abstract.

All I want is science. You deploy your political strawmen and false dichotomy illogic, to obfuscate my call for science.

What does that even mean?

You don't know the difference between personal reality and statistical evidence?

@Milhouse: you've lost. Checkmate. Science doesn't make wild assertions, it collects data, then makes models of the statistically significant data. Goodbye.

If I’m not your elder, then you’ve just been caught in another lie

You may be older (I'm 46), but you are not my elder, meaning I disown you as a member of my grouping. It seems the degrees-of-freedom in your mind's logic capacity is limited to duality. Your logical errors are beyond 10 at last count.

eldercomparative of eld·er (Adjective)
1. (of one or more out of a group of related or otherwise associated people) Of a greater age

Killed may also have included a joint team of Martian, Tau Cetian, and Time Lord ambassadors

Haven't seen one data point of them ever boarding an airplane. Have you? Strange you imply that the probabilities are equal to my suggestion that we may not have all the data on who was on board the Lockerbie plane. This is the typical disinformation technique, to equate unequal things and draw attention away from inconvenient truths as follows.

While you obfuscate, you avoid explaining away that 1% of the core beams is not only statistically inconclusive, but is statistical vulnerable to (even unintentional) cherry picking, similar to medical trials that are not sufficiently randomized and thus unscientific.

I suppose you will next stoop to trying to dig up dirt on me personally, as if that somehow removes the non-science of the official reports.

Someone claims Norad, Fema, and the Pentagon had considered and even run drills involving "using a jet as a rocket against buildings". I don't have time to verify if that claim is accurate.

The recordings state the commanding officer ordered the F15s out over the Atlantic ocean. It also shows that breaking windows with supersonic flight was a not a restriction, as claimed by the thus debunked Popular Mechanics.

economics runs the show

Yup. It gets interesting around page 7 forward.

@Winter: I hope you will read the "Yup" linked document in my prior comment, to understand it is not as simple as the "USA govt". If you understand who Martin Armstrong is, and you read carefully, I think your view of the world will be permanently altered. This is documented recent history. Who here can claim Armstrong is a kook?

I don't really care if the kerosene caused structural failure or not, I just want it to be proven scientifically.

If you are looking for plausibility that kerosene did not bring down the WTC, I can provide them, but that is not at all my point.

If you want to explore that, I do hope you know that some of the kerosene fell immediately down the elevator shaft, and there was a fire in the basement, with at least one man sustaining severe burns in basement. The explosion must have been severe in the basement, as the witness saw damage (to cars if I remember correctly) there when he saw the burned individual.

Also other steel buildings have been hit planes and burned and not collapsed. Again this is not my point though. I am just calling for the evidence to not be suppressed.

You cannot prove history

Rubbish. Correlation doesn't guarantee cause & effect, but statistically insignificant conclusions are meaningless.

For example, carbon dating isn't statistically accurate in establishing epoch correlations?

I only asked for statistically accurate correlations. Sampling 1% of the structural steel (in the hot zone, thus perhaps 0.01% overall) is worse than sampling none of it. If you don't understand that, then please go back to school.

You want to implicate explosive charges

I never said that. I keep saying I only want to have statistically accurate conclusions. Otherwise, I will conclude that I don't have enough data to conclude. That is science.

If you haven't connected the dots by now, let me be more explicit. Read the "Yup" linked document. I think a scientific investigation might reveal who was funding the effort. I suspect it might also prove the building collapsed due to kerosene. That is irrelevant. I just want to follow the evidence and see where it leads. But there are some powerful elements who don't want us to have the evidence. And I don't think it is because of explosives, rather is for the reasons that are in that linked document.

You want to implicate explosive charges

I didn't write nor imply that.

I want statistically meaningful conclusions. Otherwise, I will conclude that I don’t have enough data to conclude. That is science.

I think a scientific investigation might reveal who was funding the effort, with those in Armstrong's nemesis the "CLUB" as likely candidates, perhaps not directly but as derivative effect. I suspect it might also prove the building collapsed due to kerosene. That is irrelevant. I just want to follow the evidence and see where it leads.

I still do not see why Al Qaida needed help

I suspect the money trail will lead back to the "CLUB", right from the beginning such as funding the Afghan resistance fighters.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3722&cpage=3#comment-323045

Shelby wrote:
The intention of my prior post and this one, is to put an end my blogging.

I have not lied, nor do I intend to imply a top-down conspiracy on 9/11. With hard evidence, the conspiracy theories (speculation) will mute.

The drug war as a front for drug running and the attacks on gun rights, is not a top-down conspiracy, quite the opposite, no one is in control of the Olsen scramble.

dishonest or insane

Provide proof that I knowingly told untruth or my medical records. else you are arguing both for and against speculative assertions.

wrecked your argument ... the WTC1 tennant

No. I want the good science of investigating potentially relevant data, not doing a google search on personality. The relevant data is the alledged 20 years of nearby air force base activity reports.

All of our defense measures were ... from outside the country

Hard data, not hearsay subjective noise.

rampant speculation without evidence

Ditto the official reports, which will remain the case until a statistically significant sample of the structural steel. Occam's Razor doesn't imply the scientific method, which requires the falsifiable hypothesis. We can't falsify lost evidence.

Telling us all witnesses are lying leaves you nowhere

Personal truth is speculation. Statistically significant evidence is science.

The “government” cannot prove it was not involved

To say I am not satisfied with the science, doesn't logically mean that I am implying I am implicating the government. If A not proven, doesn't mean B is implicated. The response of "how could it be possible for any other outcome...yadayada", is irrelevant.

Why do you want so desperately to believe that the American government concocted the 9/11 attacks?

Why do you make a false assumption about what I think?

trust his elders’ unanimous word

You are not my elder. You haven't provided complete government documents about activities and procedures.

Really? Where? Examples, please

You present some hard data first.

The winner of this argument understands technology is growing, and not the elder dinosaurs who clings to what is dying.

former senior executive at the F.A.A., ... on the condition that I not identify him

Hearsay is not admissible in court.

They were working with the Sauds’ enemy

Simplistic and one-dimensional speculation. Data?

Neither of us know. It is likely very complex, with competing interests within the various governments. You play checkers, and I play Spock's multi-level chess.

[Lockerbie] The major damage was in the lost plane

Killed may have included a joint team of CIA, FBI, and govt drug war agents related to the heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley. Tangentially are Gary Webb's forensic expositions on the drug war's connection to drug trafficking.

what reporter ... would hold off on reporting it until it had been ... “vetted”?

Speculation. Investigate.

Would this be evidence of some kind of conspiracy?

Who here said it was.

actual protocol for handing hijackings

Thousands of military protocol documents and activity reports please, including Pentagon protection.

@Milhouse: you are unable to prove I KNOWINGLY stated an untruth. You are making wild speculation, given I simply typo-ed and forgot a single word "core". Many of my comments demonstrated that I often unintentionally omit words. And it doesn't change the statistical point. Here follows the relevant quote.

“only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).
NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”

which implies that the core got even hotter than that

Speculation. Data?

If you accuse the government of a coverup

I have not accused the entire government of anything. Individuals do things. The government is an abstract.

All I want is science. You deploy your political strawmen and false dichotomy illogic, to obfuscate my call for science.

What does that even mean?

You don't know the difference between personal reality and statistical evidence?

@Milhouse: you've lost. Checkmate. Science doesn't make wild assertions, it collects data, then makes models of the statistically significant data. Goodbye.

If I’m not your elder, then you’ve just been caught in another lie

You may be older (I'm 46), but you are not my elder, meaning I disown you as a member of my grouping. It seems the degrees-of-freedom in your mind's logic capacity is limited to duality. Your logical errors are beyond 10 at last count.

eldercomparative of eld·er (Adjective)
1. (of one or more out of a group of related or otherwise associated people) Of a greater age

Killed may also have included a joint team of Martian, Tau Cetian, and Time Lord ambassadors

Haven't seen one data point of them ever boarding an airplane. Have you? Strange you imply that the probabilities are equal to my suggestion that we may not have all the data on who was on board the Lockerbie plane. This is the typical disinformation technique, to equate unequal things and draw attention away from inconvenient truths as follows.

While you obfuscate, you avoid explaining away that 1% of the core beams is not only statistically inconclusive, but is statistical vulnerable to (even unintentional) cherry picking, similar to medical trials that are not sufficiently randomized and thus unscientific.

I suppose you will next stoop to trying to dig up dirt on me personally, as if that somehow removes the non-science of the official reports.

Someone claims Norad, Fema, and the Pentagon had considered and even run drills involving "using a jet as a rocket against buildings". I don't have time to verify if that claim is accurate.

The recordings state the commanding officer ordered the F15s out over the Atlantic ocean. It also shows that breaking windows with supersonic flight was a not a restriction, as claimed by the thus debunked Popular Mechanics.

economics runs the show

Yup. It gets interesting around page 7 forward.

@Winter: I hope you will read the "Yup" linked document in my prior comment, to understand it is not as simple as the "USA govt". If you understand who Martin Armstrong is, and you read carefully, I think your view of the world will be permanently altered. This is documented recent history. Who here can claim Armstrong is a kook?

I don't really care if the kerosene caused structural failure or not, I just want it to be proven scientifically.

If you are looking for plausibility that kerosene did not bring down the WTC, I can provide them, but that is not at all my point.

If you want to explore that, I do hope you know that some of the kerosene fell immediately down the elevator shaft, and there was a fire in the basement, with at least one man sustaining severe burns in basement. The explosion must have been severe in the basement, as the witness saw damage (to cars if I remember correctly) there when he saw the burned individual.

Also other steel buildings have been hit planes and burned and not collapsed. Again this is not my point though. I am just calling for the evidence to not be suppressed.

You cannot prove history

Rubbish. Correlation doesn't guarantee cause & effect, but statistically insignificant conclusions are meaningless.

For example, carbon dating isn't statistically accurate in establishing epoch correlations?

I only asked for statistically accurate correlations. Sampling 1% of the structural steel (in the hot zone, thus perhaps 0.01% overall) is worse than sampling none of it. If you don't understand that, then please go back to school.

You want to implicate explosive charges

I never said that. I keep saying I only want to have statistically accurate conclusions. Otherwise, I will conclude that I don't have enough data to conclude. That is science.

If you haven't connected the dots by now, let me be more explicit. Read the "Yup" linked document. I think a scientific investigation might reveal who was funding the effort. I suspect it might also prove the building collapsed due to kerosene. That is irrelevant. I just want to follow the evidence and see where it leads. But there are some powerful elements who don't want us to have the evidence. And I don't think it is because of explosives, rather is for the reasons that are in that linked document.

You want to implicate explosive charges

I didn't write nor imply that.

I want statistically meaningful conclusions. Otherwise, I will conclude that I don’t have enough data to conclude. That is science.

I think a scientific investigation might reveal who was funding the effort, with those in Armstrong's nemesis the "CLUB" as likely candidates, perhaps not directly but as derivative effect. I suspect it might also prove the building collapsed due to kerosene. That is irrelevant. I just want to follow the evidence and see where it leads.

I still do not see why Al Qaida needed help

I suspect the money trail will lead back to the "CLUB", right from the beginning such as funding the Afghan resistance fighters.

OBL...Al Qaida...

It is difficult to fight ghosts.

That some people could use this destruction for their own good, that was to be expected

Exactly. Now we just need some hard evidence. Where should we start to find it?

Do you have any hard data of who paid for and orchestrated this attacks? If so, please share it with me.

Breaking News! According to Richard Clarke, Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor in the White House 1998-2002, they probably got their money from the CIA. Apparently there is some evidence to be released in a documentary.

What more do you want

Hard statistically significant evidence lest you make foolish conclusions based on hearsay and fairy tales.

@Greg: CSI effect? Is there a drug cure? I haven't watched TV for 9 years.

Regarding Martin Armstrong, perhaps you didn't read to the end where he explains how certain vested interests denied him habeus for 7 years. So what is that BS about habeus being stronger than ever? The "CLUB" were threatened because he was teaching the Japanese corporations how to not be manipulated by the "CLUB". He explained in great insider detail the reverse takeover of the USA by the "CLUB", which accelerated after 2001.

He used a computer model. The other person who used a computer model to demonstrate corruption was Catherine Austin Fitts, former Asst Sec of HUD under Jack Kemp and insider to Drillon Read on Wallstreet. Do you realize Armstrong is in the high-genius IQ range and Fitts is probably 140+ at least?

“beyond a reasonable doubt”

That means statistically significant.

How can you with any sincerity accuse me of pushing for 100% certainty, wherein in the recent few blogs, I stated numerous times that 100% coverage of any phenomena is impossible, due to entropy. Where I have explained that I first published my theory in 2008, that entropy is the fundamental force, and no one believed me. Yet in late 2009, Erik Velinde proved the same theory, by deriving Newton's law of gravity, F=ma, from the dimensionLESS entropic force, and scientists around the world are embracing the amazing fundamental theory that addresses the inability to reconcile Einstein's Relativity with quantum mechanics, and some have remarked, "why didn't we think of that, it is so obvious".

Now once again, no one here believed my assertions higher on this page, until I provided shocking details, which have shut them up, except a remaining few who are too stupid or lazy to read enough to realize how foolish they are, or Milhouse's case I guess too stubborn or senile to recognize when the facts have him cornered.

Refusing to settle for less

Precisely what "innocent until proven guilty" entails.

Otherwise you have tyranny, which I understand is a concept many people subconsciously subscribe too. That they do so is explained by their desire that man can control his future, insurance, fix-interest rate return on bonds, etc.. Which I already explained in the prior recent blogs, is an entropic dead-end. Oh but I never expect you to be smart enough to assimilate such deeper interrelationships and fundamental theory of universal forces of nature.

In history? Never heard about such a thing

Stratification in ice cores statistically confirming certain relative epochal events. DNA statistics confirming certain migratory patterns. Etc..

That would include every link you posted here on that

I don't have the burden of statistical significance yet, because I am not forming any conclusions yet. I only need to show probable doubt of the statistically inconclusive official mass delusion.

Nevertheless, my source Richard Clarke is an insider who was the top Counter-Terrorism official during 9/11, reporting directly to the President. And now the CIA has threatened to illegally charge the journalists who have figured out the names of the two female CIA agents who Clarke implicates in his assertions, and there is plenty of corroborating evidence that these two women did indeed block the information from reaching the Clarke and FBI. I can't spoon feed every detail to you, you can read (including the sub-links).

@Milhouse: I will refute your ignorance of Armstrong next.

Correction: change "corroborating evidence" to "corroborating hearsay or evidence", because it isn't released yet, only sketched out.

do not really think a high IQ protects against stupidity

Agreed. My point is that before you can form a conclusion on these individuals, you need to spend a few hours reading a lot of their writings, because there is a lot of depth of details that won't be gleaned if you want an elevator summary as you and Milhouse tried to initially do by only focusing on Armstrong's theory of cycles (which btw, he was paid $10,000 per hour and was fully booked around the world, because his computer model was able to sniff out capital flows that presaged market moves).

Armstrong's crime was that he was too successful at helping clients avoid the front-running gyrations in the markets that the CLUB create and profit on. The final straw was apparently when he caused George Soros et al to lose most of the money he had made breaking the bank of England, by foiling the CLUB's plot to devalue the Yen right at the time the Japanese corps do their quarterly forex transactions. He taught them how to hedge these. The CLUB had him confined on a bogus contempt of court charge for 7 years, with numerous judicial procedural unconstitutionalities, etc. He eventually prevailed to the point he is now on house arrest, even though he should be free already, due to the plea bargain he was coerced into making with the Feds. But they still have him tied up in procedural delays, that continue to deny him habeus after nearly 8 years.

The dude was advising Margaret Thatcher, central banks, and other very significant institutions. He was requested by numerous govts to run models, e.g. the USA's DOE asked him to run a model explaining his prediction of $100 oil by 2007, when oil was at $10 in 1990s and everybody thought that prediction was crazy. He has numerous other successful predictions. Read the document I linked for all the details.

He is highly respected, and many wealthy have come to his aid, which is probably the only reason he is alive to tell this story. At one point that had him in solitary confinement and had beat him up so he was going blind. Some congressmen rushed to his aide. He now has 500,000 readers, and it will be a million before end of 2012. His readership may be growing faster than smartphones. He serves no political or religious movement.

He is a student of history and he can recite details from Roman empire forward in the minute details without consulting a reference text.

@Milhouse:
Everybody who has ever heard of him (which is damn few). He is a kook.

Dementia.

I don't care if his PI cycles are worthy since that is not germane to the total body of information on him that applies here (even though institutions around the world pay him to run models), I will note that PI is in the derivation of F=ma from the fundamental dimensionless entropic force of nature.

@Jeff Read:
disprove the incredible story of a single guy on Coast to Coast who is just dang sure that F-15s should have been scrambled

I never said anything about talk show radio.

Did you not listen to the link of the recording I provided? The pilot of the squadron said in real-time that they were out of over the Atlantic, then when asked why, he said the higher commander had scrambled them in that direction. They were then instructed to turn around and break as many windows as necessary to get back to the Pentagon at supersonic speed.

@Jessica Boxer:
Feel free to call me immoral if you like.

It is not an issue of morality. As demonstrated by the recent revelations alleging two women in the CIA were able to stop information from reaching Counter-Terrorism chief Clarke, the so called oversight can fail, and it can be you one day on the waterboard. Armstrong's case is another example. But it is okay, I know this is what societies subconsciously tolerate. We will never stop humans from doing heinous acts of injustice.

My only hope of ending this phenomenon, is my open source technology work which I have already explained in the prior blogs. I want a technical solution, because as evident by comments here, it is impossible to convince people with logic. People only ultimately do (on the statistical aggregate) what the entropy forces them to do. Yeah I realize this comment will fly right over the head of most readers, so be it. My IQ is simply too high for them for ever keep up. It is lonely being 1 in 10,000+.

nice we finally agree on something

Ethically speaking I agree. Entropically speaking, this is natural apparently. Hope we can change it with technology, because I don't expect that to change on logic and widespread IQ.

@SPQR:
Clarke was not “the top Counter-Terrorism official”

Thanks for correcting me about the word "top". I don't think it removes from my point about he meeting the minimum credibility to source as a reasonable doubt to the official story, which is statistically inconclusive anyway.

from early 2001, he reported to Stephen Hadley and Condi Rice of the NSC

And I wonder why that change was made? Was he a little bit too dangerous?

@Milhouse:
Richard Clarke?! He’s whom you consider a credible source? The man who saved bin Laden’s life

BS. He was ordered to do that. That was before 2001, and there were overriding concerns with some in the intelligence community. Can you offer any logic other than repetitive character assassination.

[Armstrong] had full access to habeas. wasn’t ... in secret; ... he was held on the orders of a judge!

And the judge was violating due process, and there massive details, but for example, he was never told what he was held on contempt for. Then the case was vacated, etc... Go read and educated your ignorant self. You are not paying me to continually to this work for you.

That is effectively the same as no habeas, even if you can make some insane technical argument. As I wrote to you before, you change the word imprisonment to internment for the WW2 case, then insanely claim that habeas was not violated.

@Jeff Read:
only man on the planet who ever considered that

As I predicted, you will stoop to attacking me, when you can no longer defeat the logic. So predictable you are.

I never said that even at my website. What I said (and it is a fact), that none of the languages I analyzed have this separation and I gave a technical explanation of the distinction I am referring to. And thus I assume you still don't know what this key distinction is, because it isn't embodied in that general statement of conflation.

@Nigel:
That the bad guys could actually coordinate such an attack was not anticipated.

Apparently you not read the allegations of Richard Clark and the investigative journalism research which claims to have the name of the two women inside the CIA who are responsible. These journalists contacted the CIA as standard journalism ethics require, and now they have been threatened that if they release those names (which were obtained from public information, doing clever Google searches), that they will be charged with a law that is only supposed to apply to government employees. This is apparently an unconstitutional attempt by the CIA to block the landslide of revelations that is coming.

I say within a couple of years at most, no of you official story defenders will have a leg to stand on. This is why Clarke is getting more bold now, because he realizes the journalists have the necessary data to make the allegations stick. Once those names go out, there will be a massive investigative domino effect.

As I said, checkmate to fools who believe in any fairy tale told without science.

And I don't have any more time to debate the people here.

I really need to end this. So if I don't reply, it doesn't mean I can't refute you. If means, you are not paying me enough.

I have made my point already. Anyone reader who is going to get it, can get it from what I have provided.

Thanks to everyone and most especially to this blog owner, for tolerating me to share my side.

I feel I have done all the good work I can do here for now. It is getting repetitive and I really have a greater work to do.

My best to everyone here, including Milhouse.

Greg of course I don't agree with your characterization, but I don't have time to explain it to you. Think what you want.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

We are not "citizens", we are farm "animal" subjects of a corporation "United States"

Post  Shelby on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:06 am

I first wrote about this on March 29, 2008:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t48p60-who-really-controls-the-govt-conspiracy-theories-thread#4536

Now I have added to it:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3722&cpage=6#comment-323417

Shelby wrote:
I’m making too subtle for you

No, you are just wrong, as is the current corruption of our constitution and inalienable rights. Perhaps you have a vested interest?

Statutory habeas is not a right but a privilege granted by Congress

The Constitution did not allow a “statutory habeas”, it is implied by the common law because by any sane logic it is clear the Constitution was not referring to a privilege that didn’t already exist.

Constitution says:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No where does it mention the power to create another category of habeas. The 1789 act merely codified the common law habeas. This was corrupted in a series of unconstitutional actions brought on during the time of the Civil war, at which time our constitution died. Due to the 1868 14th amendment, 99.9% of people don’t know they are no longer sovereigns of the original “United States of America” mentioned in the Constitution, but now instead subjects of a federal corporation the “United States” (see USC Title 28, Sec. 3002, Par. 15), instead of sovereigns with inalienable rights. A bit more obscure and sketchy, the definition of drug in the law, says applicable to the health “of humans or any other animal”, legally classifying us as animals, thus dehumanizing us from our inalienable rights that animals don’t have.

Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I forgot I had published an explanation on my theory that we lost the original constitution and became subjects of the federal corporation. I accept that many people view this as insane or kooky, and there are others who agree with me.

Off topic: I know Esr maintains GPS-related open source, so this may be important.

or that Bloomberg reported any such thing, then this would just be more evidence of your insanity

Here is the Bloomberg report.

no moral difference between the USSR and the Third Reich

Milhouse, some people have theorized that neocons would be willing to sacrifice 3000 on 9/11 in order to win the larger battle in the middle east. I am not subscribing to that, because I must see more evidence than mere motive ("New American Century" document). I read now the EU leaders and Soros are saying that EU breakup would result in war (the implication is threat of nuclear war) and thus it is preferable to socialize the losses of the banks by creating an EU treasury so it has the power to tax and can then borrow. This is a pattern of "democracy" that it becomes no different than other form of socialism, in that we privatize the speculative gains of banksters, and socialize their losses. This game has been played on mankind since the beginning.

I can see that you will defend injustices within our system as a cost of avoiding the "moral" alternative which is socialism. But the key thing missing from your understanding, is that what you are fighting for, is no different than socialism, but you can't see that.

I was going to try to teach that you early on, but I figured you would not understand.

===============
ALSO: http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/armstrongeconomics-us-sov-debt-defaults-091711.pdf

At least the Romans had the Tribune who could charge anyone in
government. We had that too. It was the
Office of Inspector General. It was stripped
of all independent powers. It cannot even
investigate any judges, prosecutors, and it
cannot bring criminal charges against
anyone in government. In fact, it is a
subordinate of the Justice Department and
not even an independent branch. We got
the “Tribune” concept in image only. So
much for that check and balance!


Last edited by Shelby on Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:27 am; edited 3 times in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

only an insane person would say these people are kooks

Post  Shelby on Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:27 pm

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3722&cpage=7#comment-323587

Shelby wrote:
2500 licensed structural engineers do not believe in UFOs, Three Little Pigs, Santa Claus, etc.. Are they all kooks?

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

re: De-population and pink underwear (seriously)

Post  Shelby on Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:20 pm

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article17644.html#comment132129

JR, "no growth" is not healthy.

The elite are using every means they can to talk the masses into eugenics in many forms, from birth control, vaccinations, GMO food, etc.

Millions of people die during economic collapse. Study what happened in USSR, Argentina, etc.. Dmitry Orlov experienced it:

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2008/02/five-stages-of-collapse.html

China has an unsolvable demographic bankruptcy by 2030 because of their one-child policy.

http://www.google.com/search?q=china+demographic+time+bomb+2030

Much of Europe is demographically bankrupt now (unless they open to ASIAN immigration, not just uneducated from Africa).

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31904.html#comment131972

Children are needed to produce for the elderly. Societies with few children have mental health decline.

For example, I read recently that 20% of the people in the USA (any maybe western world) are on psychiatric medication (anti-depressants, etc). Then we put about 20% of the kids on ADD medication.

This planet can provide the resources for 1 trillion people.

What is lacking is investment, due to the routing (misalloction) of capital to consumption via widespread use of debt and saving in debt (a.k.a. bonds).

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

No growth of population means no growth of the economy. It means decline and decay.

I live in the Philippines on 120 sqm lot in a 40 sqm house, walking distance from the beach. It is much healthier than living in the USA, because here I don't eat any processed food and I get sunshine (vitamen D) year round. Here I see many children, many smiles, natural life. Your image of the third world from what you on Children's International, is designed to make you feel proud of your unhealthy western lifestyle. The elite are in control of your mind via the mass media. I turned off the TV 10+ years ago and haven't watched it since.

There is so much land on this earth, we only use a small fraction. There is no lack of arable land either. Too many lies in the mass media as the elite want to control you. Junk science in the media too:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3974

Do you realize the entire world's oil consumption is equivalent to continuous flow of a medium to smallish size river. Calculate it. I did.

Disclaimer: I think we about getting to the time where it will become dangerous to speak about such heresies against the mainstream indoctrination. Thus the post (but not this disclaimer) is just a joke. Don't believe anything you read in this post, nor any of the cited resources. We must all be good citizens and do alike. Everyone must wear pink underwear, no exceptions:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/joe-arpaio-tea-party-americans-for-prosperity_n_1093160.html

Cheers.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Who really controls the govt? (Conspiracy Theories thread)

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum