New Nexus

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Both sides of the argument? There aren't two > 'sides' to an argument here. > > In the loony bin we have a double of dozen > dickheads who make their way around conferences > attended by paranoid delusionals who watched some > footage overlaid with dya-glo captions in poor > English about the New World Order and Dick > Cheney. > > At the NSIT they complemented its in-house > expertise with an array of specialists in key > technical areas. In all, over 200 staff > contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its > contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand > of pages of documents; conducted interviews with > over a thousand people who had been on the scene > or who had been involved with the design, > construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed > 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the > wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured > material properties, and performed computer > simulations of the sequence of events that > happened from the instant of aircraft impact to > the initiation of collapse for each tower. > > Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials > and in interpreting the results came from a large > number of individuals and organizations, including > The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and > its contractors and consultants; Silverstein > Properties and its contractors and consultants; > the City of New York and its departments; the > manufacturers and fabricators of the building > components; the companies that insured the WTC > towers; the building tenants; the aircraft > manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including > survivors and family members; and the media. Surprise-surprise, Huguenot does not want people to makeup their own minds. He wants to dictate what you should think, he cannot win by reason, so he has to go and poison the water. Huguenot, let the people choose for themselves.

OK, you now have both sides of the argument. Makeup your own minds. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.ae911truth.org/ Let the people go and see both the NIST report and the architects and engineers for truth, body of work. Then the people can make up their own minds. Ps. Why did the NIST investigation, not look into the possibility of a controlled explosion?. Because they had no reports of any audible sounds of any explosions. There was plenty of evidence from FDNY members regarding sounds of explosions. I would rather believe FDNY than NIST.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A conspiracy is a plan of or for unlawful action. > A theory explains something as a plan for the > above. > > From your three examples I can only conclude that > if you can't even understand basic concepts you > are in no position to be meting out advice on > complex issues. Or to put it into words you can > understand, you're an idiot. > > Seriously, you did the forum a favour when you > retired your last persona, do us all a similar > favour and kindly @#$%& off will you. Once again you cannot refute, properly constructed arguments, so you revert to type i.e. potty mouth.

It was Huguenot that raise the 9 11 point in this discussion, in the form of trying to ridicule other members argument by classifying then as ?conspiracy theory?. So backfire on Huguenot. Once Huguenot had raise the 9 11 point, he then could not reply to statements made to him ? nor defend his corner, regarding said issue, I can only put this down to his lack of insight and once again Huguenot?s lack of knowledge. Cherry picking a small section from a NIST report, does not constitute a fully formed argument. Time to grow-up We have economic meltdown and the financial sector not being regulated at all, other than the likes of Paulson and Geithner. We have governments all around the world, in the pockets of a few special interest groups. We have a mainstream news blackout of real events and problems. i.e. Huguenot?s favorite fountain of knowledge. The world being round was once a ?conspiracy theory? Evolution was once a ?conspiracy theory? Plague past by flees was a ?conspiracy theory? When you do not have information on a particular subject, classifying it as a ?conspiracy theory? is just a copout.

Santerme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blimey, what next.....Obama's a Kenyan Marxist > trying to destroy America? > > NN you are sinking fast! no just warming up

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WTC 7. > > For New Nexus and LD, all these people are liars, > and there's massive conspiracy. That's because > they're deluded. > > The final report is the only plausible one: > > "NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an > important role, nor did the structural damage from > the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the > transfer elements (trusses, girders, and > cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to > fight the fire was an important factor. The fires > burned out of control during the afternoon, > causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand and > push a key girder off its seat, triggering the > floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. > With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, > Column 79 soon buckled - pulling the East > penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With > the buckling of these critical columns, the > collapse then progressed east-to-west across the > core, ultimately overloading the perimeter > support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, > causing the entire building above to fall downward > as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office > contents, along with the lack of water, were the > key reasons for the collapse." Are the New York Fire Service liars as well, when they talk about WTC7 and explosions prior to the collapse. Are over a thousand architects and engineers liars, when they have investigated WTC7 and have concluded that a proper investigation should be started to explore the demolition of WTC7. Demolition firms all over the world ? your out of business, because all you need to bring down a 47 storey building into it?s own foot-print is start a little office fire. There has been many examples of steel frame building that have been burning ferociously for 10, 12 and 18 hours without collapsing Ho yes, and lets not forget the BBC announced WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before the collapse. God the BBC have a great crystal ball, or was the script a bit early. dam that continuity department. ?Never let a crisis go to waste?

WTC7 http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x180/T-Guide/wtc7collapse.gif

Rules of investigations: 1) Secure the crime scene. Do not ship off shore evidence to China and India. 2) Follow the money. Do not say financing of the attack is irrelevant. 3) Investigate put option activity prior to attack. i.e. 5 days prior.

Huguenot, Fox news called, to see if you wanted to work for them.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Margarite Simonyan (the editor of Russia Today) > even said that she does not believe the coverage > they offer. > > Do you get that LD? The Russia Today coverage is > not even believed by the people who create it: > > "Simonyan argued that the channel?s policy was > merely to provide a platform for marginalized > points of view that otherwise got little coverage, > like the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "I > personally do not believe them. But I believe that > if there are people out there who think so but do > not get into mainstream media, they deserve an > audience ? and we should give them a forum,? she > said." More distorted information, from an unstable mind.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Russia today readily admit that they have an > editorial policy to push conspiracy theories. > > "Last month, an episode of the show ?CrossTalk? > descended into chaos when its host, Peter Lavelle, > was berated by the show?s guests for proclaiming > that the people who perpetrated the Sept. 11 > attacks were not fundamentalists. > > One of the guests, British journalist Douglas > Murray, expressed outright disgust afterward. > "I?ve never encountered a more incompetent > presenter," he wrote on his blog. > > Asked by The Moscow Times about the show, Lavelle > said it was a "fiasco" because he had not been > able to get a balanced pair of experts. "Everybody > was snowed in," he said." > > Everybody was snowed in? Is that like the cat ate > my homework? your homework for today, put options 9 11 http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Well sourced'? > > Faked photographs? > > You're a joke mate. > > The Corbett Report describes its own content as > "breaking news and important issues from 9/11 > Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother > police state" > > It's just a little boy's conspiracy wankfest. Try stop reading newspapers by just looking at the pictures. Try reading the wiggle lines on the paper, that?s the news.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Corbett Report isn't news, they've got faked > pictures of George Bush snogging a male member of > the House of Saud as their headline. Corbett's > book is called "Essays on the New World Order". > You don't get more mental conspiracy theory than > that. > > If I want to get similar material I'd go to the > Daily Mash, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to > call it news. > > As for Russia Today - the government owned Russian > overseas propaganda station? If you've reached the > point where you feel that the Kremlin is more > honest than, for example, the BBC you've truly > lost the plot. > > But then we've got 20 pages of evidence for that > already, so I wouldn't be surprised. James Corbett: well sourced, well informed and articulated arguments. Huguenot: poorly informed, academically challenged and paradigm impairment .

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You bring to mind hypochondriacs rabidly searching > medical sources online to prove that they have > finally picked up a terminal disease that will > justify their obsession. > > Every Doctor who points out they've just got a > sniffle is rubbished as a fraud and a liar - but > the quacks claiming they've got an obscure, > terminal and (most importantly) ravaging cancer > are welcomed with open arms. > > The Corbett Report - The Road to World War III, > subtitle: 'Feeding Your Psychosis'. > > People like Corbett are parasites that feed on > your paranoia. blah, blah, blah.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone like the Keiser Report from Russia > Today? Yes, have followed his and Stacy Herbert?s work for a few years. If you go to www.rt.com you can watch past episodes. He has another program called On the Edge with Max Keiser. If you find this stuff interesting you may also want to take a look at, http://www.corbettreport.com/

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have your conspirancy theories plumbed new depths > with the claim that Keynesian Economics was a > communist attack on the USA? You may think that, but I could not possibly comment. Comrade

Scylla100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Woah, stock market is diving. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/02/mar > ket-falls-us-jobs-barack-obama-george-osborne > > Where's that bloody Keynes when ya need 'im? > > Scylla On a Sukhoi Su-7 jet between Chicago and Austria with a return ticket.

How quick could you spend $400 billion? 100 years 1000 years US can spend it in just over a month, looks like IOU?s until November.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it far more likely NN that you can't > explain yourself because you don't know what > you're talking about. As ever, you are entitled to your opinion.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you talking to suburban English people > about setting up a medieval tribunal in a foreign > political institution? > > What relevance has the debt ceiling to the > criminal prosecution of scapegoats? > > Is this a copy and paste gone wrong? If you are unable to see the comparison or the implication, I am sorry but I cannot help you. Your obsession with copy and pasting is somewhat worrying. I cannot believe I have to repeat this. But if you take information from your brain, then type said information in to your keyboard and thus place that information on to this forum, that is a form of copy and pasting. From the brain (copy) to the forum (paste).

There?s trouble at mill, maybe a good time to resurrect the camera stellata, or do we call it star chamber. A little smoke and mirrors, called debt ceiling problem, then. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to present to you the new star chamber, please give it up for the super congress.

http://wwwDelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1829/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1829-10560.jpg Take a look http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=110

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well Nexus, the fact is that Paulson and > Geithner's refusal to comply with the law has > already cost the taxpayers scores of billions of > dollars in unnecessary costs. And Geithner > indicated (back in February) that he would > continue to flout the law. If he is allowed to do > so it will add hundreds of billions of dollars to > the eventual cost to taxpayers. > > The way I see things is that the amount of > taxpayer money wasted due to Paulson and > Geithner's violations of the prompt corrective > action law will exceed the total present value > cost of resolving the S&L debacle, $150 billion > ($1993). I also believe that the waste will take > the form of the U.S. taxpayers subsidizing the > officers, shareholders and subordinated debt > holders of failed banks -- who are > disproportionately wealthy, frequently profited > from the accounting fraud that caused the banks to > fail, and are often foreign. > > And let's not forget that the prompt corrective > action law was passed in large part to prevent > such a subsidy!! Thank you, this was helpful and informative. Now can we all see that the rulebooks have been set on fire. Clear prima facie evidence, has been place before regulators of fraud and beaches in regulation. The aforementioned Paulson, Geithner, plus others, have not only turned a blind eye, but have actively block cases, from reaching court.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, in my view - Geithner, like Paulson, as > President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York > since October 2003, was one of those senior > regulators who failed to take any effective > regulatory action to prevent the crisis, but > instead covered up its depth. > > I would also add that he was supposed to regulate > many of the largest bank holding companies in the > United States. Far too many of these institutions > are now deeply insolvent because the banks they > own are deeply insolvent. The law mandated that > Geithner and his colleagues place troubled banks > in receivership long before they became insolvent. > > > Which begs the question, Nexus - Why are the > banking regulators, particularly Treasury > Secretary Geithner, continuing to disobey the law? So, can we agree that both Paulson and Geithner, have not fulfilled their job description or their obligations to enforce regulatory governance. Can we also agree that because of the aforementioned negligence, a greater debt has been created, and is in the process of being kicked down the road? Can we also agree that the debt crisis, has and is bleeding into sovereign debt?