August 2010 essay update is here:
Regards, onebornfree.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Client Questions on Credit Union Safety, Interest Rate Rises, Inflation
To view go here to my Financial Safety blog :http://www.onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/
Monday, September 14, 2009
Dr Reynolds and The "Vulcan Plane/Building Meld"
Dr Reynolds and The "Vulcan Plane/Building Meld", or, 2nd Strike WTC Crash Videos versus Elementary Laws of Physics
Dr Morgan Reynolds claims [as do I and others] that the physics represented in the alleged plane crash videos [mostly "2nd strike" videos of alleged UA flight 175 hitting the south tower] are not real world [i.e they defy known laws of physics] - and that therefor those allaged plane crash videos must be fakes.
Here is a famous, primary example ,variously referred to as the "knife through butter " shot ,"The Vulcan Plane/Building Meld", the "Ghost Plane sequence" "The Self- Healing Building shot" etc.- for what Dr Reynolds and myself would say are obvious reasons, specifically:
the video apparently depicts a large airliner [140 odd tons of hollow, aluminum tubing with a plastic nose-cone] completely disappearing inside a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building with no visible slowing down at impact, and without losing any parts [eg wings, tailsection]on the outside on the shock of the initial impact, to the degree that even the wingtips cut completely through many, massive steel girders and steel floor pans and disappear completely inside the building.
[Also, in higher resolution versions, the wall of WTC 2 can be seen to "self heal" [i.e. become whole again ]after a wing has passed through/ into it , hence the " magic, self-healing building" term ] :
Building Moves- Plane Stationary-Further Video Analysis Dr Reynolds May or May Not Have Seen
Below is an analysis [by "teardrop"] of the last few frames of the same video, that Dr Reynolds may or may not be aware of at this time.
Notice that the tail of the plane remains exactly centered in the frame [red line] and that in reality, it is the building that moves towards the plane , and not the plane towards the building as it should be:
Dr Morgan Reynolds claims [as do I and others] that the physics represented in the alleged plane crash videos [mostly "2nd strike" videos of alleged UA flight 175 hitting the south tower] are not real world [i.e they defy known laws of physics] - and that therefor those allaged plane crash videos must be fakes.
Here is a famous, primary example ,variously referred to as the "knife through butter " shot ,"The Vulcan Plane/Building Meld", the "Ghost Plane sequence" "The Self- Healing Building shot" etc.- for what Dr Reynolds and myself would say are obvious reasons, specifically:
the video apparently depicts a large airliner [140 odd tons of hollow, aluminum tubing with a plastic nose-cone] completely disappearing inside a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building with no visible slowing down at impact, and without losing any parts [eg wings, tailsection]on the outside on the shock of the initial impact, to the degree that even the wingtips cut completely through many, massive steel girders and steel floor pans and disappear completely inside the building.
[Also, in higher resolution versions, the wall of WTC 2 can be seen to "self heal" [i.e. become whole again ]after a wing has passed through/ into it , hence the " magic, self-healing building" term ] :
Building Moves- Plane Stationary-Further Video Analysis Dr Reynolds May or May Not Have Seen
Below is an analysis [by "teardrop"] of the last few frames of the same video, that Dr Reynolds may or may not be aware of at this time.
Notice that the tail of the plane remains exactly centered in the frame [red line] and that in reality, it is the building that moves towards the plane , and not the plane towards the building as it should be:
Friday, September 11, 2009
Professor Explains 9/11 "No Planes" ,"No standard Demolitions"
The scientific [i.e. physical and mathematical] impossibility of the "planes into buildings"on 9/11 myth , plus the impossibility of the employment of standard demolition procedures, is explained in fairly good detail by Austrian economics professor, Mount Pelerin Society member, adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lewrockwell.com contributor Dr. Morgan Reynolds, in a radio interview here: http://truther9.blip.tv/file/2551353/
WARNING! : This information is highly controversial and revolutionary in its implications.
P.S. Dr. Reynolds interview also covers the Federal Reserve, Ron Pauls "End the Fed" proposals etc. etc.
About Dr Morgan Reynolds :
" Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Professor Reynolds is the author or co-author of six books, including Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income (1977), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Crime by Choice (1985), and Economics of Labor (1995). He has published over 50 articles in refereed academic journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Journal of Labor Research. He has authored or co-authored dozens of policy studies for organizations like the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress and the National Center for Policy Analysis. He has written dozens of op-eds for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Fortune, National Review, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, and other popular outlets. Dr. Reynolds has frequently testified before congressional committees and appeared on many television and radio news programs, including The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the PBS program DebatesDebates, CNN, and the Fox News Channel. Dr. Reynolds’ research and publication interests have ranged over a wide variety of labor market issues, including income inequality, trade union behavior, and labor regulation, as well as the economics of crime and punishment. Over the last few years he has served as a consultant and researcher for the National Correctional Industries Association, an industry trade group for attracting and administering paid job opportunities within-prison-walls for inmates. Reynolds received his Ph.D. in economics in 1971 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He has taught and done research at several universities including the Poverty Institute at the University of Wisconsin, the University of California and Texas A&M. He serves on the board of editors at the Journal of Labor Research, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. In 1993-4 Reynolds was visiting scholar at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He has been an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and currently is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Among other professional affiliations, Dr. Reynolds is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international society of free-market economists, scholars and policy advocates."
Dr. Reynolds's website is: http://www.nomoregames.net
WARNING! : This information is highly controversial and revolutionary in its implications.
P.S. Dr. Reynolds interview also covers the Federal Reserve, Ron Pauls "End the Fed" proposals etc. etc.
About Dr Morgan Reynolds :
" Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Professor Reynolds is the author or co-author of six books, including Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income (1977), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Crime by Choice (1985), and Economics of Labor (1995). He has published over 50 articles in refereed academic journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Journal of Labor Research. He has authored or co-authored dozens of policy studies for organizations like the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress and the National Center for Policy Analysis. He has written dozens of op-eds for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Fortune, National Review, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, and other popular outlets. Dr. Reynolds has frequently testified before congressional committees and appeared on many television and radio news programs, including The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the PBS program DebatesDebates, CNN, and the Fox News Channel. Dr. Reynolds’ research and publication interests have ranged over a wide variety of labor market issues, including income inequality, trade union behavior, and labor regulation, as well as the economics of crime and punishment. Over the last few years he has served as a consultant and researcher for the National Correctional Industries Association, an industry trade group for attracting and administering paid job opportunities within-prison-walls for inmates. Reynolds received his Ph.D. in economics in 1971 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He has taught and done research at several universities including the Poverty Institute at the University of Wisconsin, the University of California and Texas A&M. He serves on the board of editors at the Journal of Labor Research, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. In 1993-4 Reynolds was visiting scholar at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He has been an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and currently is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Among other professional affiliations, Dr. Reynolds is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international society of free-market economists, scholars and policy advocates."
Dr. Reynolds's website is: http://www.nomoregames.net
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Nation Ready To Be Lied To About Economy Again
WASHINGTON—After nearly four months of frank, honest, and open dialogue about the failing economy, a weary U.S. populace announced this week that it is once again ready to be lied to about the current state of the financial system.
Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demanded that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about.
In addition, citizens are requesting that the phrase, "It will only get worse before it gets better," be permanently replaced with, "Things are going great. Enjoy yourselves."
"I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can't handle it," Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. "All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won't be able to afford my daughter's tuition when she grows up."
"From now on, just tell me the bullshit I want to hear," Pletcher added. "Tell me my savings are okay, everybody has a job, and we're No. 1 again. Please, just lie to my face.........." Source:
Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demanded that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about.
In addition, citizens are requesting that the phrase, "It will only get worse before it gets better," be permanently replaced with, "Things are going great. Enjoy yourselves."
"I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can't handle it," Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. "All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won't be able to afford my daughter's tuition when she grows up."
"From now on, just tell me the bullshit I want to hear," Pletcher added. "Tell me my savings are okay, everybody has a job, and we're No. 1 again. Please, just lie to my face.........." Source:
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Financial Safety Rule #1
Click here for: Financial Safety Rule #1
Or copy/paste this link into your browser:
http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/2009/05/financial-safety-rule-1.html
Or copy/paste this link into your browser:
http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/2009/05/financial-safety-rule-1.html
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Swine Flu? Whatever You Do Don't Get Vaccinated
Swine Flu? Whatever You Do Don't Get Vaccinated
Preparation for Swine or Avian Flu
A Natural Therapy for self-protection and treating influenza
Several years ago, various U.S. and U.N. agencies and the Council on Foreign Relations were spreading the word that the Avian Influenza could be as severe as the worldwide Spanish Influenza epidemic of 1918, and predicted hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide. Fortunately, that outbreak did not come to pass.
This year, however, a severely debilitating swine flu has already stricken more than a thousand people in Mexico and killed as many as 68, with 20 confirmed (as of April 25, 2009). The U.S. has already declared a health emergency.
For people who have weakened immunity and are vitamin C deficient, this influenza can kill its victims by rapidly depleting ascorbate (vitamin C) stores in the body, inducing scurvy and collapse of the arterial blood supply, causing internal hemorrhaging of the lungs and sinus cavities.
Most people today have barely enough vitamin C in their bodies (typically 60 mg per day) to prevent scurvy under normal living conditions, and are not prepared for this kind of illness. (Vitamin C deficiency is the root cause of high infant mortality and many childhood deaths worldwide; it is the root cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - SIDS.)
The way to prepare yourself and protect your family from this influenza is not a vaccine or anti-viral drug. I strongly recommend that if vaccines and/or anti-viral drugs are offered to you, that you refuse them. These actually reduce your immunity; vaccines contain many toxic components, such as aluminum, mercury, and solvents, and anti-viral drugs interfere with critical body processes. Historical evidence of vaccinations has shown that they actually increase the chances of becoming severely ill. Influenza vaccines in particular are notoriously ineffective and have harmed thousands of people, and there is evidence already that Tamiflu, now being stockpiled for a possible epidemic, is useless against influenza. The best way to prepare for influenza is by enhancing your immune system and increasing the amount of vitamin C in your body.......
For complete article click here.
Preparation for Swine or Avian Flu
A Natural Therapy for self-protection and treating influenza
Several years ago, various U.S. and U.N. agencies and the Council on Foreign Relations were spreading the word that the Avian Influenza could be as severe as the worldwide Spanish Influenza epidemic of 1918, and predicted hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide. Fortunately, that outbreak did not come to pass.
This year, however, a severely debilitating swine flu has already stricken more than a thousand people in Mexico and killed as many as 68, with 20 confirmed (as of April 25, 2009). The U.S. has already declared a health emergency.
For people who have weakened immunity and are vitamin C deficient, this influenza can kill its victims by rapidly depleting ascorbate (vitamin C) stores in the body, inducing scurvy and collapse of the arterial blood supply, causing internal hemorrhaging of the lungs and sinus cavities.
Most people today have barely enough vitamin C in their bodies (typically 60 mg per day) to prevent scurvy under normal living conditions, and are not prepared for this kind of illness. (Vitamin C deficiency is the root cause of high infant mortality and many childhood deaths worldwide; it is the root cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - SIDS.)
The way to prepare yourself and protect your family from this influenza is not a vaccine or anti-viral drug. I strongly recommend that if vaccines and/or anti-viral drugs are offered to you, that you refuse them. These actually reduce your immunity; vaccines contain many toxic components, such as aluminum, mercury, and solvents, and anti-viral drugs interfere with critical body processes. Historical evidence of vaccinations has shown that they actually increase the chances of becoming severely ill. Influenza vaccines in particular are notoriously ineffective and have harmed thousands of people, and there is evidence already that Tamiflu, now being stockpiled for a possible epidemic, is useless against influenza. The best way to prepare for influenza is by enhancing your immune system and increasing the amount of vitamin C in your body.......
For complete article click here.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The F.D.I.C., or “Fantasy Deposit Assurance Corporation”
The F.D.I.C., or “Fantasy Deposit Assurance Corporation”
This post at my new blog, " Onebornfree's Financial Safety Reports".
This post at my new blog, " Onebornfree's Financial Safety Reports".
Saturday, February 21, 2009
U.B.S., a "Swiss Bank" in Name Only
U.B.S., a "Swiss Bank" in Name Only
This post has been re-edited and moved to my new blog, " Onebornfree's Financial Safety Reports" here
This post has been re-edited and moved to my new blog, " Onebornfree's Financial Safety Reports" here
The Psychology of 9/11 Video Fakery Denial
The Psychology of 9/11 Video Fakery Denial
[From a 911 Discussion forum] : "A while ago we were deeply discussing the no plane theory - well, I said I didn't think it was possible to do such C.G.I. in 2001 "
My reply :It appears to me that there is a simple choice involved here. You can choose to believe either:
[1] that CGI [i.e. computer generated imagery] was physically and technically impossible in 2001 and that therefore, large airliners _could_ fly whole inside and through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings with no on-film evidence of them either breaking up or even slowing down outside the buildings upon initial impact, while leaving almost perfect cookie-cutter holes documenting their passage in [but not out!],
or,
[2] that large airliners cannot fly through buildings in one piece [even in 2001 !] , it is physically impossible for them to do so, and that therefore CGI _had_ to be possible back then.
A simple process of deductive reasoning with two choices, each choice with two , black vs white [ie no grey areas] "a" vs."b", "impossible"vs "possible" scenarios to weigh/consider before reaching a conclusion, it seems to me.
That is, the physical [a] "impossibility" or [b]"possibility" of CGI technology being in use in 2001,
weighed against the physical [a]"impossibility" vs [b] "possibility" of airliners fully entering 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece without slowing down, while creating "Roadrunner" style entry holes at alleged entry points into those buildings.
How one arrives at choosing the a's and b's of what is and is not possible here, at least in your case, appears to be a result not of starting from the crucial and necessary position [ for honest scientific review] of complete neutrality in reviewing all evidence before reaching a conclusion based on neutral review of that evidence; but starting instead from a pronounced, consistent, pre-bias towards the evidence presented by both the government, and by the largely government funded "scientific" and "journalistic" community that supports them and is in turn supported by them [hows that for impartiality?], with the result being your eagerness to consistently ignore what are generally accepted as immutable principles of [i] basic scientific research procedure [ie purposely ignoring one's own pre-bias in all assessments of evidence untill all evidence is collected/reviewed from a position of impartiality], and [ii] supposedly immutable, widely accepted laws of high school physics such as Newton's 3rd law of motion, in order to either consider or claim that CGI technology was not around and usable in 2001.
To summarize, to avoid mental discomfort , [i.e. you are employing a psychological defense mechanism], and therefor merely out of convenience, you are choosing to seriously consider/believe that CGI technology was not possible in 2001, in order to to be able to continue to believe that it was [and presumably still is] possible for airliners to defy fundamental laws of physics and crash into and through steel and concrete in the manner depicted in the videos [ i.e choice [1] ].
It would seem that the opposite conclusion [i.e. choice[2] no planes into buildings -faked videos] is simply too much for you to handle. Psychologically speaking,I understand your need for convenience. After all, most people would rather continue in denial of the truths and inevitable conclusions which must be drawn from choice [2]- it is simply to much for both their ego's, and their world view.
The mental gymnastics and contortions of both procedural and evidentiary denial such as you consistently display here are far from uncommon, and actually the norm, just basic ,self reinforcing,defensive "grasping at straws" such as a proposed "impossibility of CGI in 2001" issue in order to evade having to change one's hastily drawn conclusions and to continue to support your ego's pre-existing world view .
In short, it is impossible for you to conclude anything other than what you have-your ego and its belief system demands defense when threatened by uncomfortable facts, and will use any excuse [i.e choice [1] ] it can come up with to reinforce itself and carry on in the manner it is accustomed to.
[Another all too common example of "grasping at straws" would be the "what about the plane witnesses" defense, when any average fairly honest cop will admit that eye-witness testimony is almost completely unreliable to the point that in cases brought to trial it is almost inevitably disregarded as being a reliable verification of anything, one way or another.]
Although your average , cartoon and movie-watching , non-critical thinking troglodyte may well believe that airliners are fully capable of behaving in the manner depicted for fl.175 in the "amateur" videos when confronted with 500,000 tons of steel and concrete, you have no such excuse, given your claimed background.
e.g. please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzDzX4XP7E
Still, I' m constantly fascinated by the denial mechanism at work from whatever source -thank you for your entertaining ,transparent denial [ie choice [1] ] - you rational, unbiased, "scientifically- minded" person, you!
For the original comment thread, click here.
[From a 911 Discussion forum] : "A while ago we were deeply discussing the no plane theory - well, I said I didn't think it was possible to do such C.G.I. in 2001 "
My reply :It appears to me that there is a simple choice involved here. You can choose to believe either:
[1] that CGI [i.e. computer generated imagery] was physically and technically impossible in 2001 and that therefore, large airliners _could_ fly whole inside and through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings with no on-film evidence of them either breaking up or even slowing down outside the buildings upon initial impact, while leaving almost perfect cookie-cutter holes documenting their passage in [but not out!],
or,
[2] that large airliners cannot fly through buildings in one piece [even in 2001 !] , it is physically impossible for them to do so, and that therefore CGI _had_ to be possible back then.
A simple process of deductive reasoning with two choices, each choice with two , black vs white [ie no grey areas] "a" vs."b", "impossible"vs "possible" scenarios to weigh/consider before reaching a conclusion, it seems to me.
That is, the physical [a] "impossibility" or [b]"possibility" of CGI technology being in use in 2001,
weighed against the physical [a]"impossibility" vs [b] "possibility" of airliners fully entering 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece without slowing down, while creating "Roadrunner" style entry holes at alleged entry points into those buildings.
How one arrives at choosing the a's and b's of what is and is not possible here, at least in your case, appears to be a result not of starting from the crucial and necessary position [ for honest scientific review] of complete neutrality in reviewing all evidence before reaching a conclusion based on neutral review of that evidence; but starting instead from a pronounced, consistent, pre-bias towards the evidence presented by both the government, and by the largely government funded "scientific" and "journalistic" community that supports them and is in turn supported by them [hows that for impartiality?], with the result being your eagerness to consistently ignore what are generally accepted as immutable principles of [i] basic scientific research procedure [ie purposely ignoring one's own pre-bias in all assessments of evidence untill all evidence is collected/reviewed from a position of impartiality], and [ii] supposedly immutable, widely accepted laws of high school physics such as Newton's 3rd law of motion, in order to either consider or claim that CGI technology was not around and usable in 2001.
To summarize, to avoid mental discomfort , [i.e. you are employing a psychological defense mechanism], and therefor merely out of convenience, you are choosing to seriously consider/believe that CGI technology was not possible in 2001, in order to to be able to continue to believe that it was [and presumably still is] possible for airliners to defy fundamental laws of physics and crash into and through steel and concrete in the manner depicted in the videos [ i.e choice [1] ].
It would seem that the opposite conclusion [i.e. choice[2] no planes into buildings -faked videos] is simply too much for you to handle. Psychologically speaking,I understand your need for convenience. After all, most people would rather continue in denial of the truths and inevitable conclusions which must be drawn from choice [2]- it is simply to much for both their ego's, and their world view.
The mental gymnastics and contortions of both procedural and evidentiary denial such as you consistently display here are far from uncommon, and actually the norm, just basic ,self reinforcing,defensive "grasping at straws" such as a proposed "impossibility of CGI in 2001" issue in order to evade having to change one's hastily drawn conclusions and to continue to support your ego's pre-existing world view .
In short, it is impossible for you to conclude anything other than what you have-your ego and its belief system demands defense when threatened by uncomfortable facts, and will use any excuse [i.e choice [1] ] it can come up with to reinforce itself and carry on in the manner it is accustomed to.
[Another all too common example of "grasping at straws" would be the "what about the plane witnesses" defense, when any average fairly honest cop will admit that eye-witness testimony is almost completely unreliable to the point that in cases brought to trial it is almost inevitably disregarded as being a reliable verification of anything, one way or another.]
Although your average , cartoon and movie-watching , non-critical thinking troglodyte may well believe that airliners are fully capable of behaving in the manner depicted for fl.175 in the "amateur" videos when confronted with 500,000 tons of steel and concrete, you have no such excuse, given your claimed background.
e.g. please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzDzX4XP7E
Still, I' m constantly fascinated by the denial mechanism at work from whatever source -thank you for your entertaining ,transparent denial [ie choice [1] ] - you rational, unbiased, "scientifically- minded" person, you!
For the original comment thread, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)