I actually uncharacteristically bothered to watch Loose Change 2nd Edition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

and I spotted a post on the Loose Change forums, maaate was that you? Such things are not my gig but my word the research in Loose Change wasn't just comprehensive, it was exceptional.

Anyhow the doco was utterly supurb, I'm still stunned.......

Yeah, it's very cool video. Well worth the watch.

Just had a quick squiz and f***! That is awesome.

judgement day is close!!


People are getting more aware of whats going on.

Like on the news the other day, that british/scot soldier who got courtmarshalled because he said the war in iraq is illegal. There are good decent soldiers still out there.

Great vid.

last edited by Stez at 23:18:36 26/Mar/06

Btw is there anyway to actually dload the video so u can save it, or do u have to stream it thru google website or google video player every time?

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=loose+change+2

http://www.mininova.org/tor/220762

800Mb XVid. It's well served, azureus downloaded it in under two hours.

For those with more time. "9/11 eyewintness", a very dry forensics level anylisis of video/sound footage of tower collapses and preceeding explosions.

http://www.mininova.org/tor/169531


last edited by C0deBasher at 01:12:53 27/Mar/06

im about 1/3rd through this and am very impressed. So many sources referenced. Would have been a major bitch to collate all of this. Im extremely skeptical about any conspiracy theory horses*** and this video wont make me a 9/11 was bulls*** zealot but it is definately something to think about.

Can you make the thread title a little less ambiguous. I think more people would be interested if they had ANY idea wtf you are posting about :P (it just looks like some random OMG LOL TROG I SAW YOU ON ANOTHER FORUM type post)

My bad... If I posted a "omfg 9/11 conspiracy video" Title then it would have been discarded quicker than you can say "oh piss off". It was only by chance I even bothered checking it out. The excellence of this presentation caught me so completely by surprise it was worth using a pretext as this is one rare puppy really worth sharing.

I hope you'll forgive me for using such surruptitous means.

edit: minor change to title made... :)

last edited by C0deBasher at 09:08:18 27/Mar/06

I think the one thing stopping me from being convinced is the difficulting in trying to wrap my head around the implications.

Also they explained away the deaths of 1000 odd people on the planes by at the start saying some dude in the 60s said something and was then fired.

You said it maxe. Crazy.
How tiny does something as huge in its day as Watergate seem compared to this.
But if Prison Break has taught me anything, the guy that made this should be dead! :p

The problem is, even if such amazing evidence (and I'm not saying I'm convinced), there would still be those people out there that would refuse to believe it, and support Bush as he turns the US into a police state and teenagers start enrolling in the Bush Youth!
It's cool that this kind of thing gets out there though, I bet these guys would f***ing hate Michael Moore.

Interesting times ahead!

I just watched this, and one thing I would like to know is... why on earth isn't the US govt saying "You're wrong because A)..." etc etc etc?

It is in their best interest to do so. If they were able to conclusively refute any of this, then there'd be no more theories. Just facts. They aren't though. Why not?

Some of this evidence is more than a little compelling. I remember at the time wondering how the towers fell down so neatly. I wondered how the mobile phones were working on a plane (I've tried, and they just don't).

Too many questions and not enough answers IMO.

800Mb XVid. It's well served, azureus downloaded it in under two hours.

So on a 24Mbps ADSL connection, it would take 1h55mins to actually start Azureus, and then 5 mins to download the documentary?

Sounds reasonable =)

last edited by parabol at 01:40:19 27/Mar/06

The website is really good. links to everything they used almost.
The stuff about the pentagon is really interesting.

The only thing that gives it any credability imo is that the US government won't release all the info they have. The guy who wrote the page on the pentagon hit the nail on the head when he said a 10 minute news story would make all the conspiracy nonsence go away. It looks really bad when they won't even release videotapes of the pentagon from other angles.

http://keepvid.com/ is a nice way to save google video and other such videos.

And yea, I watched loose change 2nd ed. the other day. He wrapped up ALOT of good point very well. SOOOO much detailed reading out there, so it'd be way too hard to go into too fine a detail, so he's done unbelievably well.

jsut watched it. raises alot of unanswered questions.

one thing i didn't get.. they said that flight 93 (or which ever one was supposed to have crashed in the country side) landed in that airport and the people were put into the NASA building.. if that's true what happened to them? is the video implying they were disposed of somehow or something?

and, if what the video is claiming is true, in regards to motive, planting the bombs in WTC, covering up illegal business transactions and insider trading, faking the voices, and all that other stuff. thats one huge ass conspiracy theory. and to pull that off that would take a huge amount of people to have knowledge of it to varying degrees...

also i don't like the way people who do this sort of stuff say "if a plane hit this, this should/shouldn't/did/didn't happen." arm-chair physics is pretty hard to prove or disprove.

again, very cool video, raises soem pretty tough questions.. but i don't buy the answers they give and i doubt we'll ever get the whole truth ever in our lifetimes, if at all.

edit: don't get me wrong i'm not saying i believe the official story or am defending it in any way.

last edited by taggs at 01:52:05 27/Mar/06

The clincher for me was that (in laymans terms) if one dropped a cannon ball from the roof of each of the collapsing buildings at the moment of failure; North tower lost the race to the ground by less than a second and Tower seven* beat the ball. (*a vacuum induced by a controlled demolition implosion is the only mechanism possible to allow increased speed by due to near vacuum air resistance)

Floors pancaking and failing simply can not even come remotely close to the speed of zero resistance total freefall.

So on a 24Mbps ADSL connection, it would take 1h55mins to actually start Azureus, and then 5 mins to download the documentary?

Sounds reasonable =)

For Azureus, that sounds about right. :D:D:D

last edited by C0deBasher at 09:12:11 27/Mar/06

and to pull that off that would take a huge amount of people to have knowledge of it to varying degrees...

thats also what i was thinking

1000's of people involved in a huge cover up, surely not all on the most massive paycheque either.

Can you imagine yourself being told by your boss to fake a phonecall to some dudes mother about being trapped on a plane by hijackers? What amount of money is worth that?

Even if you were threatened with legal action, even death, how could so many people keep quiet about the biggest, most completely f***ing outrageous act in human history?

I am now devoting myself to reading counter theories, but they arent on google video and are hence much less interesting

I'm finding denying a large plane hit the Pentagon is the weak element in the story. Counter explainations I'm researching offer quite good arguement worth consideration.

Yet the more I try to find any rebuttals at all regarding the collapses, I'm just un-earthing more damming and dare say flawless evidence supporting internal demolition.

last edited by C0deBasher at 02:19:54 27/Mar/06

Could you point me in the direction of a counter explaintion for the pentagon.

Most of what I have seen/heard suggests that what ever hit the pentagon was at the least not a passenger jet.

The guy at www.pentagonresearch.com has said that in over 2000 pictures he didn't see one passenger seat. And as for a conventional passenger aircraft penetraiting that many rings of the pentagon, some explaination is needed I think.

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

is a pretty decent counter explaination for the Pentagon.

Like all things research is great for bedding down a conclusion. Assosiations like the 9/11 truth movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement appear to take a more pragmatic view towards anything presented.

In the end, no one finds fault with the three tower collapses being demolition. the weight of data is widely comprehensive and downright conclusive.

last edited by C0deBasher at 02:22:30 27/Mar/06

Id have to say that the site I quoted is fairly balanced. He says that he doesnt want to draw any big conclusions. He even goes so far as to admit that some of his evidence supports the official story. But that counter website you supplied was good also. I still have a little trouble believing that a 757 got through that much concrete. I have watched a video of a f4 I think ramming a concrete wall. The plane was absolutly destroyed I mean turned to dust more or less. sepeculation of the fusalge melting to create a battering ram sounds a little far fetched to me. Then again the government spray painting a military jet and ramming their own building.

food for thought I guess

Why dig when all fingers point to the truth hurting? Are you all suckers for pain?

Reminds me of the Kennedy assasination. At the time it was a big conspiracy and coverup but 40 years on who would give it more than 30 seconds thought?

re the f4 hitting the wall and disappearing... that wasnt just a 'concrete wall' that was a super strength bunker wall. normal concrete walls are built to keep the wind out, not planes.

don't buy into the pentagon thing for a minute, they've disregarded a lot to make the story work.

the facts. nobody said they saw a missile, lots of people saw a 757 size passenger jet. street lights are designed to be sheer off at the base. there was debris on the lawn outside the pentagon. the plane clipped the helipad with one of its wings, not the grass.

http://images.projectstripe.com/pentagon2.jpg

^ thats the model of how the "official story" tells it

this is the photo that backs it up you can clearly see where the wings have knocked the walls in and buckled the vertical supports. the hole made by the fuselage is partially visible to the left.

The guy who wrote the page on the pentagon hit the nail on the head when he said a 10 minute news story would make all the conspiracy nonsence go away

Like all the moon conspiracy stories have gone away, even though NASA debunked them years ago? And the conspiracy people still say NASA wont respond to them even though they keep bringing up the same arguments.

last edited by Bah at 09:19:27 27/Mar/06

without looking at it, no its not me

Like all the moon conspiracy stories have gone away, even though NASA debunked them years ago? And the conspiracy people still say NASA wont respond to them even though they keep bringing up the same arguments.

Yes with regards to that, I feel this situation is a little different. The fact that they confiscated video footage and wont release it, for me at least looks bad. But on top of that who takes moon landing fakes seriously? I can remember talking to someone who bought it up saying they didnt have the technology at the time but they did 5 years later(that was hunter incidently). Its precisly the point, a transparent investigation would make conspiracy thoerists look a bunch of idiots (well more so).

As for the concrete wall business, While its true that the wall I mentioned was a bunker wall, the plane still had to travel through more concrete then just the outer wall of the pentagon. Even if a conventional passenger air craft could puncture through that much stuff(which I won't deny is possible), theorising that there was enough heat on impact to melt the metal frame of the plane turning it into the battering ram of doom sounds a little silly to me, I would imagine that softening the steel the plane was made of would make it less likely puncture walls not more so.

Any way I never said a plane didnt hit the pentagon. The Missle theories are bollocks. The wreckage that is there becomes too difficult to justify.

All that a side I take it with a grain of salt. There is evidence to back up the pentagons version of events. Not the least of which is dozens of eye witness accounts.

Bleh I making myself look stupid so I will stop.

Normally at this point id stop theorising and wait for the truth to come out, but I doubt it ever will so theres not much more you can do.

The Trade Center falling down looked pretty hores*** to me too, especially with all those Firefighter comments and the comparison with other burning buildings.

Yeah been reading the conspiracy theories about the 9/11 stuff of late (which I posted one site in one of the thead as well). All seem "very" plausible & reasonable, but like maxe said, I really cannot comprehend the magnitude of the cover-ups and implications of that. Lets say it's a cover-up for something more siniser, I really don't know how they could keep that many people silenced (unless of course you also think they "took care" of those involved....).

WTC 7 collapsed without any direct damange to it was slightly curious especially when it was allegedly collasped in the similar fashion with the twin towers.

Naturally, some of these theories/modelling can be counter etc. I mean after all nobody really could imagine a piece of form could bring down a super strong part of a Space Shuttle (even after lots of tests - until the last test proved them all wrong). I guess given a right combination of "things" falling into place at the same time.... who knows what could be possible, 1 in a billion chance is chance right?

It certainly interesting to read both sides of the stories though.

for me, the silver bullet is the amateur footage of the towers collapsing and seeing the smaller explosions below the level of the collapsing debris.

and we're the victims of the biggest lie in the history of mankind. I just love the american way of life.

I have no problems believing a building would collapse if you crashed a plane into it

and we're the victims of the biggest lie in the history of mankind. I just love the american way of life.

quick, a conspiracy theory on the internet - time to adjust your beliefs immediately

quick, a conspiracy theory on the internet - time to adjust your beliefs immediately

Would it be more credible if you hadnt seen it on the same medium you saw goatse, the hampster dance and Hunter?

To me the film seems as well researched as any other investigation project, and youd have to question what the author stands to gain from lying

You One cant deny the theory has at least some credibility to it imo

last edited by maxe at 14:30:23 27/Mar/06

Would it be more credible if you hadnt seen it on the same medium you saw goatse, the hampster dance and Hunter?

Of course it would.

Pretty much one of the biggest problems with the internet is that there's no way to associate any particular site with any sort of level of credibility or even authenticity. SSL certificates go some way to help the authenticity problem but that doesn't solve credibility - any jackass can get an SSL certificate.

Unfortunately the default policy for many people when they read things on the Internet (or see them on TV, or read them in the newspaper, or hear them from a drunk in a pub) is 'believe', instead of 'ignore' (or at best, 'store for future reference and confirmation from reputable sources'.

To me the film seems as well researched as any other investigation project, and youd have to question what the author stands to gain from lying

You cant deny the theory has at least some credibility to it

I haven't read the theory, and I know nothing about the film. I have no problems believing that the theory is valid. Lots of theories are valid.

Here's another theory: aliens from Zergnax IV secretly implanted high explosive as revenge after a particularly fruitless probing session of pilots involved, which caused the buildings to collapse. That's a valid theory too, but compared to the most likely explanation - that two giant f***off planes crashed into them at really high velocities and they just fell the f*** down - it isn't really that good.

last edited by trog at 14:34:55 27/Mar/06

I haven't read the theory, and I know nothing about the film. I have no problems believing that the theory is valid. Lots of theories are valid.

and like any theory, it has to stand up against rigourous investigation and critical analysis. That is exactly what this video is giving it.

that two giant f***off planes crashed into them at really high velocities and they just fell the f*** down

well gee, when you throw a few swear words in there, it sounds way more credible. Thanks trog, I'm convinced! :P

last edited by korbs at 14:46:03 27/Mar/06

i dont get how a plane full of people couldnt overpower a few guys with box cutters


f***ing box cutters?!

and like any theory, it has to stand up against rigourous investigation and critical analysis. That is exactly what this video is giving it.

I would add "by reputable industry veterans" to "rigourous investigation and critical analysis". Who made the video is just as, if not more important than, what the video is saying. In my humble opinion, of course.

i dont get how a plane full of people couldnt overpower a few guys with box cutters

IIRC, the people on one of the last planes in the air found out what happened to the first planes and did try to take over the plane - but a bunch of guys with box cutters is probably scary enough to stop you from doing something heroic if you don't know death is certain.

I've heard a few people say that since 9/11 noone will ever be able to take over a plane again without serious hardware, because passengers on the plane now have a better idea what is in store for them if they cop it passively.

Here's another theory: aliens from Zergnax IV secretly implanted high explosive as revenge after a particularly fruitless probing session of pilots involved, which caused the buildings to collapse. That's a valid theory too, but compared to the most likely explanation - that two giant f***off planes crashed into them at really high velocities and they just fell the f*** down - it isn't really that good.

The buildings were designed to withstand a big f***off plane crashing into it at high velocity. And even if that weren't true, wouldn't the top sort of slide off? Or wouldn't the velocity and impact of the plane "push" the building over? It all fell down in a nice neat little pile (well, as little a giant skyscraper can get), that seems a bit weird to me.

Unfortunately the default policy for many people when they read things on the Internet (or see them on TV, or read them in the newspaper, or hear them from a drunk in a pub) is 'believe', instead of 'ignore' (or at best, 'store for future reference and confirmation from reputable sources'.

I tend to try and work out what's in it for them. The media is certainly guilty of "what's in it for us" behaviour. They're in the advertising business. What stories will make more people watch/read? Some internet sites are the same. Some aren't. Some are just crazy bandanna wearing hippies with an internet presence ;)

What you're saying there is believe nothing until you work it out for yourself. That's fine to a point, until you find out that there are no reputable sources, and everything is just conjecture. Then you're screwed! It's anarchy! People are making baseless decisions about things all over the place!!!

Oh wait, that's already happened...

I would add "by reputable industry veterans" to "rigourous investigation and critical analysis". Who made the video is just as, if not more important than, what the video is saying. In my humble opinion, of course.

He did reference a lot of sources in the video (and there is a full list on the website). Plus, most of the 'analysis' is in the form of actual amateur video footage, TV coverage and eyewitness accounts. It's not just him in a room with a tin-foil hat.

I'm not saying i think it's all 100% true, but it's certainly credible and shouldn't be dismissed because the guy isn't a world-class investigative journalist...

I agree with Trog here. The Internet is fairly notorious for wildly inaccuarte information.

That said it doesn't follow that all information is just false.
The stuff about the trade center buildings being the first 3 steel frame buildings in history to colapse from fire damage is reasonably compelling.

Supposedly a plain crashed into the empire state building and its still standing.

But the fact that to entertain this theory you need to accept that someone from the us government intentionally killed 3500 or so of their own people puts the theory on the back foot.

Alot of theories also come with claims that are just stupid. For example I read a flyer at UQ that seriously suggested that Osama Bin Laden wasnt a muslim he was jewish. It then went on to say that no jews were killed in the WTC and that the whole thing was a zionist conspiracy to get military forces in the middle east.

It's possible, but its up there with the today tonight specials about guys from the 1400's who predict the world will end 7pm next tuesday.

IIRC, the people on one of the last planes in the air found out what happened to the first planes and did try to take over the plane - but a bunch of guys with box cutters is probably scary enough to stop you from doing something heroic if you don't know death is certain.

In some report I read, they also said that the hijackers also said that they've additionally got bombs on board or were strapped to their bodies. With that in mind and nearly all the things you hear the cops tell you about try not to be a hero if you're being hold up (just give them what they want), I could imagine no one was game enough to call the hijacker buff. Box cutters probably help to keep people from trying to come close to them but I reckon a possible threat of bomb on board would definitely stop any heroic attempts - unless you're Steve Segal or Westly Snipes...

IIRC, the people on one of the last planes in the air found out what happened to the first planes and did try to take over the plane

CBF looking it up but didn't the US govt finally admit they shot down that last plane a year or so ago?

...if they cop it passively.

your mother cops it passively... zing! haha i mean it was just there, i didnt really even have to do anything.

I've heard a few people say that since 9/11 noone will ever be able to take over a plane again without serious hardware, because passengers on the plane now have a better idea what is in store for them if they cop it passively.

Were these reputable industry veterans Trog?

Edit: Wait Stagrrs come back was better :/

last edited by Mantra at 15:08:00 27/Mar/06

last edited by Mantra at 15:08:20 27/Mar/06

Were these reputable industry veterans Trog?

They must be really good if they can look forever into the future!

Also I did bother to look up the deal on the 4th flight and I remember a TV news clip where they said the flight was shot down and thinking shouldn't they be making a big deal about this. I think that actually came from a Donald Rumsfeld slip in 2004 where he said shot down (1 phrase is an address to troops in Iraq)) and the conspirace theoriest jumped all over it.

i remember reading something (on a news site) that the us government actually considered faking a terrorist attack to get more support for the govt

The buildings were designed to withstand a big f***off plane crashing into it at high velocity. And even if that weren't true, wouldn't the top sort of slide off? Or wouldn't the velocity and impact of the plane "push" the building over? It all fell down in a nice neat little pile (well, as little a giant skyscraper can get), that seems a bit weird to me.

They were designed to do it, but I get the feeling they don't crash too many 707s into dummy tallest-buildings-in-the-world to test these theories with any sort of regularity.

Also, I dispute that it was a "neat little pile". Debris from everything was found blocks away. It looks neat on TV because you can't really get a sense of scale, but 'ground zero' was pretty fricken messy. Check out this photo (warning, 14mb) for a look - I think that was taken a couple days after. Even that is hard to get a sense of scale.

What you're saying there is believe nothing until you work it out for yourself.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm also not saying "believe everything you see on Fox News".

He did reference a lot of sources in the video (and there is a full list on the website)

Then you have exactly the same problem - are they reputable sources?

In some report I read, they also said that the hijackers also said that they've additionally got bombs on board or were strapped to their bodies.

Oh yeh I had also heard that; makes sense. They could have had weiners strapped to them for all people knew and it would have looked scary enough.

i remember reading something (on a news site) that the us government actually considered faking a terrorist attack to get more support for the govt

I think you're getting confused after watching Long Kiss Goodnight

I'm not saying that at all. I'm also not saying "believe everything you see on Fox News".

In that case I got the wrong impression.

Also, I dispute that it was a "neat little pile". Debris from everything was found blocks away. It looks neat on TV because you can't really get a sense of scale, but 'ground zero' was pretty fricken messy. Check out this photo (warning, 14mb) for a look - I think that was taken a couple days after. Even that is hard to get a sense of scale.

Like I said, "as little a giant skyscraper can get". The rubble had to go somewhere. I would've thought debris would've been found much further away.

They were designed to do it, but I get the feeling they don't crash too many 707s into dummy tallest-buildings-in-the-world to test these theories with any sort of regularity.

Computer simulations are pretty good. However, the documentary gave a couple of examples of similar buildings withstanding a similar amount of damage without falling over. It just seems strange to me that it fell into itself all at once... twice! I felt that as soon as I saw it live on CNN. And then another building fell into itself a little bit later. Buildings don't just fall down all at once like that.

As for this theory about the explosions below where the building was actually burning at the time, imagine the temperatures that would have been superheating all that metal and desks and filing cabinets inside there.

It could have burned through there like magma with nothing to stop it, whats going to stop hot liquid metal melting whatever is in its way?

Add lots and lots of petrol that maybe didnt get exploded on the initial impact and thats literally fuel for the already liquid metal hot fire. Ever seen thermite burn through a car engine like Hamster did on Brainiacs in one of the episode?

The metal the building was made out of needed to get a lot hotter than jet fuel could get... well, according to this doco anyway. They asked the people that built the building and showed how hot jet fuel can get.

I can even beleive that circumstance caused it to burn hotter, that still wouldn't account for the middle of the building collapsing. I would've thought that the top would've slid off or something like that.

and youd have to question what the author stands to gain from lying

what does any conspericy theoriest gain? recognition.. or maybe he has an asperation to be a

world-class investigative journalist...

out of all theories and government coverups etc. im more inclined to belive that osama bin laden had nothing to do with it, and the government needed a scapegote. because seriously, nfi how they traced back the information in acouple of days from an event with no survivors with inside information and was set up in a different country. without someone on the inside of course, but if that where the case, wouldn't they have prior knolage?

Supposedly a plain crashed into the empire state building and its still standing.

how big was the plane?

The buildings were designed to withstand a big f***off plane crashing into it at high velocity.

not exactly something you can test really?

And even if that weren't true, wouldn't the top sort of slide off?

why would it "slide off" its not like it was connected or anything

Or wouldn't the velocity and impact of the plane "push" the building over?

the building is made of steal and glass, and has alot of room for a plane to go through, (as in, alot of plane parts flew through out the other side) not only that, how much force is the building desgined to withstand from wind?

It all fell down in a nice neat little pile (well, as little a giant skyscraper can get), that seems a bit weird to me.

when you have a billion tonnes of steal above you, and it wants to go down, and suddenly 10 000 tonnes of steal doesn't want to hold it any more. 1 billion tonnes of steal tends to go down, not the way that you want it too.

Edit : so they do think of planes crashing into buildings when the design big buildings... how strange.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 15:53:05 27/Mar/06

That or the hijackers did in fact have explosives on board with them to maximise the damage? Can't prove this of course but it's certainly possible. Still, that doesn't explain why WTC 7 collasped without real damage to it though.

The world trade center was one big red X with booty underneath it. You see it was really the neo-pirates stealing gold.

Supposedly a plain crashed into the empire state building and its still standing.

Yes but a B17 is not a 757 and the empire state building is built differently to modern buildings.

quick, a conspiracy theory on the internet - time to adjust your beliefs immediately

Actually this conspiracy has been talked about along time ago and there's been several documentaries released on arab media alone talking about the same "theory" but using different references back in 2001. It's just you decided to click on a thread titled in your name and thought randomly "gee lemme see what the fuss is about but it's another THEORY after all."


Denying what your head cant comprehend is the easy way out.

last edited by Booyah at 15:59:51 27/Mar/06

TROG
and I know nothing about the film.

Loose Change struck me as being infinately better researched and presented than the rubbish I've always discarded over the decades. It didn't just find a few faults in the official occount but offerred a comprehensive end to end case covering every perspective. The presentation also covered all the bases excellently when presenting such an arguement, means, motive, testimony (from official records and public footage) and excellent forensics.

This effort was worth 90 mins of my time.




last edited by C0deBasher at 15:59:12 27/Mar/06

yeh they said that the foundations & framework of the building was qa'd to a standard that resists up to 2000°c for prolonged periods. at those specs it would even resist volcanic magma which is only about 1100-1200°c ;p~

i honestly dunno what to think about these shenanagins... there seems to be convincing arguments on both sides :/ who do you trust?

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
Looks like it was a b25 bomber.

And the steel doesnt have to melt, just weaken due to heat stress so anyone quoting melting points of steel re aviation fuel fire is just spouting a "fact" trying to mislead you to their way of thinking.
google link

# Steel softens progressively from 100-200°C up.
# Only 23% of ambient-temperature strength remains at 700°C.
# At 800°C strength reduced to 11% and at 900°C to 6%.

I think thats relevant, but someone can correct me

building was qa'd to a standard that resists up to 2000°c for prolonged periods.

Assuming the heatproofing material had been maintained? I saw a thing on 9/11 where the insulating material around the metal was not maintained and had been dispersed so as to be pretty much useless.

last edited by Bah at 16:00:59 27/Mar/06

yeh they said that the foundations & framework of the building was qa'd to a standard that resists up to 2000°c for prolonged periods. at those specs it would even resist volcanic magma which is only about 1100-1200°c ;p~

yeah, but remember that half the building was blown out by the initial explosion / force of the plane, which means that the building would have been held up by less metal than it normally would be, AND that metal would be heated (although not to melting point)

hahahahahahaha 'arab media'.

Hey they might not be the most reputable of sources but my point is this theory has been around for a long time, only now people have started to merely think about it.

last edited by Booyah at 16:05:02 27/Mar/06

Now? How many years ago was that "pentagon" flash made?
http://qgl.ausforums.com/index.php/439207?agn=thread&id=475212 2002
http://qgl.ausforums.com/index.php/439207?agn=thread&id=2150372 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Actually this conspiracy has been talked about along time ago and there's been several documentaries released on arab media alone talking about the same "theory" but using different references back in 2001. It's just you decided to click on a thread titled in your name and thought randomly "gee lemme see what the fuss is about but it's another THEORY after all."

wow, this is near completely non-sensical gibberish. What is your point here?

Hey they might not be the most reputable of sources but my point is this theory has been around for a long time, only now people have started to merely think about it.

Yeh, that's what they're doing. Thinking about it.

last edited by trog at 16:18:53 27/Mar/06

Wikipedias take on the WTC colapse. its an interesting read and very informative.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 17:23:48 27/Mar/06

Its amazing how irational the response is from some people about this sort of thing. I dont believe necesarily that anything the guy is saying means that it was one giant crazy event that was staged by the american government... however, it is still a very interesting doco and its amazing to see that alot of the information could possibly be wrong. (even if all of it can be discounted, id be interested to see that too) This was the first conspiracy thing id looked at regarding 9/11 and I doubt id look at more unless it had a big reputation for being mighty impressive (like this one)

All the people going crazy out of their mind almost slandering people who think its plausable are just as bad as the people that believe without questioning beyond an internet doco. Its amazing how defensive you seem to be over this trog. (and others but trog stands out the most... its like you refuse to watch the thing such is your hatred of contrary hypotheses)

Movie was interesting.

Raised some good points.

No way the government can make 100 odd people disappear without raising at least some red flags.

Good points are owned by that single fact.

The End.

Its amazing how defensive you seem to be over this trog. (and others but trog stands out the most... its like you refuse to watch the thing such is your hatred of contrary hypotheses)

I'm not refusing to watch it at all; I don't have time at the moment. I just can't believe that people can see a plane smash into a building at high velocity and then look for other reasons why it fell over

Yes but a B17 is not a 757 and the empire state building is built differently to modern buildings.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? That the empire state was built to stricter safety requirements? I doubt that.

But once again, The fire evidence I find reasonably compelling, especially seeing as the WTC had been investigated about how it would withstand a fire. Drawing conclusions based alleged insider trading is obviously faulty logic. But the fact that the world trade centre towers were the first to collapse from fire damage, and the images of levels blowing out before being hit by the collapsing roof is cause for speculation. On top of all of that were is all the fuel coming from? There were massive fireballs from both impacts, something was burning and I'd be willing to bet is was plane fuel.

*edit* thanks for the article whitewolf. Very interesting, the stairwells not being properly renforced is an interesting point.

last edited by PornoPete at 17:02:04 27/Mar/06

I just can't believe that people can see a plane smash into a building at high velocity and then look for other reasons why it fell over

Maybe if you watched the doco, you would see it's not quite that simple. I'm a hardcore skeptic and even i find the video evidence in the doco pretty compelling.

last edited by korbs at 16:48:59 27/Mar/06

Check out this photo (warning, 14mb) for a look - I think that was taken a couple days after. Even that is hard to get a sense of scale.

Phwoar! That photo was pretty detailed!!

not exactly something you can test really?

I dont think mankinds feats of engineering would have progressed this far if we hadnt worked out a pretty accurate method of structural testing and event simulation

But hey, Im not an engineer. Maybe they just build skyscrapers and pray they dont fall down?

I dont think mankinds feats of engineering would have progressed this far if we hadnt worked out a pretty accurate method of structural testing and event simulation

They were built in the early 70s. I don't think simulations back then were as good as they are today.

Maybe if you watched the doco, you would see it's not quite that simple. I'm a hardcore skeptic and even i find the video evidence in the doco pretty compelling.

I'll try to find time to watch it, it certainly sounds interesting.

Can someone summarise the basic premise of the movie for me?

Basically that the US government planned and carried out the attacks.

he says that a cruise missle hit the pentagon

the trade towers were demolished as opposed to fell from fire damage

and that the 4th plane was flown somewhere else and the passengers disappeared.

The cruise missle thing i dunno... getting someone to 'plant' aircraft parts in plain view of the public seems like a bit of stretch.

I dont think mankinds feats of engineering would have progressed this far if we hadnt worked out a pretty accurate method of structural testing and event simulation

we also don't have an unlimited understanding of physics aswell.

btw, read my artical. it states that the buildings are tested against a plane that weighs half as much, and at landing speed (2/3 slower). and that the WTC was hit by a plane carrying 7 times the force that the "hypothetical" plane would have hit with.

PronoPete, I'm pretty sure he said it wasn't a missile that hit the pentagon, but rather a smaller, fighter-type plane...an A3 i think he says. Or at least, the scraps of engine that were recovered appear to be from an A3 "sky warrior" jet.

Edit: oops, he *then* goes on to talk about the missile...my bad.

last edited by korbs at 17:39:50 27/Mar/06

Basically that the US government planned and carried out the attacks.

How do they explain Osama claiming responibility?

I just can't believe that people can see a plane smash into a building at high velocity and then look for other reasons why it fell over

because the 'theories' are quite compelling looking at a multitude of evidence presented in the video...

although... JFK (the movie) is quite compelling, and the discovery channel has a documentary on how all the 'facts' in the movie are more like half truths...

anyway, my concern is that given a report issued by the Govt, the mainstream media (ie more credible in the publics opinion) just opened their mouth and took a gob full with out any question, even though there are some legitimate 'holes' in the official explanations...

my concern is still WTC #7 that was not impacted by high velocity objects and s*** load of fuel... but 'intense' fires and the same pancake theory is applied to that building as well...

If you had to calculate the probability of these 3 buildings (and no others, even though some others were significantly damaged) coming down the exact same way, I would hazard a guess at 1 in a trillion give or take a few hundred billion...

WTC #5 which was practically right under both towers didn’t collapse (or only partially collapsed). Certainly more structural damage and burning then WTC 7, that was over a block away from the north and 2 blocks from the south tower.
pic
oh.. imho

How do they explain Osama claiming responibility?

Well I think makes a passing reference to a press realease on aljazzera of Bin Laden denying responsibility, Then goes on to say that the video of him accepting responsibility is faked.

Give it a look, some stuff is pretty outlandish but there is a considerable amount of evidence that seems pretty solid.

"How do they explain Osama claiming responibility?"

I think they quote him saying he didn't do it. And show how they belive the video of him claiming it is fake.

Which can make sense if you look at it. I mean wasn't he already the #1 wanted man by the FBI?

Planes go boom.
Government uses Osama as scape goat.
Osama says it wasn't him.
Government says it was.
Osama thinks "The hell with it, I've nothing to lose and more to gain (Respect from extremeists?)" then says he did it.

What did he really have to lose? Sure the army might come and try hunt him down, but they probably would've blamed him and tried to hunt him down anyway.

Just a thought...

With the Osama confession video they point out.

1) Osama is left handed, vid shows him writing a note with right hand.
2) He's wearing a prominant gold ring. Strictly verbotton by Islamic law.
3) Osama doesn't look like Osama at all, more noticable, the famous lips are missing and the nose is wrong.

last edited by C0deBasher at 18:05:31 27/Mar/06

Computer simulations are pretty good. However, the documentary gave a couple of examples of similar buildings withstanding a similar amount of damage without falling over. It just seems strange to me that it fell into itself all at once... twice! I felt that as soon as I saw it live on CNN. And then another building fell into itself a little bit later. Buildings don't just fall down all at once like that.

I think a normal fire starting from a gas stove or electrical fault is a little different to a plane full of jet fuel crashing into the building at 600km/h (or whatever the speed is)

Also, the point about the melting point of steel is valid. The steel doesn't need to melt to be weakened enough to cause the structure to collapse.

also re: the people saying "omg you guys are so defensive" or "denying what you can't comprehend is the easy way out" (f***ing lol at that last one, get a clue)... noone is really defending anything. just asking more questions that would need to be answered before i'd accept the arguments of the doco. that's not saying i'm not skeptical of the offical explanation. but many of the points that movie makes have counter explanations. and many of the are based on arm-chair physics, or speculation which are impossible to prove or disprove.

i remember reading something (on a news site) that the us government actually considered faking a terrorist attack to get more support for the govt

I think you're getting confused after watching Long Kiss Goodnight

no the government never does anything covert or immoral. it loves us. sort of how the british government loved the chinese when they introduced them to opium.

i don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist but honestly western governments are as corrupt and power hungry as any other government. best bet is to be inside the government so you are the "screwer" and not the "screwee".

edit: when that building is about to be blown, i want to be getting the sms to get the f*** out of there.

last edited by infi at 18:32:50 27/Mar/06

For reasons why the building callapsed in the way it did you need to understand the construction. The building was infact designed to survive a plane strike, and they would have if not for the fuel. The fell like a controlled demolition because they fell into themselves. The central structure which was weakened by an easily achievable temperature for jet fuel along with the impact of the planes themselves (which the video ignores).

The exploding windows can probably be explained as the result of compressing such a large amount of air so suddenly and also due to distortion of the exterior surfaces of the building during the calapse. Note you can't see any flashes when the blow out, only dust.

Most of the video seems to go into great detail of specific photos and videos, but ignores the bigger points. Witnesses saw a passenger jet hit the pentagon, the videos were never released for reasons unknown, but certainly not because it wasn't a plane. Its possible that they were never released out of respect for those lives lost. Remember, they stopped showing the footage of people jumping from the towers because it was too distressing for viewers.

Basically that the US government planned and carried out the attacks.

apparenlty the russian government blew up its own citizens appartment buildings and blamed the serbs to gain support for its war against them

Its possible that they were never released out of respect for those lives lost. Remember, they stopped showing the footage of people jumping from the towers because it was too distressing for viewers.

It's possible, but to my knowledge the people jumping is A) totatly irrelevant to how the building fell and B) Has only been withdrawn from public screening the tapes havent been buried per se.

I dont doubt that there is a plane on the tapes. All I'm saying is that it looks bad that they have them and won't let anyone watch them. They don't need to broadcast them of the 6 o'clock news for the problem to go away.

central structure which was weakened by an easily achievable temperature for jet fuel along with the impact of the planes themselves

Mark Loizeaux presedent of Controlled Demolition contracted for the clean up stated that the Cores where they meet the bedrock on all three towers had been completely melted due to exposure to over 4000 degrees. Only det chord and/or explosives can generate that kind of heat, This marries well with the massive basement explosions on the main towers seconds after the plane hits. Saying a 2000 degree kerosine fireball took a right turn from horizonal to the virtical, travelled down the elevator shafts and then caused a 2.1 earth quake explosion in the lowest basement level can't work as the entire central core was also hermatically sealed. A fireball needs to suck generous amounts of oxygen to propigate. Not to mention such a flame front simply doesn't generate an explosive shockwave.

last edited by C0deBasher at 19:34:05 27/Mar/06

I think the big question is who gained most from the events on 911...

ask yourself that and you realise who dun it.

911 was the best thing that ever happend for the Bush administration.

Mark Loizeaux presedent of Controlled Demolition contracted for the clean up stated that the Cores where they meet the bedrock on all three towers had been completely melted due to exposure to over 4000 degrees. Only det chord and/or explosives can generate that kind of heat, This marries well with the massive basement explosions on the main towers seconds after the plane hits. Saying a 2000 degree kerosine fireball took a right turn from horizonal to the virtical, travelled down the elevator shafts and then caused a 2.1 earth quake explosion in the lowest basement level can't work as the entire central core was also hermatically sealed. A fireball needs to suck generous amounts of oxygen to propigate. Not to mention such a flame front simply doesn't generate an explosive shockwave.

thats a pretty big claim. time to back that up. cause thats the first i have ever heard of the struts compleatly melting.(because if you think about it, the structure would colapse way before the steal melted.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 20:11:27 27/Mar/06

So you are saying that somehow people got into the world trade centre and were able to meticulously place explosives for a controlled demolition without anyone noticing?

yeah the video claims that's exactly what happened. they allege that the day or so before 9/11, all the dog bomb-sniffing squads were taken out of the building and heaps of seccys who were doing 12 hours shifts up until then were taken off suddenly without any reason given.

i'm not convinced atm though.

edit: for clarification, my english uh.. she is no good.

last edited by taggs at 20:15:32 27/Mar/06

I was thinking that if the hypothesis is that the building collapsed in on itself due to a weakening of internal support that the biggest hings that would give way would be the formwork between each floor (ie s***load of concrete steel) I am guessing that would mean that all the theories of compression aside wouldnt the floors of each level be dropping down onto the next one possibly seperate of the outter walls... So the net effect would be the external standing while the internals are actually below the visably destroyed line.

It would account for the 'explosions' at levels below the visable line of collapse. Plus during the video there is footage of construction that shows the external structure of the tower was totally seperate of the structure itself. Like they layed this big shell of s*** around the outside of the building for appearance sake it seemed after the actual building itself had been put up first. One of the common images used post 9/11 is the shot of multiple stories of this outer shell still standing in ground zero with all the concrete around it.

last edited by qmass at 21:03:11 27/Mar/06

Mark Loizeaux presedent of Controlled Demolition contracted for the clean up stated that the Cores where they meet the bedrock on all three towers had been completely melted due to exposure to over 4000 degrees. Only det chord and/or explosives can generate that kind of heat, This marries well with the massive basement explosions on the main towers seconds after the plane hits. Saying a 2000 degree kerosine fireball took a right turn from horizonal to the virtical, travelled down the elevator shafts and then caused a 2.1 earth quake explosion in the lowest basement level can't work as the entire central core was also hermatically sealed. A fireball needs to suck generous amounts of oxygen to propigate. Not to mention such a flame front simply doesn't generate an explosive shockwave.

you missed my point. also no evidence was ever found of explosive devices, and all the experts who put forward the theory did so very shortly after 9/11. (EDIT: and later retracted the statements) looking at the videos it can be clearly seen that the structures failed at the point of the plane collisions, they did not calapse from the bottom as they would in a planned detonation with explosives placed below ground level.

bomb sniffing dogs were in the south tower basement at the time of the attacks

last edited by nF at 21:17:18 27/Mar/06

I read a flyer at UQ that seriously suggested that Osama Bin Laden wasnt a muslim he was jewish. It then went on to say that no jews were killed in the WTC

World TRADE Center... Trade = money.

Of course there were Jews there.

World TRADE Center... Trade = money.

Of course there were Jews there.

I think he's referring to the idea that some of the important Jews had a heads-up, hence didn't show up that morning to be killed.

I'm not promoting or disagreeing this. Just stating what I think was his point.

/cue treadmill joke

They were designed to do it, but I get the feeling they don't crash too many 707s into dummy tallest-buildings-in-the-world to test these theories with any sort of regularity.

They crash planes into all sorts of structures all the time so they can model the kind of impacts that could occur during lage scale accidents. Besides even a moron can see that neither tower fell because it was hit by a plane, it was something that happened after the planes hitting it. In fact, Civil Engineers who studied the collapse of the towers believe it was because the intense fire weakened the internal iron support structure which made it possible for the towers to collapse.

Also, I dispute that it was a "neat little pile". Debris from everything was found blocks away. It looks neat on TV because you can't really get a sense of scale, but 'ground zero' was pretty fricken messy. Check out this photo (warning, 14mb) for a look - I think that was taken a couple days after. Even that is hard to get a sense of scale.

The debris was mostly scattered by the debris plume that erupted from the collapsing towers. Remember when the first tower collapsed and smoke and s*** came flying from the bottom? That’s the start of the debris plume.

Where do you expect the debris to go other than outwards? Did you do physics?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm also not saying "believe everything you see on Fox News".

Isn’t fox news stating whatever the government has told them to say?

I just can't believe that people can see a plane smash into a building at high velocity and then look for other reasons why it fell over

Except that isn’t what happened. The planes smashed into the towers and the towers stood, the first one for nearly an hour afterwards. Then, when it did fall down it fell down almost perfectly straight.

Fire-fighters on the scene and many demolition experts suggested that it looked like a controlled explosion.

They were built in the early 70s. I don't think simulations back then were as good as they are today.

Every time they went up for insurance they had to remodel disaster models.

---

I’m not suggesting that there was a massive conspiracy, but I’m open to the concept.

Plenty of rebuttals on the 9/11 conspiracy theory:

http://www.911myths.com/

Including the Mark Loizeaux alleged eye witness of the molten beams etc.

I think realistically, WTC collasped due to the castrotophic damanage caused by the planes. Reading the Wiki's link WhitWolf posted, it made a lot of more sense to me. Good read, thanks for the links guys

nice link posted by opec. there are rebuttals to basically everything loose change is claiming. and the rebuttals are far more simple and realistic than the conspiracies.

They crash planes into all sorts of structures all the time so they can model the kind of impacts that could occur during lage scale accidents. Besides even a moron can see that neither tower fell because it was hit by a plane, it was something that happened after the planes hitting it. In fact, Civil Engineers who studied the collapse of the towers believe it was because the intense fire weakened the internal iron support structure which made it possible for the towers to collapse.

Even a moron can see that the intesne fire started because it was hit by a plane though, surely. I also defy you to find evidence of them crashing a loaded 707 into a dummy building the size of the WTC. Tower one or two.

Where do you expect the debris to go other than outwards? Did you do physics?

Yeh, I did - that's why I said it wasn't a neat little pile. You're just confirming what I said!

Isn’t fox news stating whatever the government has told them to say?

Probably, but I don't think they outright lie. They're just asshats.

Every time they went up for insurance they had to remodel disaster models.

That's interesting and I'd love to see what they submitted. Companies being what they are I'm sure they didn't want to pay any extra insurance fees by letting the insurers know that their buildings might be vulnerable to terrorist assault by 707s.

It wasn't tempurature that was the cause of the castratophic failure of the building, it was a fatal combination of:

- size of the fire i.e. an entire floor (est. 1 acre) was immediately engulfed by the fire
- weakening and buckliing of the floor trusses

The tempurature wasn't hot enough to melt steel or weakening it to the point of failure as the design was very redundant but because the size of the fire weakens very large part of the structure all at once that cause the problem.

I'm paraphrasing so I've probably missed something but if you're interested these 2 sites will explain it in details and made a whole lot of sense:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

P.S. Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. So I'd say he knows a thing or two about this stuff :)

Then again he could be working for the COMPANY AND THUS COULD BY LYING!!@?!!!!@?!@ ;)

Probably, but I don't think they outright lie. They're just asshats.

According to the corporation they both outright lie and are asshats.

They crash planes into all sorts of structures all the time so they can model the kind of impacts that could occur during lage scale accidents. Besides even a moron can see that neither tower fell because it was hit by a plane, it was something that happened after the planes hitting it. In fact, Civil Engineers who studied the collapse of the towers believe it was because the intense fire weakened the internal iron support structure which made it possible for the towers to collapse.

Is it just me or is that paragraph tough to follow. All the speculation of planes ramming buildings in testing I don't get. I mean just let me get this straight... We test for a plane ramming a building but we dont account *at all* for its payload igniting? what is the plane full of daisies? Even a plane on approach to land is going to have a decent amount of fuel in it. Its not like the fly to the point where they just fall out of the sky. I'm not saying that no thougt was given to the possibility that a plane crash into an office block may result in fire but it seems strange that anyone could say that the office was designed to withstand a jet ramming it but not the ensuing fire.

Any way as for another conspiracy I noticed in the servo on the way home. According to womans day (or someother trash mag) The FBI know the real reason that tom and nicole broke up and have only just released the tapes.

Can somebody tell me why the US government would do this, in light of the economic ramifications that would have been obvious to them? Are they really going to do something like this that rapes their economy and leads to a war that further rapes their economy? Sure, they might get some oil money or something like that, but it'll have to be a hell of a lot to counter all the losses - I can't see that happening. If not for financial gain, why else would a super-capitalist government stage something like this?

Also, how many western people do you know that would have carried out the governments plans ie went on a suicide mission to crash into the buildings?

strange that anyone could say that the office was designed to withstand a jet ramming it but not the ensuing fire.

er, jet ramming into building and building colapsing. everyone dies in 30 seconds,

jet ramming into building and building burns for an hour before colapsing. most people survive.


no, your right, they wouldn't accept that.

flying a 200 ton plane full of fuel into a building is controlled demolition,cmon .

why else would a super-capitalist government stage something like this?

I'd give my point of view but i'm just going to get called an islamist extermist fundamentalist big bali bomblastis. Here's my view anyway. Utlimately it's a fight against the number 1 growing religion in the world. It's basically divide, set up US bases and conquer. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they're talking about going into iran and syria. Who's left? Saudi Arabia? they're too busy trying to sort what to spend their money on.

Only thing is the number of (young) converts to islam has multiplied since 9/11 as a result of finding out what really went on there. The total muslim population in 2006 is 1.6 billion spanning accross over 50 different countries. Islam is growing about 2.9% per year which is faster than the total world population which increases at about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population. It is projected that by 2025 muslims will form 30% of the world population. There's an estimated 7 million muslims in the states alone (2004), and there has been a large percentage of african american converts in prision who have been influenced by Malcolm X's conversion from a black african american slave to a leader and a prominent figure in the black community. The average muslim family is around 5 people per family and that's considered a big family in the western world. Among every five humans in the world, one of them is Muslim. Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to over 1.6 billion.

From the west's point of view, something has got to be done in order to hault this massive growth cause condoms sure aint gonna do it. It may sound far fetched but i think 9/11 was an excuse to go into iraq, boost economy, profit, get control and ultimately weaken islam to eventually eradicate muslims. But that's the part you'll never hear them admit to, otherwise it'll sound mere bigotry and inhumane. IMO.

Here's some stats references for ya:
http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/b/islam.html
http://www.islamicpopulation.com/
http://islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm
http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html
http://islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm
http://www.soundvision.com/info/yearinreview/2001/profile.asp




last edited by Booyah at 20:25:26 28/Mar/06

rofl. seriously, just rofl.

Oh you're laughing at the condom joke that i made.

=(

er, booyah

Islam annual growth rate (1994-1995) from U.N. 6.40%

from one of your sites..

which seems to indicate to me that the growth rate is colapsing.

plus growth rates seem to jump around soo much that they are unreliable.

People are still seriously signing up for religion?!
In my PERSONAL experience i have found people who were religious at one time are becoming less and less religious. Anyone got any sites to see total religious populations over a period of time?

Yes it has declined but it's been boosted again by 9/11. See, whitewolf is a christain and wants global muslim eradication, that's why he hasn't commented anything about that.

( Dont take it personally, I need you to back me up here WW i promise i wont bash you later on.)

last edited by Booyah at 20:57:17 28/Mar/06

i wanna rid the world of filthy muslims because us christians need more fields for pork.

christianity prophisised its own colapse. so i can't see how arguing that we are growing would matter?

Oh for f***s' sake.

No wonder Islam has so many freaky asshats at the extreme end of the spectrum if this is the sort of thing that more moderates come up with.

If (great big huge bloody if) there was a conspiracy, you can bet your Quran that it was about money and power, not about religion.

It may sound far fetched but i think 9/11 was an excuse to go into iraq, boost economy, profit

Umm, boost economy? Profit? The war is and 9/11 itself has ruined their economy....

where is your sources anarot? last i heard hosting a war in some one elses garden is good for the economy?

Boosting their economy by going to war as a result of 9/11.

How does going to war boost economy ffs??? You don't realise that it costs s***loads of money to go to war? How on earth does it boost their economy?

One second you're saying they just want the oil, next you're saying it's a war on Islam. I concur with taggs' rofl

Anarot, how about you ask hitler. it seemed to work for him.

Broken Window Fallacy - Re: those who think going to war improves the economic condition

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation - "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade - that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs - I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end - To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."

What will you say, Monsieur Industriel -- what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying - What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

last edited by hast at 21:36:19 28/Mar/06

Yeah, WWII saved pretty much everyone from depression.
I'd say these days there are far less jobs needed to manufacture the munitions as there was in 1939 though.

omg that owns. awesome link hast.

ps. austrian school are pretty mad, but they got nothin on friedman imo :) not like those lousy noob new-keynesians. *shakes fist*

Build more pyramids

reload! - Yeah, WWII saved pretty much everyone from depression.

yeah, but if that demand could have been stimulated in more beneficial ways (public infrastucture, schools, hospitals, some other s*** etc) than you could argue (according to that orsm parable) that people would have been way better off.

edit: concur with calls for more pyramids.

last edited by taggs at 21:42:56 28/Mar/06

Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life.

Nice persecution complex you've got there, Booyah. If you look at the history of American foreign policy, the objective has only ever been 2 things: wealth and power. Keeping their country well supplied and at the top of the pile and making sure nobody else gets in a position to challenge them. The war in Iraq is consistent with them being greedy and selfish. It certianly doesn't seem like a religious crusade.

the problem with what you are saying, is your assuming the "dammage" is going to be on our side.

its fairly obvious that wherever the war is located, the local economy is going to get f***ed.

not only that, the government benifits just as much from the merchant purchasing a new window.

not only that, its a very simplified look at economics. and if fundimentally flawed. because your looking at losses only, not gains. not only that, you can't simulate a nations economics on one single person.

It's an analogy, WW. Read between the lines.

I'll spell it out, just in case:

Simply, if the US didn't go to war, they would have ~$1 trillion more dollars, which could then be spent on hospitals, education, infrastructure ect...which in themselves would also boost the economy by providing jobs ect..

Instead, the ~1 trillion has gone into military equipment and supplies, a lot of which will never add any 'value' tho their economy because it's been used/destroyed. Sure, It's the military-industrial complex that has to build all that equipment, but most of the 'profits' go into lining the pockets of Haliburton (and others) execs, and not exactly a real boon to the national economy.

last edited by korbs at 22:38:44 28/Mar/06

Booyah is the reason ASIO exists, too many deluded people like him about :/

WW - not only that, its a very simplified look at economics.

you're right, it is very simple. the sad part is that you don't understand it.

not only that, its a very simplified look at economics. and if fundimentally flawed. because your looking at losses only, not gains. not only that, you can't simulate a nations economics on one single person.

I think you have it back to front. Bastiat was saying that people who say $disaster simulates the economy only see the gains but don't see the opportunities that are lost.

the problem with what you are saying, is your assuming the "dammage" is going to be on our side.

Because war is free! War not only causes property damage but it also causes resources to be allocated away from normal production to war production. These are the lost opportunities that Bastiat was trying to illustrate.

im going to use wikipedia again

Concerning the side of aggregate demand, this concept has been linked to the concept of "military Keynesianism", in which the government's military budget stabilizes economic business cycles and fluctuations and/or is used to fight recessions.

On the supply side, it has been observed that wars sometimes have the effect of accelerating progress of technology and industry to such an extent that an economy emerges greatly strengthened after the war, especially if it has avoided the war-related destruction

ok, obviously its not earning them the big fat lewt (the war isn't large enough) but i doubt that america would deliberatly attack another country if they thought that they would come out of it worse off.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 22:57:25 28/Mar/06

you're getting yourself confused. of course they have started the war because they percieve the benefits to outweigh the costs. but claiming that the war is stimulating the economy and that this is a benefit is wrong.

Did anyone just watch Forign Corrospondant on the ABC?

Marshall says that the Houston oil and gas company Halliburton has cornered more than half of Iraq’s reconstruction work. The US Vice President, Dick Cheney, was Chief Executive of Halliburton for five years, immediately before becoming V-P. One $US2.4 billion contract – to restore Iraqi oil wells – was awarded to Halliburton without any competition. Auditors say the company overcharged by $US200 million, but they don’t have to pay it back.

Link

last edited by Cr@ckerJ@ck at 23:06:54 28/Mar/06

last edited by Cr@ckerJ@ck at 23:18:41 28/Mar/06

whitewolf: you left this bit out of your quote :)

This was the case, for example, with the United States in World War I and World War II. Some economists (such as Seymour Melman) argue, however, that the wasteful nature of much of military spending eventually can hurt technological progress.

Not to mention that the Keynesians are full of s*** and even if they were correct war would have to be the worst way to stimulate an economy. Digging holes and filling them back in would be much better.

last edited by hast at 23:19:10 28/Mar/06

ok

fair enough, you guys are right, i was just going off what i heard in year 9 sose class.

i still stick by the fact that saying they spent 10 billion on the war doesn't mean the government loses 10 on the war.


hast : you left this bit out of your quote :)

< >

you're right, it is very simple. the sad part is that you don't understand it.

Owned. And, back to the original topic, what possible economic growth could they expect from destroying the WTC? The contract and employment created by building new towers? I hardly think that outweighs the destruction both literally and economically caused by destroying them... even when added to any perceived profit gained from the wars that ensued.

Simply, if the US didn't go to war, they would have ~$1 trillion more dollars, which could then be spent on hospitals, education, infrastructure ect...which in themselves would also boost the economy by providing jobs ect..

Instead, the ~1 trillion has gone into military equipment and supplies, a lot of which will never add any 'value' tho their economy because it's been used/destroyed. Sure, It's the military-industrial complex that has to build all that equipment, but most of the 'profits' go into lining the pockets of Haliburton (and others) execs, and not exactly a real boon to the national economy.

the only problem with this statement is that it is only valid in a geopolitical vacuum.

someone has to do the world's policework and unfortunately that duty is lumped with the US because they are democratic and wealthy (and the EU are gutless).

war is necessary to generate wealth.

edit in relation to destruction of the towers, think of the poor insurers who have to foot the bill. we all know how they will make that up to their shareholders - by increasing home insurance premiums for the other 50million home insurance policy owners on their book.

NB straight after 9/11 all insurers exempted acts of terrorism from their liability. commercial premises are covered by a fed government general sinking fund to keep the economy going but the average jo on the street ofn their house is demolished by a hijacked plane will be left with the lovely scorched piece of land and that is all.

last edited by infi at 23:52:59 28/Mar/06

someone has to do the world's policework and unfortunately that duty is lumped with the US because they are democratic and wealthy (and the EU are gutless).

LOL just LOL. The world needs police hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. The US is lumped with the role HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

seriously though the US is not a little more wealthy. Its like 100 times more wealthy then the next 5 or 6 countries put together califorina alone is the worlds 5th largest economy. The EU is not gutless it evidently prefers diplomacy and doesnt have an army. Just becuase Bush likes to use metaphorical hits such as wanted dead or alive for Bin Laden doesn't make everyone else who doesnt immediately shoot their guns wildly into the air gutless.

As for military the US are immeasuralby more powerful then any other nation or coalition of nations. They are literally the only nation with global reach. Hardware like that doesnt get put in place by accident or as a gesture of good will.

Further outside of beating up on forces that are at the point of falling over anyway what police work have the US done. For example if India went to war with Pakistan what exactly would the unfortunately lumbered world police do?

Its like 100 times more wealthy then the next 5 or 6 countries put together califorina alone is the worlds 5th largest economy.

hrm, seems japan is coming second at half of americas economy and the "EU" is actually slightly larger than america.

Well that was an exaggeration on my behalf however it is still larger then the next 4 largest countries combined and acounts for over 25% of the worlds overall wealth in 2004. As for the EU it is only slighty larger and is an economic coop. If you are going to include the EU you should also include NAFTA.

and as for military spending no one comes even close.

The point is the US being 'lumbered' with the job of being worlds most powerful nation is a rediculous statement to make.

Truly a real tear jerker. Those poor Americans stuck with more money and power then anyone else. My heart goes out to them.

Umm I would be willing to bet that China's military spending would equal America's, and its economy would be getting close as well. Its economic growth is significantly higher than that of the US. Factor in the size of the country and their economic ambitions and you'll see that China will be almost certainly be the world's greatest superpower within out lifetimes.

Lets wait and see what happens when they float their currency, Anarot..

But i agree, their military spending is increasing by huge amounts every year.

I honestly think that the Taiwan issue is going to be the flashpoint for the next big global conflict.

The problem with the broken window theory is that it assumes the money the shopkeeper spends won't go overseas, or is going to be used at all.

It seems to be a theory built on straw men and an over simplification of the factors involved.

Check out the examples

Basically it is unknown whether or not the shopkeeper was going to invest his money in the local economy at all, which this theory seems to assume he will.

By having his window broken his hand has been forced and therefore events that may have not happened before, money that may have not been spent now has to be spent and the benefits follow through logically.

No Chinese milliarty spending is still not even close. while these statistics are two years old I doubt the chinese have increased their military budget by over 7 times in two fiscal years. But as of 2004 the US spent 399 billion on military expendeture vs 62 billion by the chinese. those figures exclude spending on iraq and afghanistan as well. according to this site spending in the US including iraq and afghanistan will be around 522 billion this year. As of last year the US economy was still nearly 10 times larger then Chinas. The Stats for China apparently could be out by up to 16% but China would had to have *impossible* growth to have caught the US by now. Even a simplistic model would have Chinas economy overtake the US in 2028. By simplistic i mean growing at 20% of 2005 gdp every year it would take until 2028 for it to be larger then the US economy in 2005. But consistent 20% growth over 22 years is totally unrealistic I heard that Chinas annual growth is more like 10%(Not certain about that figure) which is still a massive figure.

*edit* even compounding the growth it will still take about 10 years.

last edited by PornoPete at 12:05:24 29/Mar/06

Owned. And, back to the original topic, what possible economic growth could they expect from destroying the WTC? The contract and employment created by building new towers? I hardly think that outweighs the destruction both literally and economically caused by destroying them... even when added to any perceived profit gained from the wars that ensued.

How abotu a further grip on middle eastern policies and a reason to build up militarily to get more of a hold on the oil they already had?

As for military the US are immeasuralby more powerful then any other nation or coalition of nations. They are literally the only nation with global reach. Hardware like that doesnt get put in place by accident or as a gesture of good will.

you have made my point for me. they have invested their defense budget in the knowledge of getting a return on their military might through more secure passage of oil, trade, political stability. their expenditure has not been wasted as in the "broken window" theory, it has been quite strategically spent in fact.

it is almost like the effect saddam had on iraq but on a larger scale -

The Iraqi's didn't like Saddam runniing Iraq but they sure knew the score when he was in power. Similarly with one dominant global power, everyone takes direction from the US (although they may not like it).

The EU and Japan on the other hand are economic giants but because they have no military are not as influential.

(Keeping in mind that the entire US economy is on the verge of collapse due to its massive fiscal deficits and the only thing keeping it afloat is the Chinese buying US treasury bonds to keep exchange rates stable on the back of China's giant trade surplus. Once the Chinese float their currency or stop buying US treasury bonds the US will basically become insolvent much as what happened to Russia in the 90's, and superinflation will result as they are required to jack up interest rates to attract investment. This all spells serious bad news for any country linked into the global economy..... but they will still have massive army, assuming they can finance it what do you think an otherwise broke country would do with their military - invade someone else with plentiful natural resources perhaps?)

I think you mean hyperinflation infi.

worked for Germany, why not the US?

also what all the armageddon theorists forget is that if the US economy hiccups, the rest of the world s***s itself. It is not in Chinas interest for their biggest customer to stop buying products. I see a gradual slowdown for the US, but no meltdown. There might be a bit of a s***fight in the equity and bond markets, but well, Greenspan warned people of this on countless occasions. caveat emptor matey

I think people should be looking at how f***ed the Australian, Japanese and EU economic outlook will be if when the US heads into this period of economic turmoil. unemployment ++, worthless exchange rates etc.

I would never call a top in any market, but holy jesus f*** the ASX200 is looking pretty pricey atm.

yes it's teetering. i think its time to sell.

maybe not. alot of mums and dads need to park their super somewhere lol

I think most are expecting a squeeze in the near future. Aussie is weakening nicely which I am sure the RBA and Costello are tickled pink about but will only offer minor support to equities. kiwi is headed down a mineshaft at the moment.

If your hyperinflation theory has merit (which I agree it does) AUD/USD will be headed down the pooh chute as well.

take that trip overseas now folks unless you want to pay alot more in 12 months time.

you have made my point for me. they have invested their defense budget in the knowledge of getting a return on their military might through more secure passage of oil, trade, political stability. their expenditure has not been wasted as in the "broken window" theory, it has been quite strategically spent in fact.

The threat of force is something quite independent of the actual use of it. The broken window theory clearly applies to the application of actual destructive force. Conversly it obviously doesnt apply to trade secured through the threat of destructive force.

I think you mean hyperinflation infi.

worked for Germany, why not the US?

are you kidding? the best way to describe Germanys Militarization post hyperinflation is catastrophic. Its only recovering fully over 60 years later.

If germanys model is anything to go by the US will be divided in two and one half ruled by china the other by the EU and stay that way for what 50 years?

Lets face it before world war one germany was more or less the worlds most powerful nation. I point to the fact that it took 2 world wars to fully distroy it.

the fact that you spell distroy that way .. well, doesnt back your argument much :(

hyperinflation works for no one. it never will. because all you are doing is substituting more bits of worthless paper (money) to buy the same product.

and that is currently what the US is doing by running their budget deficits.

relating back to the topic: the war on terror has been a vgery good cover for the US in justifying its increased military expenditure in the wake of the ballooning deficit. one would expect budget cuts across the board however defense has been increased.

unless the US becomes more productive and gets a return on its military expenditure, it 's going to fall flat on its face very soon.

edit: give it a rest with spelling issues ffs. they add nothing to the discussion.

last edited by infi at 14:39:53 29/Mar/06

Get f***ed Captain America, I suppose your going to say now that hyperinflation happens because of *a reason*.

because all you are doing is substituting more bits of worthless paper (money) to buy the same product.

Today on world's biggest contradictions

am I kidding, no.

catastrophic perhaps, but its still selling dear dollars now and will undoubtedly be buying back cheap dollars later.

The US treaury wins by default. Who else can back their debt with the power to tax the worlds largest economy?

there will be no smoking black crater where the White House once was.

oops I meant paying back cheap dollars meh

um hashy wtf are you on about? i don't agree with what infi is saying but thats a pretty decent description of inflation...

explain the contradiction hashy. that's exactly what inflation is. if you cannot grasp this concept then /quit.

im assuming he is talking about

worthless paper (money) to buy the same product.

money isn't worthless.. thats the point maybe? maybe, moneys worth = product?

actually guys I think infi was describing the pointlessness of the US further monetizing their debt, as he believes it will assist in inducing an environment of hyperinflation.


Inflation is a completely different bag of hammers. lol

money is worthless. it is made from paper or plastic? how much is paper or plastic worth? why would you swap someone your car for a bundle of paper or plastic (unless its a hyundai in which case it too is a bundle of plastic)?

when a government runs a war they start printing more paper and buy stuff at the original prices with all their extra paper, it's only a couple of weeks later that the producers who made all the goods for the government realise their is a s***load more of this paper floating around the city than they thought and they need to jack up their prices to make any real profit.

what a joke of a system. the economy went down the tubes when we canned the gold standard. just ask abe lincoln.

edit: yes scoggex, inflation and interest rate rises are symptoms of the government's behaviour, which in this case is deficit spending to finance a war. the war needs to yield economic results for them otherwise their domestic situation will not improve.

last edited by infi at 15:55:12 29/Mar/06

how much is a clunky yellow piece of metal worth that gets wheeled from room to room in Fort Knox by bored looking MPs?

well given it is a precious metal and is available in limited quantities it should be very valuable.

Well I won't deny that Germany no longer has a hyperinflation problem. But as a solution to an over valued dollar I have to say that world war is a relativly bad solution.

Surly a simple recession would fix the problem with out killing 50 million or so people.

Besides, I would think that there is a link between an overpowered military and over inflated economy.

I'll admit that its pure speculation but it seems to me that Americas success in the last century in military affairs was largely due to better management of economic ones. I mean by 1990 the USSR's military power was totally disproportionate to their economic power. Arguably the case is similar with Germany. My understanding of economics is rudimentary at best. But i'm pretty sure that has been argued that the USSR's military power extended the state far beyond it's natural economic lifespan.

*edit* infi isnt the us dollar pinned to the value of gold? I thought the abolishment of the gold standard was just stopping comparing every currency to gold independently?

last edited by PornoPete at 16:05:16 29/Mar/06

the same in that case goes for china's current government. do you think the chinese people would vote for the communists in a democratic election?

well given it is a precious metal and is available in limited quantities it should be very valuable.

So seeing as they are killing lots of muslims at the moment, maybe they should lock some up too as the surviving ones would become more valuable as you kill more?

I think i just learnt the real reason for guantanamo bay and abu gharab!

last edited by Bah at 17:20:04 29/Mar/06

much like footy cards, yes.

bah - So seeing as they are killing lots of muslims at the moment, maybe they should lock some up too as the surviving ones would become more valuable as you kill more?

that would be true if there was any sort of demand for muslims :P

PornoPete: I think you will find that the gold standard was abolished around the same time as the declaration of independence by the US, through some crafty amendments in the US constitution at the time the founding fathers were negotiating the original document.

last edited by infi at 18:01:54 29/Mar/06

If I said 'Scratch my back and i'll give you whatever you want!'
And you ask for a pair of shoes... To get those pair of shoes i might then have to go scratch someone else's back.

Instead of doing this, you trade a thing called f***ing money.

Money is also oil.

the only problem is that oil can be used to warm your house, and run your car, and build factories and run steam engines and do all sorts of cool useful stuff.

so when no one wants your oil, there are plenty of useful things to do for yourself with the oil.

what happens when no one else wants your money becuase you have printed some much of it that people would have to drive truckloads of it to bguy a loaf of bread?

in case you didn't see my point, it is: money is NOT oil. money is a symbol representing how much goods a person holds. but when you make more money sometimes people thing you are richer as a result.

When the price of oil goes up, items become more expensive because 99.99% of items are constructed under the consumption of oil.
Machinery, electricity and so on.

Harvesters cosst more in fuel to run, prices rise to cover extra incurred costs, road trains cost more in fuel, transport companies charge more to transport, supermarket spends more buying groceries, therefore prices rise, customer buys groceries at a higher price - pays more money.

Other items constructed with machinery that use fuel/oil also increase and so on.

Money is in essence, oil.

The day nobody wants oil will be the day we have some super alternative, at which point, we'll be essentially working for that.

last edited by Loki at 18:33:31 29/Mar/06

hahaha loki you f***ing idiot you completely missed the point. oil does not equal money. money is a representation of how much oil (or any other good or service) you could potentially buy. when the value of money decreases (inflation) the amount of oil you can purchase with that money decreases. ffs, it's not complicated...

The day nobody wants oil

Err he was talking about the inherent valuelessness off paper money, why did you go on a rant about oil?

why even bother....

I thought money was simply an index of worth. not so much how much you can get for the money but means of comparing dis similar things to one another. like length is for spacial extension.

Basically it is unknown whether or not the shopkeeper was going to invest his money in the local economy at all, which this theory seems to assume he will.

By having his window broken his hand has been forced and therefore events that may have not happened before, money that may have not been spent now has to be spent and the benefits follow through logically.

Local economy is irrelevant unless you want a bring up an argument as to why trading with someone in Australia is better than trading with someone in New Zealand.

Not to mention that the shopkeeper should be just as likely to spend 'good' as the glazier especially in the situation where they are the same entity. In the situation of a war the government would be both the shopkeeper and the glazier. I doubt there is any information problems that would make spending money on war better than government spending money directly.

you have made my point for me. they have invested their defense budget in the knowledge of getting a return on their military might through more secure passage of oil, trade, political stability. their expenditure has not been wasted as in the "broken window" theory, it has been quite strategically spent in fact.

Yup. This is correct. Broken window fallacy is an argument against those who treat war as a mythical pump for the economy and is not an argument against those who believe the objectives of the war are worth it.

I thought money was simply an index of worth. not so much how much you can get for the money but means of comparing dis similar things to one another. like length is for spacial extension.

that's a function money provides, but in essence it is a representation or garuntee by the g'ment that the piece of paper you hold in your hand is worth x amount of goods and services. in doing that, it performs a few roles: a medium of exchange, a unit of measure and comparison and it is a store of value in that it can be held and used at a later point in time.

edit: i don't mean the g'ment garuntees that the piece of paper will always be worth the same x amount of g&s, i mean in the sense than the g'ment garuntees that it's intrinsically worth more than the material used to make it. the actual value or worth of money changes due to changes in supply and demand - just like any other commodity. it's a pretty complicated concept when you think about it.

last edited by taggs at 20:13:09 29/Mar/06

when the value of money decreases (inflation) the amount of oil you can purchase with that money decreases.

Because there is more money than services available, I fail to see how you can't see that's related to oil...

Inflation is the overall increase in price of all goods and services, therefore a decline in purchasing power of money is the very definition of inflation.

Re-enter: oil.
As oil prices increases, goods and services increase and the purchase power of money decreases.
Goods and services are pinned to the cost of oil [There would be fewer groceries to buy, shoes etc. but still lots of money if every drop of oil disappeared tomorrow] and money is pinned to the cost of goods and services..

So, money is essentially effected by the amount of oil available.

But yeah, way to miss the point.

last edited by Loki at 17:13:14 30/Mar/06

http://www.flurl.com/item/Bush_Imitator_f_1185/


i couldnt' stop laughing

hahahaha beautiful stuff.

As oil prices increases, goods and services increase and the purchase power of money decreases.
Goods and services are pinned to the cost of oil [There would be fewer groceries to buy, shoes etc. but still lots of money if every drop of oil disappeared tomorrow] and money is pinned to the cost of goods and services..

So, money is essentially effected by the amount of oil available.

you couldn't be more wrong. money is an unlimited resource of which more can be produced at any moment. oil on the other hand is not unlimited. therefore when inflation in the supply of money occurs, the price of all products including oil is affected by this inflation.

If money was a standard measure like a weight, then the price of products would theoretically fluctuate only with changes in supply and demand. However because the actual supply of money in the system from time to time flucatuates, it is like the definition of "one litre" fluctuating and this affects the values of all products including oil.

Increases in oil have a certain inflationary effect on CPI, that is due to a jump in demand due to its essential nature, however it is not inflationary in the sense that it has caused the total money supply to increase.

In the first instance consumers have actually decided to pay more for oil because they desire it more than other consumable items. That is price elasticity.

In the second instance, consumers will be paying more for all items across society because the actual measure for their trade (currency) has increased in supply. That is inflation.

The last sentence in your quote is in fact the exact reverse of the truth... The price of oil is affected by the amount of money in supply.

last edited by infi at 18:57:53 30/Mar/06

Infi:
Explain how the decrease in goods/services does not effect the value of money?

Base: You have 10 shops, and $100 of circulating money.

Supply in Money increase: You now have 10 shops, and $1000 of circulating money.

Decrease supply in G/S: You now have 2 shops, and $100 of circulating money.


The latter is decreasing the possible uses/places to use the money (therefore making it worth less?), while the former is increasing the amount lying around (therefore easier to obtain, making it worth less)......
Granted, the decrease in G/S would have to be quite extreme for it to have a real effect.

last edited by Loki at 20:19:16 30/Mar/06

i have edited this post so as to not offend loki's sensibilities. i am terribly sorry loki. hug?

last edited by taggs at 22:33:40 30/Mar/06

As oil prices increases, goods and services increase and the purchase power of money decreases.
Goods and services are pinned to the cost of oil [There would be fewer groceries to buy, shoes etc. but still lots of money if every drop of oil disappeared tomorrow] and money is pinned to the cost of goods and services..

edit: argh i see what's going on.

loki saying that the amount of g&s decreases is analogous to what infi is talking about in regards to money supply causing inflation.

the nominal value of the money supply changes but the real value doesn't. in your case the nominal doesn't change but the real does. essentially the same outcome caused from the 2 opposite ends.

i'd like to argue on the intarwebs more (i'm an eco student btw, i <3 this) but i have to go out and get crunk.

last edited by taggs at 22:39:47 30/Mar/06

Defintion:

the number of dollars in circulation exceeds the amount of goods and services available for purchase; inflation results in a decrease in the dollar's value.

So, X amount of goods/services and Y dollars = Dollar Value.

Change anything on the left side of an equation effects the right side.

Therefore effect X OR Y effects Dollar Value.

trying to claim I missed the point? get a clue mate,

No, actually, stated I missed the point, then some a****** (that would be you) is too busy throwing attacks around to actually take what I said and do anything with it, because unlike you (because you're an arrogant a******), I'm open to interpretation and changing my way of thought and trying to 'get a clue' (But a******s like you, are too busy being a******s to argue it properly).

Wow, a year 10 business student could understand it when it's explained, the definition of inflation states clearly states that it occurs when the amount of circulating money far exceeds the goods/services available...

It's a fairly reasonable statement then, to say that if the amount of money circulating remained the same, and the number of goods/services available dropped excessively, then money would become worth less, as the RATIO of G/S : Money Circulating, would now be alot bigger.
Just the same as if you increased the amoutn of money circulating and G/S remained the same, The Ratio would become alot bigger.

We could change the subject to medical and pharmaceutical drug related one, and turn the tables around. I could laugh at your infantessimally small knowledge, and become the bigoted a****** and not attempt to help you understand anything.

So, my question still stands to infi.
And taggs, you remain a complete f***wit.

last edited by Loki at 22:30:04 30/Mar/06

rofl, k dood. read up. its the same thing you're just thinking about it from the other direction you silly bogan.

rofl, k dood. read up. its the same thing you're just thinking about it from the other direction you silly bogan.

Ok fair enough, I see above post now, I began writing other post when all you had was laughing etc. and not providing anything constructive.

And yea, as you said I guess, it is from the other way. But still a right way ><

Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but it seems misunderstandings are cleared up.

Either way, apologies for above post attacks.
And accepting your not quite so blatant one :]

I'd stay up and argue some more, but unfortunately getting drunk is a luxury :| I have to go back to the free grind at RBH early morning T.T

<3<3<3 im out. infi sounds like he knows this s*** better than me though. you studied eco infi? im 2nd year eco and he explains this s*** way better than me. what a c***.

no i have read henry hazlitt's economic in 10 easy steps. basic reading for any microeconomic study. this is basic stuff.

Infi:
Explain how the decrease in goods/services does not effect the value of money?

inflation is the effect of an increase in money supply. pure and simple, it is a mirage to stimulate the DEMAND side of the equation. what you speak of is a drop on production which depresses the SUPPLY side of the equation, and relates to things like productivity technology war and interruption of trade.

government's often use inflation to prioritise their spending over the public's because new money supply is often released into the economy by the issuing of government bonds which the treasury on sells to commercial banks. the government spends their money first and then the public must accept it as legal.

another reason your quote is wrong is for example, if there are fewer goods in total available e.g. during war time rationing, then currency becomes worthless. in a sense the economy becomes inflationary becuase the supply of currency far outstrips the supply of goods so i take your point, but the classical definition of inflation relates to an environment of continuing increase in money supply due to expansionary fiscal and monetary policy i.e. the demand side of the equation

but i suppose we have deviated from the topic somewhat and the discussion on money becomes irrevelevant when you are the most powerful miltary force on the globe.

last edited by infi at 23:08:30 30/Mar/06