they make money out of nothing and charge us interest on it.

Read/listen, excellent educational program:

Wizards of money

http://www.antiscia.com/wizardsofmoney/
http://www.robinupton.com/people/WizardsOfMoney/

this again..

I haven't read/watched the material you linked to, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that it's nutty conspiracy stuff from someone repeating the (unfortunately popular) myth that the Federal Reserve charges the government interest.

Facts:
1. By law the Federal Reserve has a (very low) cap on the amount of profit it can make.

and (this is really the most important one)

2. All interest paid by the government to the Federal Reserve is rebated back to the Treasury Department.

I put that in bold because no matter how often it gets pointed out, someone always comes along every few weeks with the same idiotic conspiracy theories. Read a book or something about how the Federal Reserve and banking system works and stop getting your information from internet idiots.

The aggravating thing is that there really are good arguments against our current banking system, but it's nearly impossible to discuss because of the huge number of people who fall for these nutty conspiracy theories.

Deleted

Ask who controls the creation of money and how.


The federal government. Period. Any attempt to argue otherwise is inevitably the result of ignorance.

Deleted

It is basically open to anybody to create money, and local currencies are occasionally created.

http://www.progress.org/currency.htm

If I write out an I owe you for 50 Euros and somebody else is prepared to trust it, then that is in effect 50 Euros worth in circulation, a debt free to be sold to anybody else who is willing to trust it.

--- Ron.
Only in the sense that anything with value is "money".

Deleted

I haven't read/watched the material you linked to, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that it's nutty conspiracy stuff from someone repeating the (unfortunately popular) myth that the Federal Reserve charges the government interest.

It's not exactly super easy listening for a guy like me, so I did not go over it yet. However, the program doesn't focus on the fedaral reserve. It's focusing on how the whole world finances operate. Just read headlines before giving out a limb :) I really don't recall them discussing wether Federal government is charged interest or not.

However, why does Federal Reserve need to charge ONLY FEDERAL government interest? Only BANKS with "license" can create money out of nothing. Federal Reserve gives out the "right to create $" to the banks by playing with so-called interest rates. If a capitalist comes to the bank to finance some project, money are NOT created for him for free. He is expected to pay more $ than is taken. That "profit" is charged down the ladder. To pay the interest back, a capitalist must make a profit. If "no NEW money are created" that profit must come solely from the redistribution/tranfer of the already created money within the system (usually, that means poor get poorer). Obviously, that cannot continue for too long. Thus, for system to work, money must be created continously=credits must be taken continuously=economy must grow continuously. Any more or less prolonged stumble of the growth, and glorious edifice is gonna go to the crapper.

Facts:
1. By law the Federal Reserve has a (very low) cap on the amount of profit it can make.

Usury laws are scrapped almost universally. Federal reserve doesn't give away credits to the capitalist public directly. He does it by proxy of the banks well connected to the folks in the charge of the Federal Reserve. There are not too many limits there, as I see it.

Read a book or something about how the Federal Reserve and banking system works and stop getting your information from internet idiots.
Well, I'm not a financial guru. It seems you know more than internet idiots do. Could you, if you'll have time, a pull out a few specific points from the program and explain how stupid they are. Carpet bombing doesn't sound too convincing.

The aggravating thing is that there really are good arguments against our current banking system, but it's nearly impossible to discuss because of the huge number of people who fall for these nutty conspiracy theories.

That vaguelly reminded me a cartoon. Two bulls on a feedlot are "talking". The first bull say, "I've found out what the owner is going to do to us. One day, a big truck will come and take us to the place where we will be electroshocked, drained of the blood and cut into pieces." The second bull say, "those nutty conspiracy theories again."

I'm amazed how branding something "conspiracy theory" can be a sufficient argument in itself. Just call something conspiracy and brains of the many people will be tuned against that something. "Branding" is a powerful tool in the arsenal of a big brother. No need for arguments. Do you really think that "conspiracies" never happened/are not happening right now?

Here's some info on how banks make money...
"A bank raises funds by attracting deposits, borrowing money in the inter-bank market, or issuing financial instruments in the money market or a capital market. The bank then lends out most of these funds to borrowers.

However, it would not be prudent for a bank to lend out all of its balance sheet. It must keep a certain proportion of its funds in reserve so that it can repay depositors who withdraw their deposits. Bank reserves are typically kept in the form of a deposit with a central bank. This behaviour is called fractional-reserve banking and it is a central issue of monetary policy. Some governments (or their central banks) restrict the proportion of a bank's balance sheet that can be lent out, and use this as a tool for controlling the money supply. Even where the reserve ratio is not controlled by the government, a minimum figure will still be set by regulatory authorities as part of bank regulation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank

And here is something about central banks:
"Functions of a central bank (not all functions carried out by all banks):

monopoly on the issue of banknotes
the Government's banker and the bankers' bank ("Lender of Last Resort")
manages the country's foreign exchange and gold reserves and the Government's stock register;
regulation and supervision of the banking industry:
setting the official interest rate - used to manage both inflation and the country's exchange rate - and ensuring that this rate takes effect via a variety of policy mechanisms "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

All thanks to the Great Depression! :p



Btw, perplexity is right. Anything that we agree upon as having value is considered "money". Our monetary system is based on bartering, which was the original form of exchange of ownership- when such a concept was first conceived. "Money" just simplifies the whole process.

Here's some info on all that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter


And here's a more in-depth view on the process of creating and regulating money supply (may require some knowledge of economics for a good understanding)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy



All hail to Wikipedia! :D

So what prevents a bank from giving more loans than it has money? Is there some goverment body regularily checking their accounts, and would said body CARE, realizing that the economy is greatly boosted the more "debt-money" there is out there?

Even if every person pulled their savings and paychecks from their accounts, the industry would still have hundreds of billions virtual-money in investments and loans. It's not like industries haul around hundreds of millions to business deals. The risks alone assure this, but it would also slow everything down, and they'd still end up putting the money back to the bank they took it out of. (Or some other bank, whatever)

As for the site linked, it seems more misinformation than genuine study. First of all it repeats over and over how "money is made virtually from thin air", but explains the mechanism only in few, incomprehensible words, before going off again about how "the enemy" manipulates everyone. It's smoke-and-mirrors for the simple-minded, even though it still propably holds important info (Even the lies are built on a bit of truth; No-one believes a complete non-fact, that has NO reality).

And it's never that easy. It's not like there are some big-ass conspirators laughing their ass off and just magically making stuff happen. Real life conspiracies are just some people, who take on opportunies (and people who do not stop this when they see it, either in fear, doubt or faith).

It's all in my post, right above yours.

Debt money doesn't necessarily boost an economy, but in most cases causes inflation. Due to the enormous amount of government expenditures (thanks to our executive branch) the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates something like 16 times consecutively to discourage lending.

How nice...

Deleted

Spending loaned money may lead to real growth, but it is by no means a definite thing. Growth being a rise in productive output, productive output measured conveniently in US dollars.

Say a banana costs $1, so I borrow $10 and easily afford 10 bananas. In a free market, suppliers will respond to the new wealth level consumers have and the price of a banana will rise to $10, and once again I can only afford one banana.

In no way does this inflation reflect the ability of banana growers to produce more bananas.

Deleted

Good question. The short answer is nothing.

The other answer: the Federal Reserve determines how much money a bank must have in its vaults in proportion to how much it loans.

Deleted

Deleted

Yes, of course.

But it's safer for those who put their money in a bank than say, if the bank loaned out 200% of what was in its vaults.

The federal government. Period. Any attempt to argue otherwise is inevitably the result of ignorance.

Did you know there is more money in banks than cash in circulation? Money in print is based on demand for cash withdrawals from banks. Banks do create money based on the reserve amount (set by the federal government) in the bank and giving out loans.

It depends on how you define your economy. If economy is about money spent then it tends to be a tautology that lending boosts an economy, but there are other ways to assess.

--- Ron.
Lending only boosts an economy in the short-run. Debt causes the money to become less valuable, it causes inflation.

Today BBC had special called “Mid East / business report“. I hope all can see it. It left out the most (IMHO) important point in the story of the new large investments that are taking place there.

Briefly, all along the beaches of the Persian Gulf whole cities are being built, where noting has been. Typically, each is an investment of 10 to 30 BILLION dollars and there are a couple dozen in the works - at least a dozen are now moving earth and selling (pre-development). They have very rich customers as targets. Typically, they dig network of main canals for large yachts and many lesser connecting canals so every home or high rise apartment building can have a dock. One project, BTW is planning the largest tower in the world. - (You can build quite a city, with fiber optics for internet businesses etc., with 30 billion dollars! The canals are dry during construction and only cut into the gulf after all is done to fill with water.)

Thing I noticed unstated was that this investment (mainly of oil money) will be about 100 billion annually in total, (counting the contractor's sub contracts etc.). It will also be a new demand center for cement, steel etc. That oil money previously was "recycled" to finance the US debt. I have many times made posts about the Chinese "loading the economic gun" that can destroy the US dollar and economy, but I was "blind sided" by the fact that the Mid East oil money is soon going to be invested locally instead of recycled. (They must, like me, expect the US to avoid default with printing press money and not want to hold US debt much longer.)

Like others I was distracted by Iraq, and recently by Israel/Lebanon, when something really important is happening in the Mid East finances - the end of recycling dollars back to finance the US debt. As they expect more than half of the sales to go to wealthy US and Europeans, (many of whom make their fortunes via internet businesses etc and can work from anywhere in world) the US economy is soon to be hit with a “one/two punch” - A drop in recycling of dollars and a flight of highest tax paying firms and people!

Briefly, all along the beaches of the Persian Gulf whole cities are being built, where noting has been. Typically, each is an investment of 10 to 30 BILLION dollars and there are a couple dozen in the works -

To put this into perspective, the budget for the defense of the USA currently runs to more than 400 BILLION dollars per annum.

--- Ron.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and those numbers are eating away at the liberties of Americans everywhere. Militar-ism (the latest world religion, even bigger than Christ and Ghandi, for now anyway). This much spending is a form of feudalism.

You see, the Fiat "Federal" Reserve Bank pumps out the money to buy campaigns for the senators, presidents, and congressmen, who then in turn see to it that war happens and thus the equipment from the manufacturers of war materials is purchased, and guess what, if some one challenges this criminal system they send the big dumb arm on them. (for example, look at Iran and Iraq, who are/were resisting the new world order) The Banks also play an important roll in the media, making sure that you are so duped out of your mind you don't know your current system of government is so fucking criminal they'll shit out money to keep your mouth closed if you know anything about things, and if you get talking you may find yourself dead.

Welcome to 1984! Security instead of Liberty! (but thats wholly contradictory, since you are not secure if you don't have liberty.... hahaha, I love the oxymoronic propaganda that is put out on our TV's everyday)

Word to the WISE: BURN YOUR TV, AND GO TO VIDEO.GOOGLE.COM and look up terror storm!! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm)

To put this into perspective, the budget for the defense of the USA currently runs to more than 400 BILLION dollars per annum. --- Ron.I did not know it was that big. Does that include the stuff supplied to other countries?

Also for perspective the US debt will grow this year by approximately 1,000 Billion. If 100 Billion of that is not "recycled" because the oil rich states have decided to invest in Gulf property development instead of US treasury issues and China were also to find it needed the 100+ billion of its net trade gain for oil, iron ore, cement, etc then foreigner’s 200 Billion is not used to finance the 2006 debt, which is around 100 billion increased compared to last years. - I.e. US could come up about 300 billion short and run the presses to pay this un-financed expenditure.

What would the FED need to do to interest rates to avoid that? - It does not look good for "Joe American," as I said in recent post responding to SamCDkey's questions and my post about the BBC program that prompted her to ask.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and those numbers are eating away at the liberties of Americans everywhere. Militar-ism (the latest world religion, even bigger than Christ and Ghandi, for now anyway). The US govt. spends more on social programs than on the military, even with the increased spending from Iraq. If you want to talk about spending eating away at liberties I think you have to look at social programs first since arguably the military spending is protecting freedom.

-Dale

The US govt. spends more on social programs than on the military, even with the increased spending from Iraq.

According to what, please?

I am not so sure of that as a fair description, if the information provided below is correct.

Is NASA, for instance, a "social program"?

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

BUDGETTED: Current Military, $563 billion:
• Military Personnel $110 billion
• Operation & Maint. $162 billion
• Procurement $90 billion
• Research & Dev. $72 billion
• Construction $8 billion
• Family Housing $4 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• Retired Pay $49 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $8 billion
• International Security $8 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $27 billion
• Exec. Office of President $2 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $2 billion
UNBUDGETTED: Iraq & Afghanistan Wars
$100 billion (est.):
Most of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not included in the President’s Budget but the Administration will seek supplemental appropriations later this year as it has in the past three years. This is likely an underestimate.

Past Military,
$439 billion:
• Veterans’ Benefits $76 billion
• Interest on national debt $353 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending)

Human Resources, $748 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.

General Government, $281 billion:
• Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury • Government personnel • Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (17%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.

Physical Resources, $131 billion:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (17%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources

http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY07.jpg



--- Ron.

According to what, please?.The IRS. Every year it calculates and publishes an overview of the sources of revenue and the destination of expenditures (e.g. 2005 Form 1040 Instructions, p. 81). I think they are probably less biased than your source.

-Dale

PS In any case 33% > 30% for the categories presented in your data that are clearly military or clearly redistribution of wealth. The national debt comes from spending more than you take in overall, not from spending in a particular category. The claim that 80% of the national debt is from military spending is silly. The whole pie chart hinges on that biased claim.

Deleted

Their argument, essentially, is that there would be no debt, but for the extravagent military spending, which seems to me to be an eminently intelligent way to approach an economic issue.No, it is a biased approach to a political issue. If they had my political bias they would say that there would be no debt but for the extravagent social spending. Cutting a million from a social program would reduce the deficit just as much as cutting a million from a military program. Your source is biased.

-Dale

No, it is a biased approach to a political issue. If they had my political bias they would say that there would be no debt but for the extravagent social spending. Cutting a million from a social program would reduce the deficit just as much as cutting a million from a military program. Your source is biased.

-Dale

You are content then that half of the defense spending for the entire Planet is allotted to a mere four percent or so of the World population?

Is that not indicative of bias?

--- Ron.

You are content then that half of the defense spending for the entire Planet is allotted to a mere four percent or so of the World population?

Is that not indicative of bias?You can't weasel out of the debate that easily, Ron. The question of bias is whether or not the data from warresisters.org is more credible and less biased than the data from the IRS (p. 81) (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf).

Come on, you cannot possibly be seriously claiming that warresisters.org is an unbiased group.

-Dale

Deleted

Rather than destroy, I prefer to build, to construct, and in that respect most people usually have something to contribute, one way or another, if you look for it.

--- Ron.

Too bad there are so few people in the world with this outlook today.

I began with "if the information provided below is correct". Sorry, I had missed that. Since the information is not correct (or at least in conflict with a more credible source), I stand by my original comment:

"The US govt. spends more on social programs than on the military, even with the increased spending from Iraq. If you want to talk about spending eating away at liberties I think you have to look at social programs first since arguably the military spending is protecting freedom."


Rather than destroy, I prefer to build, to construct, and in that respect most people usually have something to contribute, one way or another, if you look for it.I agree completely.

-Dale

... arguably the military spending is protecting freedom."


It is a funny, somewhat unconvincing sort of land of the free, where to be so free it has to jail more of its people than any other country on the planet, employing more lawyers than the rest of the World combined.

In Scandinavia the social spending is enormous, but nowhere else that I have known enjoys a calmer, more secure, relaxed and egalitarian social ambience. In the countryside they leave their doors unlocked, with valuable machinery and other property left unguarded around the unfenced estates, and nobody thinks anything of it.

--- Ron.

In the countryside they leave their doors unlocked, with valuable machinery and other property left unguarded around the unfenced estates, and nobody thinks anything of it. I have news for you, Ron, it is the same thing in the countryside in the USA also.

-Dale

Deleted

If you have never been here, then you probably have a distorted view of our society. I know that my view of the German people was somewhat distorted before I went there. Probably you would be agreeably surprised as I was.

-Dale

As for the site linked, it seems more misinformation than genuine study. First of all it repeats over and over how "money is made virtually from thin air", but explains the mechanism only in few, incomprehensible words, before going off again about how "the enemy" manipulates everyone.
You didn't read/listen much, did you:)? That's OK. Not reading shall NOT deny you the right for a strong opinion.

Well you guys, I must say, the people need to come together against common foes. While both of you (perplexity and DaleSpam) may have some good points, you great people must realize that for any success in this world we must come together RIGHT NOW.

London, its loaded with cameras, and while this may cost alot, the cameras are shared with the people so anyone can look, and yet when the london train 7-07 bombs went off, all the cameras in the area mysteriously "stopped working." So conspicuous of an event, it makes me wonder if the cameras have any real use when you consider who has all the "keys."

United States: The USA "Patriot" Act says some fairly disturbing things. Anyone who has cannibis can technically be charged as aiding "terrorists." My current "Middle of no-where" home town now has many cameras popping up all over, mainly at street intersections, while I donnot fully object to surveilence, I DO fully object to the government setting these cameras up without permission of the people.

Can you not see who the enemy is? I am no anarchist, I think government is a sure need, but when even small parts (in high places) become corrupt the little man at the bottom has to pull alot of weight, alot of burden, ALOT OF INEFFICIENT SPENDING.

I suggest you go to video.google.com and look up "Alex Jones"

May the force be with you, always.

London, its loaded with cameras, and while this may cost alot, the cameras are shared with the people so anyone can look, and yet when the london train 7-07 bombs went off, all the cameras in the area mysteriously "stopped working." So conspicuous of an event, it makes me wonder if the cameras have any real use when you consider who has all the "keys."

Do you have something to substantiate this, that the cameras were working previously, soon before?

It is not so unusual that security cameras are poorly maintained or installed as dummies, merely to bluff. That is the largest part of the cost of them, the maintenance, not the installation, often neglected for want of the manpower to bother to look at them.

--- Ron.

Do you have something to substantiate this, that the cameras were working previously, soon before?

It is not so unusual that security cameras are poorly maintained or installed as dummies, merely to bluff. That is the largest part of the cost of them, the maintenance, not the installation, often neglected for want of the manpower to bother to look at them.

--- Ron.Much of what you say Ron is 100% correct, but it is also true that sometimes when the video cameras do work and record something that is embarrassing to "the powers that be" it is claimed that they were “inoperative.”

For example, in the case of the completely innocent Brazilian some of London’s "trigger happy" police killed, it was reported that he ran and the cameras that should have recorded this were "not working at the time." - That story held up for about one week until someone (still unidentified as far as I know, for obvious reason he or she did not want to be fired.) leaked a copy of the video record to the press or a local TV station. (I forget exactly how the truth came out.) - Thank God for “whistle blowers.”

ig9hydtruijf8hy

ig9hydtruijf8hyOK, after wasting three minutes trying various key shifts, I will ask: what the hell is that? (Consider yourself honored. Few who post here would get even this from me in responce to that, but generally what you have to say is worth the time to read.)

Hehe, I appreciate the effort and the benefit of the doubt. But that was just my pre-schooler's accidental first post. :) No encrypted bits of widsom here!

-Dale

Can you guys then calculate the chances that London government was practicing a "drill" at the very the same places that were bombed on the very same day? So lets get this straight. The crises reaction squad was completely in uniform when the bombs went off, they were infact practicing a "drill" at the very place the bombs went off!

What am I suggesting? Interesting data for sure.

For example, in the case of the completely innocent Brazilian some of London’s "trigger happy" police killed, it was reported that he ran and the cameras that should have recorded this were "not working at the time." - That story held up for about one week until someone (still unidentified as far as I know, for obvious reason he or she did not want to be fired.) leaked a copy of the video record to the press or a local TV station. (I forget exactly how the truth came out.) - Thank God for “whistle blowers.”

You are not going to help your cause by garbling the story like that.

Reviewing the facts it rather appears that the material leaked to ITV was directly from the official IPCC investigation, which would therefore have come to light eventually anyway, and the said images were not from the platform cameras the functionality of which was disputed.

--- Ron.

... No encrypted bits of widsom here! -DaleAre you sure? ("Out of the keys of babes" and all that) I bet if some work on it, the way to avoid resumption of the Israel bombing in Lebanon is hidden in there.

The Brazilian guy obviously saw something he wasn't "supposed" to see. He wasn't even using a heavy jacket. Nor did he run.

The Brazilian guy obviously saw something he wasn't "supposed" to see. He wasn't even using a heavy jacket. Nor did he run.

Nonsense.

There is no reason whatsoever to suppose so, no evidence to support the notion.

It was obviously a cock up, from start to finish, incompetent jerks.

---- Ron.

Do some research....

"Police shot and killed a Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, at Stockwell tube station shortly after 10:00 on 22 July. Officers had pursued de Menezes from a location under surveillance, believing him to be one of the men wanted for the attacks of the previous day. They apparently believed de Menezes, who was claimed to be wearing a heavy jacket – later shown to be an ordinary denim jacket – was a possible suicide bomber."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_bombings


And...

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4746
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3523
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=2224
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=2160
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=2062


And he was brazilian. Brazilians are not terrorists. :bugeye:

Do some research....

I did.

And he was brazilian. Brazilians are not terrorists. :bugeye:


Do you have something to prove that the Police involved were aware of him being Brazilian?

I saw nothing to that effect, nor anything to the effect that the Brazilian guy obviously saw something he wasn't "supposed" to see.

--- Ron.

Someone ignored a series of links.... :rolleyes:

Someone ignored a series of links.... :rolleyes:

I perused the articles you previously supplied links to, and I have seen a good deal more than that.
Perhaps you did not.

Do you have something to prove that the Police involved were aware of him being Brazilian?
I saw nothing to that effect, nor anything to the effect that the Brazilian guy obviously saw something he wasn't "supposed" to see.
Nor have we yet been told what that would think it alludes to.

I find that a plethora of sensationlist articles with talk of "faked evidence" or even "fraud" are lamentably ignorant, or reprehensibly dishonest.

It is established that during a debriefing meeting, 10 hours after the shooting, officers involved were allowed to check for errors and to amend their log books accordingly, but this is not so remarkable; records need to be accurate, free from errors.

A particular alteration was not explained and signed as it should have been, but whatever the implication of that ommission, it is not substantial to the facts of the actual event and I have seen nothing to convince me that the error was dishonestly arrived at to be begin with, nor I surmise did the CPS.

The ammedment corrected the record; it did not falsify it.

--- Ron.

The cameras were conveniently not functioning. Just like many others on the day of the attacks. Just like the bus that was ordered to stop out of its route and then exploded. Just as the drill that was going on at the same time of the explosion- precisely. All coincidences? What are the chances? One in 3 quadrillion? :rolleyes:

Deleted

...Reviewing the facts it rather appears that the material leaked to ITV was directly from the official IPCC investigation, which would therefore have come to light eventually anyway, and the said images were not from the platform cameras the functionality of which was disputed. --- Ron.
I will not dispute this, I was only guessing how the video got out after approximately a week of being told the cameras were not working.

My point was that yes you are correct in that it is too expensive to keep all cameras in repair, some are just dummies etc, but as I originally stated, sometimes when the camera’s record embarrasses the authorities (as they did in this case - clearly contradicting much the authorities initially had said to justify their error.) the cameras are reported to be "not working."

That is clearly what happened in this case as the video did surface later. I am sure for every case like this where the authorities get caught with "cover up egg” on their face, there are dozens of cover ups where their cover up goes undetected. - If that were not true and it always came out, then they would never do it as the intentional cover up is much worse than the original error as it is intentional and with time for careful consideration.

Need I remind you why Nixon had to resign. - Very little to do with the original Water Gate break in. -It was his failed attempt at a cover up, including solemn lying to the American voters, that bought him down.

Deleted

Perplexity,

Wishful thinking.

Here's plenty of evidence that the whole thing with the Brazilian guy was a cover up and much more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5thf2b7DOc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgbPveVHBi0

Here's the probability I was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EywMeE_NaY

And here is the whole thing:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm


Ever heard of "false flag"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

This is one of the many sources cited on the video...

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said."
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf

If you guys want to see the sour proof of the pudding in the London Bombings as well as the 9/11 attacks, go to video.google.com and look up "terror storm." I pray to god that you will go and watch this video to see some very interesting ideas presented! Please please please please!

That's what I gave them, manmadeflyingsaucer ;)

Did you follow the links I provided?

Deleted

Once again, wishful thinking and blatant denial. The videos are filled with reports and news that proves my point. One of which I presented to you and you completely ignored. Are you going to keep ignoring the witness? :rolleyes:

How about this other one seen in the video?

Did London Bombers Intend To Die?
"(CBS/AP) They bought roundtrip train tickets and paid for long-term parking — two of the details that are prompting the intelligence community to question if the four London bombers intended to die.
"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/27/world/main712368.shtml

And...
http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/050805Loftus.html

Here's what he said in Fox news:
http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/020805Aswat.html

http://www.harrywalker.com/speakers_pitch.cfm?Spea_ID=428

UK 'blocked bomb plotter' arrest
British police continue to make arrests in July 21 incidents

(CNN) -- About a month before the July 7 bombings in London, British authorities balked at giving U.S. officials permission to apprehend a man now believed to have ties to the bombers, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/28/london.tube/index.html

Shot Brazilian 'did not jump barrier and run'
By Philip Johnston
(Filed: 17/08/2005)

"The Brazilian electrician shot dead by police on the London Underground last month was being restrained when he was killed by officers from Scotland Yard's firearms unit, according to documents leaked last night.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head by two plainclothes policemen who had followed him on to the train at Stockwell station in the mistaken belief that he was a potential suicide bomber."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0CQ4MEMMA3BWFQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQ YJVC?xml=/news/2005/08/17/nmenez17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/17/ixnewstop.html



Brazilian killed in Tube not wearing bulky jacket, didn’t jump ticket barrier
"Contrary to initial reports, it has emerged that Jean Charles de Menezes did not “vault the ticket barrier” nor was he wearing a “bulky jacket” last week when undercover police shot and killed him in the London Underground."

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/07/28/brazilian-killed-in-tube-not-wearing-bulky-jacket-didnt-jump-ticket-barrier/

Senior officers: we knew wrong man was shot

Statements question Met chief's account

Vikram Dodd
Thursday March 9, 2006
The Guardian


"An official inquiry into the Stockwell tube station shooting has received evidence from senior police officers raising questions about Sir Ian Blair's account of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and its aftermath, the Guardian has learned."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story/0,,1726675,00.html

Army unit involved in London Tube shooting
August 4, 2005 - 2:33PM

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
"A newly-established British army anti-terror special forces unit was involved in the operation in which an innocent Brazilian man was shot dead in London last month, a report said today.

Members of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, which was set up in April, were involved in the surveillance operation which culminated in the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, The Guardian newspaper said.

Unnamed official sources were cited by the paper as saying the army unit, modelled on undercover units that worked to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland, had taken part in "low-level intelligence behind the scenes" when de Menezes was shot."




http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/army-unit-involved-in-london-tube-shooting/2005/08/04/1123125838520.html

Deleted

ITN journalist arrested over leak from Stockwell shooting inquiry
Vikram Dodd
Wednesday January 25, 2006
The Guardian


"A television journalist who revealed police blunders leading up to the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes, has been arrested on suspicion of theft by detectives investigating the leaking of statements from the official inquiry to the broadcaster, the Guardian has learned."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1694222,00.html

Are you denying all the evidence? Are you going to comment on teh news that the police lied about many things of the shooting?

The headline says "army unit involved in shooting". Are you denying they were involved?

Here' an interesting one:

Calls for London chief to quit

Thursday, August 18, 2005 Posted: 1211 GMT (2011 HKT)

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- Pressure was growing on London's police chief to resign as a panel investigating the shooting death of an innocent Brazilian man mistaken for a bombing suspect met with his family's lawyers.

ITV News reported Tuesday that de Menezes was not carrying any bags when he entered the Stockwell Tube station where he was killed and was wearing a denim jacket, rather than a bulky coat as police had previously said.

De Menezes walked at a normal pace, did not vault any barriers and even stopped to pick up a newspaper, ITV reported.

He descended to the train slowly on an escalator, then ran toward the open subway car and took a seat, according to ITV, which based its account on a document outlining what was captured on surveillance footage.

De Menezes was shot eight times after being cornered in a subway car a day after four failed attempts to bomb London's transport system and two weeks after bombs killed 52 people and four bombers on a bus and three Tube trains.

Police later admitted de Menezes had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and apologized to his family and the Brazilian government.

Supporters of de Menezes' family said Scotland Yard chief Ian Blair must resign if he is found to have deliberately misled them over the killing.

On Wednesday, former Cabinet minister Frank Dobson added to the pressure on the police commissioner, saying his position was "very difficult" as he was partly responsible for people being misled.

Police "have allowed the false impression, the misleading impression that this man was behaving suspiciously" which was "very disturbing," said Dobson, a Labour MP from London who served as Prime Minister Tony Blair's health secretary in the late 1990s."


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/18/police.shooting/index.html

Deleted

Row over 'blank' CCTV tapes at station

Rosie Cowan and David Hencke
Tuesday August 23, 2005
The Guardian

"Sources close to the case of Jean Charles de Menezes last night dismissed suggestions that CCTV tapes of vital moments before he was shot dead by police at Stockwell tube station had been wiped."

...

"Yesterday, the Evening Standard reported that senior tube sources had challenged claims that cameras on the platform were not working, but said police had returned tapes to them saying they were blank.

The paper quoted a senior transport union official as saying at least three of the four cameras on the platform were working, and said station staff were amazed and furious when told the tapes were blank. "It is most unusual to say the least," the official said.

Neither Scotland Yard, nor the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is conducting an inquiry into the shooting, would comment."

...

"CCTV could provide crucial clues to Mr De Menezes' behaviour. Leaked reports from the IPCC inquiry suggest a series of police errors, with Mr De Menezes not doing anything to arouse suspicion.

Sources at the RMT union, which represents tube workers, were puzzled by claims that the CCTV had failed."

Focus: Executed: Anatomy of a police killing

The real story of how an innocent man was shot by police is only now beginning to emerge. Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas investigates the accusations of incompetence and cover-up

"Although the police soon admitted they had killed an innocent man, it was only last week that a proper account of what happened emerged. Leaked documents from the investigation into de Menezes’s death revealed a shockingly different version of events to the original ac- counts, including those apparently sanctioned by the police.

The documents show de Menezes was behaving normally when confronted; he never ran from police; he did not leap a barrier at the station; he was not acting suspiciously; and he was already being restrained by an officer when he was shot.

To compound matters, it also emerged that Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, tried to block an immediate inquiry into de Menezes’s death by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Late last week relatives of de Menezes accused Blair of misleading the public.

“The police knew Jean was innocent. Yet they let my family suffer,” said Alessandro. “For three weeks we have had to listen to lie after lie about Jean and how he was killed. The police even went to Brazil. Yet they still didn’t tell us the truth.”

Instead of facts, the police offered money: de Menezes’s parents claim they were offered possible compensation of £560,000, although this is denied by the police. The dead man’s mother angrily described it as “blood money”.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

Netanyahu Changed Plans Due to Warning

AP | July 07 2005

JERUSALEM - British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/070705new_netanyahu.html

...It is not news "that the police lied about many things of the shooting"...I agree but that is not my point, which was technical response trying to complete your comment correctly stating that some video cameras are only fakes, others are in fact broken because of limited funds for maintance - I noted that some cameras, reported as broken, in fact are not, but only recorded information that is embarrassing to the people who own the camera. - This applies to all owner, for example a store owner whose on camera recorded him giving a "kick-back'" payment. I.e. the number of "not working" cameras is less than reported - a correction to your "technical" comments.

Deleted

...please it is not so likely that the people paid to maintain the cameras were biased toward asserting that their job was done? especailly as you said "please" I would like to answer (I always try to anyway) but not sure what your question is, but will try to answer anyway:
I would expected people paid to maintain cameras would say something like: We do our best, but with staff we have (on funds provided) we can not check every one each day. It was in good working conditions when last checked, if the monitors would only be more vigilent and reporrt defects specifically and promptly we could do a better job (or if more adequate funds were provided, of course).

...In the aftermath to bombs going off, would you seriously expect them to put their hands up to say "sure, a large proportion of our cameras never work"? I think not. -- Ron.No. I too think not. If "them" is still referring to the people "paid to maintain the cameras," I think that even if true*, they would claim / state someting like: "We achieve 78% up time, despite the lack of adequate staff and support funds. ..." etc. (Don't you agree?)
-------------------------------------
*that a large proportion of our cameras never work,

Deleted