no7rosman

Good Ad!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

No. I missed that...but thanks

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Try this. Notice the names at the bottom. Funny they are all the people that keep coming up in scandals and conspiracy theories.

However, evidence before the committee suggests that senior American officials were unconcerned about the situation because the billions were not US taxpayers' money. Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, reminded the committee that "the subject of today's hearing is the CPA's use and accounting for funds belonging to the Iraqi people held in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq. These are not appropriated American funds. They are Iraqi funds. I believe the CPA discharged its responsibilities to manage these Iraqi funds on behalf of the Iraqi people." -------------------------------------------- Here is where it says it isn't our money, (I didn't see that the first time) but why would we print up 12 bln in cash for them?...and where did the funds originally come from?

The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee. ------------------------------------------------- If it came from the Federal Reserve, doesn't that mean was our money?

It is definitely our tax dollars being pissed away, but I am not sure it is the Iraqis taking it. My guess is the crooked politicians have their hands in it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2008189,00.html Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone David Pallister Thursday February 8, 2007 The Guardian The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent. The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee. In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover. Details of the shipments have emerged in a memorandum prepared for the meeting of the House committee on oversight and government reform which is examining Iraqi reconstruction. Its chairman, Henry Waxman, a fierce critic of the war, said the way the cash had been handled was mind-boggling. "The numbers are so large that it doesn't seem possible that they're true. Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?" The memorandum details the casual manner in which the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority disbursed the money, which came from Iraqi oil sales, surplus funds from the UN oil-for-food programme and seized Iraqi assets. "One CPA official described an environment awash in $100 bills," the memorandum says. "One contractor received a $2m payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped bundles of currency. Auditors discovered that the key to a vault was kept in an unsecured backpack. "They also found that $774,300 in cash had been stolen from one division's vault. Cash payments were made from the back of a pickup truck, and cash was stored in unguarded sacks in Iraqi ministry offices. One official was given $6.75m in cash, and was ordered to spend it in one week before the interim Iraqi government took control of Iraqi funds." The minutes from a May 2004 CPA meeting reveal "a single disbursement of $500m in security funding labelled merely 'TBD', meaning 'to be determined'." The memorandum concludes: "Many of the funds appear to have been lost to corruption and waste ... thousands of 'ghost employees' were receiving pay cheques from Iraqi ministries under the CPA's control. Some of the funds could have enriched both criminals and insurgents fighting the United States." According to Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, the $8.8bn funds to Iraqi ministries were disbursed "without assurance the monies were properly used or accounted for". But, according to the memorandum, "he now believes that the lack of accountability and transparency extended to the entire $20bn expended by the CPA". To oversee the expenditure the CPA was supposed to appoint an independent certified public accounting firm. "Instead the CPA hired an obscure consulting firm called North Star Consultants Inc. The firm was so small that it reportedly operates out of a private home in San Diego." Mr Bowen found that the company "did not perform a review of internal controls as required by the contract". However, evidence before the committee suggests that senior American officials were unconcerned about the situation because the billions were not US taxpayers' money. Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, reminded the committee that "the subject of today's hearing is the CPA's use and accounting for funds belonging to the Iraqi people held in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq. These are not appropriated American funds. They are Iraqi funds. I believe the CPA discharged its responsibilities to manage these Iraqi funds on behalf of the Iraqi people." Bremer's financial adviser, retired Admiral David Oliver, is even more direct. The memorandum quotes an interview with the BBC World Service. Asked what had happened to the $8.8bn he replied: "I have no idea. I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it's important." Q: "But the fact is billions of dollars have disappeared without trace." Oliver: "Of their money. Billions of dollars of their money, yeah I understand. I'm saying what difference does it make?" Mr Bremer, whose disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces and de-Ba'athification programme have been blamed as contributing to the present chaos, told the committee: "I acknowledge that I made mistakes and that with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made some decisions differently. Our top priority was to get the economy moving again. The first step was to get money into the hands of the Iraqi people as quickly as possible." Millions of civil service families had not received salaries or pensions for months and there was no effective banking system. "It was not a perfect solution," he said. "Delay might well have exacerbated the nascent insurgency and thereby increased the danger to Americans."

I guess the answers are here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html

Does the Federal Reserve Loan Money to our government? I think they do...Is that interest free?

I am pretty old. Is this common knowledge? I always thought the Federal Reserve was in some way affiliated with the federal government.

These are some excerpts from the article I read. The link is at the bottom. There is a lot more if you read the whole article. Does anyone else think it is odd that a bunch of the banks controlling our Federal Reserve are foreign? When we wonder who is really in control of the US, I believe this is a good place to start. ------------------------------------------------------ Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins. But that is not the case. The United States government has no power to issue money, control the flow of money, or to even distribute it - that belongs to a private corporation registered in the State of Delaware - the Federal Reserve Bank. In 1963, President John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Resene System and ordered the U.S. governmcnt to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy's order and the Federal Resene won another round. More that half the shareholdings in the Federal Reserve Bank arc controlled by large New York City banks, including National City Bank, National Bank of Commerce, First National Bank, Chase National Bank, and Marine National Bank. When Rockefeller's National City Bank merged with J.P. Morgan's First National Bank in 1955, the Rockefeller group owned 22 percent of the shares of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which in turn holds the majority of shares in the Federal Reserve System - 53 percent. But who really owns what? Here arc the top controllers of the Federal Rwerve Bank 1. Rothchild banks of London and Berlin. 2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris. 3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy. 4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam. 5. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York. 6. Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York. 7. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, which controls all of the other 11 Federal Rwerve Banks. 8. Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York. http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm

I agree. Your Empire State Building was a great example.

That is interesting...It seems in the beginning of the investigation Dr. Brown from NIST was saying something different. We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

Good point...but you missed some of the other important ones. ----------------------------------------- Damage to the building and the surrounding area was extensive. An 18-by-20 foot hole was gouged by the B-25, and one of the plane's engines plowed through the building, emerging on the 33rd Street side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. ------------------------------------------ WOW They found the engine? It didn't disentigrate into nothing? ------------------------------------------- One plane motor went right through the bottom of the car equipment, hitting one of our guide rails (3-1/2 x 5"), doubling it in a 'V' shape. The motor then went through the building, tore a hole 20 feet wide, took the windows and wall down with it (78 floors) and landed in a building across the 33rd Street side ---------------------------------------------- And WOW again...you seemed to have not mentioned this 20 foot hole the engine left. I would say you have proved our (CT's) point stronger when compared to the Pentagon. This is what actually happens when an airplane hits a building. There is wreckage everywhere. http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9603-002.htm

Yet another great post by an idiot with no facts.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm The letter is not bullshit... and UL's website is www.ul.com Basically what happened is he sent this letter before the NIST bullshit was complete...During the investigation when they were saying it was fire. His story is that UL knew he was sending the letter, and UL discredits everything he says. Long story short he got fired immediately after writing it. The reason the steel didn't get that hot was because most of the jet fuel exploded outside the building and fires only burned for less than an hour. This can be seen on all videos. All steel is certified to something. UL may have only been involved in certifing the fire proofing (which they deny), but when steel leaves its plant it is documented to withstand certain conditions and meet certain criteria. To think that steel is sold to people that are going to use it to build buildings...and have no idea what that steel is made of or capable of withstanding is silly.

Here is something very interesting regarding the steel that supposedly broke or melted. This letter is from: Kevin R. Ryan Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories South Bend, Indiana (Company site - www.ehl.cc) A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc They are the people who certified the steel...Long story short they say that steel was fine and contest to this day there was no problem. Of course they need to cover their ass, but the letter is interesting. http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm As far as the inspection of the steel goes, I showed earlier that they only had a chance to look at 20% of the damaged steel. The letter above also talks about this a bit too.

Whatever dude...There are no marks on the building where the wings, engines, or tail section could have hit it. Each piece would have made a mark. That is all I am trying to say. I didn't mean to be a dick...Sorry.

I know a little about aluminum and alot about other airplane crashes. I have never (not say they don't exist) seen any airplane crash where you couldn't make out one single part. Another thing I noticed was if you look at the picture...there isn't even a mark. Also...The whole airplane is pretty much made of the same stuff. Why was the front part of the airplane strong enough to pucture a bunch of concrete walls, then when it got to the tail (the plane should have been going slower) it just disentigrated into nothing leaving no marks on the building. You haven't convinced me.

The first of sundevils pictures shows nothing of the actual crash. I am not sure what is trying to show. The second is the front of the Pentagon at least 15 minutes after impact when the rest caved in. (It is a great pic), but the damage from the initial impact wasn't nearly that large. The pics I posted were taken minutes after impact before the rest of the building caved in. I don't disagree that the tail could have broke off when it hit the building leaving very little visible damage, But in that case I would expect pieces of the tail section laying in the yard which they are not.

And not to keep beating a dead horse, but here are the pictures I base much of my opinion on. Attached is the entrance hole. Can anyone show me where the tail or engines hit? Remember the tail of a 757 is 44' 6. I can post pictures of the lawn that obviously shows no wreckage...Where is the tail? Where did the wings and engine hit? The diameter of the airplane is roughly 13'6, and it is reported by numerous places the hole is about 16-20 feet in diameter...So in my eyes this makes sense...(The hole is a bit bigger than the fuseloge), but they are still missing where the wing, engines, and tail section hit the building. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Non CT's have a tendancy to talk shit with no facts. Good post.

Good post. Lots of good facts to back up all your knowledge in this area. -------------------------------------------- Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. --------------------------------------------- 20% doesn't really seem like a good sampling to me in a situation like this. I wonder if any of the 20% that was actually burnt was saved.

Was it connected to anything? Please post your source.