Author Topic: Stock Market continues crashing (Read 867 times)

Matthew · « **on:** August 10, 2007, 09:43:49 AM »

It isn't pretty -- there is a worldwide global credit crisis going on.

All the central banks are pumping money into the "money markets" (not quite sure how that works) but they haven't done that since the aftermath of 9/11. And this time they are pumping EVEN MORE than September 2001!

They only do this when the market is in a MAJOR CRISIS IN DANGER OF TOTAL COLLAPSE.

Matthew

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** August 10, 2007, 10:41:20 AM »

As an aside, have you seen reports that indicate Rumsfeld, etc., stated that the Pentagon could not account for something like 2.3 Trillion dollars? The report I saw stated that they 'revealed' this on...September 10th, 2001. Nice cover for them, should it be an accurate report.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2007, 10:44:11 AM »

As for the "danger of collapse", it is, imo, already guaranteed. This "money pumping" is just an exercise they put the stooges through, that also provides a nice appearance for the little guys (who are being fleeced down to their Jockey shorts, and maybe down to their bone marrow).

Vandaler · « **Reply #3 on:** August 10, 2007, 11:22:05 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

As an aside, have you seen reports that indicate Rumsfeld, etc., stated that the Pentagon could not account for something like 2.3 Trillion dollars? The report I saw stated that they 'revealed' this on...September 10th, 2001. Nice cover for them, should it be an accurate report.

The report you read is accurate:

The good timing for those who profit is also plain to see.

However, the suggestion of 9/11 being an inside job through this fact is ludicrous... Why would Rumsfeld need to make such a speech a day before 9/11 if he had foreknowledge ?

This goes to show what where the priorities of Rumsfeld prior to 9/11 and if you had an history of Rumsfeld thinking from his previous stint has secretary of defence under Gerald Ford you would understand better why he wanted to take on the poor accounting and auditing system of the Defence dept.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2007, 02:21:49 PM »

Quote from: Vandaler

However, the suggestion of 9/11 being an inside job through this fact is ludicrous... Why would Rumsfeld need to make such a speech a day before 9/11 if he had foreknowledge ?

No one suggested it, Vandaler, at least not explicitly.

You could make a statement that the USA is totally insolvent, and the next day something as big as 9/11 occurs, providing a nice cover that completely distracts anyone from the statement you made the day before (which you likely made sort of quiet-like anyway). Ludicrous? I do not think so. Pretty smart way to go about it, imo.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** August 10, 2007, 02:24:49 PM »

Although you and I know about the statement, how many others even know it was made? We are talking about an admission that massive amounts of money are completely unaccounted for, and in the days since then we have allocated hundreds of billions more to this same incompetent organization.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2007, 02:27:26 PM »

As for 9/11 being an inside job, there is ample evidence without this fact even being considered. I realize you likely disagree, and I say, "Fair enough."

Vandaler · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2007, 03:01:42 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Vandaler
However, the suggestion of 9/11 being an inside job through this fact is ludicrous... Why would Rumsfeld need to make such a speech a day before 9/11 if he had foreknowledge ?

No one suggested it, Vandaler, at least not explicitly.

You could make a statement that the USA is totally insolvent, and the next day something as big as 9/11 occurs, providing a nice cover that completely distracts anyone from the statement you made the day before (which you likely made sort of quiet-like anyway). Ludicrous? I do not think so. Pretty smart way to go about it, imo.

Agreed, but granted that we have some history in discussing, some things do not need to be written explicitly, and can be safely implied.

It's known that Rumsfeld viewed the Pentagon as an deficient bureaucracy and part of him accepting the role of Def. Sec. a second time was is vision of making the military a leaner, quicker force. He also wanted to take on the bureaucracy. That speech on Sept. 10th needs to be read like this... it was not an embarrassed mea-culpa of his own performance, but rather a message made to the military brass of is intentions to crackdown on waste.

Bob Woodword book's provide a good Window into Rumsfeld relation with the Pentagon.

Course, 9/11 put much priorities on the back burner.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2007, 04:35:55 PM »

Considering Donny has now done two terms as Sec. of Defense, and has headed other suspect business entities, whose business was not 'altruistic', it is safe to say he IS the machine, or a notable part of it. If he was 'cracking down', it is as a show for the sheeple. He would not lift a finger to change the goose that has laid his golden egg a million times over - except in order to make it squirt out some more golden eggs.

Vandaler · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2007, 09:28:10 PM »

Seems your general distrust has you making Rumsfeld lay some metaphoric eggs...

I will leave you with that thought as I see not much to add.