PolyNewbie

Thats not what resrve ratio means. A 100 % reserve ratio means they cannot create money. They must only lend money that they have.

An excellent site about banking is The Fed Exposed. It has content from historians and intelligence officers and has links to movies about the Fed as well as an online book.

I never said an EMP did what it did in the Pennslyvania crash. I think you need some help with your reading because I have written enough about this and repeated my above posts often enough for almost anyone to *get it*. You do not apparently but also consider yourself an intellectual giant like many other members of this forum.

I don't think that this part of 911 is really even worth discussing. wtc7 collapse and the collapse of the twin towers proves 911 was an inside job. The other crashes cannot be used to prove anything definitively so I don't pay much attention to the Pentagon or Pennyslyvania crashes. I don't write off theories because I think I know everything either. It seems to my that Hawkings made some good points and didn't say anything I could discount. Even as far as wtc1 & wtc2 goe, I do not speculate on how they collapsed. I know it was a controlled event by the way the buildings collapsed and therefore it was an inside job. Personally I think a nuke was dropped down the center of the buildings in the case of wtc1 & wtc2 but I could likely be shown to be wrong because its just a guess. In the end it doesn't matter how they did it to me.

That site does not explain what happens when someone deposits $100.00 into a retail bank. Only the "Money As Debt" video & The Creature From Jekyll Island book explain that. Only operation of central banks is shown in the Money Masters video. You may be able to find it on the web as "the Rothschild Formula". I would copy the example out of Creature From Jekyll Island but you would just say that is wrong just like you assume everything that you don't find reasonable must be wrong. The Money Masters is the best overall video on the topic but it stops short of an explanation on money creation at the retailer bank level. If $100.00 gets deposited ina banks then it can result in the creation of over $3000.00 and that is with a 10 % reserve ratio. No. Thats not what it says.

I prefer to stick with only facts. I do not spend much time speculating what did happen. I know what didn't and that makes it an inside job.

You cannot understad this subject by reading a few web sites. Your process explains how 10 % of the created money comes into existence. You are going to have to learn for yourself how the bank creates money from your deposits. I'm sick of your combined arrogance and stupidty and wish you would stop polluting my threads with your know it all attitude and know nothing reality. From that site "...That made it lawful for banks to loan far more than they had in deposits – to practice fractional reserve banking...." I'll let you find it. Now you know that (1) The Federal Reserve creates money from nothing (2) It is privately owned. This has been the main thrust of your arguements all along and after 80 + pages of argueing with you you now finally know. Now, go away and start writing threads that you know something about.

There is no reason to believe heat from fires caused the failure. You can see the diagrams of damage and heat from NIST and you can find that the core was made to 6 X overbuild and the outside 20 X. The building should stood after the damage and fires. The designer of the building was right and you are wrong. The designer of the building was hard to reach to get a comment on 911. If 911 was an inside job and he said anything that would help believe that he would lose government contracts just like everyone one else who has influence that says 911 was an inside job.

That is not what was said. The question is that would a high powered explosive going off in an airplane cause an EMP pulse. I don't know. It certainly would behave like a pulse jet engine.

The sources you quote are being mis interpreted by you. There are lots of sources that explain what a reserve ratio is. Your textbooks do not say what read them as saying. There will be no Official source that exactly explains banking. If you want to know who owns the bank you have to see a congressional report written in the 70's by Larry MacDonald. They won't give you that info in Forbes. You think the banks have a Washington lobby group ?

The Creature From Jekyll Island explains it, so does the video "Money as Debt". The banker sites don't explain it. Do you completely trust the government, banks and special interest groups and secret societies to work in your interest 100 % of the time ?

“[building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” See a list of WTC designer quotes with sources from WTC Designers This is obvious from (1) Past Experience from building structures (2) Knowledge that damage would not have exceeded the structural capabilities of the building to remained standing (See NIST diagram on damage & heat & consider overbuild factors of supports + half strength due to heat) (3) Observed behaiour of the building after the crash. Its natural frequency did not change it was therefore solid. Fires were not horrendous and mainly low temperature.

Thats not what the definition says and you are misunderstanding the definition. You do not know what reserve ratio even means and are passing yourself off as an expert. The bankers themselves keep saying they are going to take over the world. Thats why I believe it. Here David Rockefeller explains exactly what is going on: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose members have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion over forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop a plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work now is much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practised in past centuries"- David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, at the Trilteral commission in June 1991.

No. The banks are much bigger than these companies. They do not publish their earnings and have far more control today than they did when the quotes were given. There really isn't a way the quotes could be misunderstood. They all say the same thing: Bankers are in control. Bankers are incredibly secretive. Bankers are incredibly evil.

That was a different speech. The one above talks specifically about the Federal Reserve.

Thats because you still do not know what a reserve ratio is despite having posted many times on the topic of fractional reserve banking.

This is necessary the idea of th need to keep the banks isolated from politics is absolutely foolish and is a completely artificial idea that got planted somewhere and got stuck. Politicians are responsible to us and if power was taken away from bankers, not only their actions would incur responsibility but the politicians would be much more answerable to the public on all other matters such as social engineering, health and education and would not have to tolerate bankers agendas in these areas. There should be for branches of government, not three in a democratic society. Leaving banks unanswerable to anyone means they use the monetary policy to direct their own private interests. It puts control of a nations economy into private hands. Thats just not true. The international bankers will collapse any economy that decides to print its own money. We would be at war with the States and labeled as a rouge nation if we did this. All of the rogue nations in Bushes speeches are nations without privately owned central banks. We must build awareness so that monetary reform can have a chance all over the world in a short time because any other way will result in wars. People have to become aware of the power and influence of the private banking interest so that power can be taken away from them. I believe we must make as many people aware of monetary reform as possible before they change the internet to "internet 2". They will let people talk about wars and terrorism but the new system will put monetary reformers on a short leash. Monetary reform will be the issue of our time in history and will be remembered as the most significant event over the past 100 years if it is acheived. It would be magnificent if monetary reform succeded. People couldn't imagine the positive change it would make and the positive direction society and humanity could go. See The Money Masters free on google as well as many other historical videos about banking.

You can't use tax surplus to pay off the debt with our existing monetary system. Its impossible. The BOC could pay the debt and then tax us for those payments interest free.

I don't see how any of the ex president quotes or ex banker quotes can be mis represented. Particularly because of the number of quotes from different notables of history as well as reference sources that all very clearly say the same thing.

Congressman Ron Paul talks about the Federal Reserve

Congressman Ron Paul talks about the Federal Reserve.

I think the idea of taxing stock market transactions would do us a lot of good. Something like 0.001 % would maybe dampen derivative activity.

That effect works in addition to the reserve ratios. In banking, if a bank has $1000.00 in deposit it can instantly create $10,000.00 to lend and that money gets re deposted into the bank by the receiver of payments made by the borrower of the $10,000.00. The amount of money that banks actually make from a $1000.00 deposit is actually well over $10,000 with a 10 : 1 reserve ratio because of the affect you describe as well as the effect (in addition) of what I describe. They end up being able to create about $100,000.00 from the original $1000.00 deposit plus charge transactional fees for people making payments - another $1.50 or so 8-). That is how banks work with reserves and thats why the money they create is practically "from nothing". The exact mechanism on which they create money will never be shown on a banker web site.

You have told me in earlier posts. Which credible source (s) ? You have one source. You say the Federal Reserve is a non profit organization that is owned by taxpayers. Talk about a succer born every minute. Look into it, check and see what the economists say. Read what ex presidents and ex bankers say. They all say the same thing about banks and all using strong words that describe them as capable of every imaginable form of deceit. So you go to the banker web sites and mis interpret most of their info exactly the way you are supposed to and claim them to be the most credible source. If you had read a single book that even mentioned the banks in more than just passing you would know they are privately owned.

ROTFLMAO, Remember Riverwind, you pass the litimus test for being the fool - you have written here more than you have read on the topic.