Are you saying the original authors wouldn't know what they were putting together?
Not at all, I think they knew exactly what they were saying and how to say it, so people like yourself would suck it up like candy and run with it, without ever giving it any real thought.
Obviously they have higher credentials than you or BS.
:lol: Actually, in some cases no. Which was aptly proven when I took apart the theory you posted on how the Fed works, who owns the Fed and so on. Those are just a couple points you haven't acknowledged, let alone refuted, other then to call me names and tell me that my words mean nothing.
So can you refute my posts on who owns the Fed, how the Fed works, or EO 11110? Or will you just continue to call me names and make light of the abuses I faced as a child?
Source: Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking
Influence. Staff Report,Committee on Banking,Currency and Housing,
House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.
Ya I saw that too. To bad he doesn't do as most accredited scholars do and apply each reference to the part of his theory. I'm sure he did use those sources for some aspects of his story, although I can simply post those references at the end of an article on painting in water colours, and without applying each reference to the stated part of the article. Make it seem like that's where the info came from.
But I digress, unfortunately for you and the author of that tid bit of silly, not one of them says what banks are stockholder members in the Fed. As that has never been published. Thus proving he's lying through his eye teeth. And you swallowed it.
One thing I did pick up from that cartoon you posted before, was that most people don't know how banks work. You're a shining example of that. Especially when it comes to the Fed.
You can do that when it is a follow the dot type of picture. If you are having problems, which you obviously are go back and practice with the follow the number picture that pre-schoolers have mastered.
Ah yes, your post lacks any explanation, the author fails to provide that, we asked for you to provide an explanation of what it is, and thus according to you, the problem is ours. Good call, that how you get out of having to prove its validity. How predictable, and funny too.
Obviously there was proof, for the steel floor-joists it was challenged by an structural engineer. His view confirmed what even a little low-life like myself suspected. You cannot get a field-tractor un-stuck with a shoe-string. It makes you personal opinion to be a big fat lie. I've learned to live with the fact that despite some technical knowledge on your part you find being a liar suits your lifestyle.
Remember that is specific issue got you put on ignore, I doubt very much you are less of a liar today than you were a few months ago.
Ah yes, still can't refute my posts so attack away. Again predictable.
The topic here is your fascination with the Rothschild family.
I agree, I have some inadequacies, that is why I look thing up rather than accept the word of a 'supposed expert' like yourself.
That's the point mhz, you didn't have to take my word for it. I posted references. They all lead to accredited books on the subject, by professors in economics and international banking.
As it this one proves you to be a known liar.
What does? The fact that when I pressed you to explain what you cut and paste you refused to answer the questions? Then went on this campaign of calling me a liar.
Unless you would like to publicly admit that a few tiny floor-joists connected to two 'massive columns' by just a few bolts can/will have enough strength to 'bend' the inner and outer columns to the point of failure. If the floor-joists had been sagging they would not have had any strength to 'pull' very hard at all. So, all in all, back to your box liar.
I don't care what you call me. I've poked huge holes in your theory. You refuse to acknowledge the posts, let alone the facts contained in them. You've steadfatsly refused to answer questions on all manner of subjects you post cut and pastes in. The reason for that is, you have no practical understanding of the material you're posting. You simply take the material, believe it because it says it supports your position and post.
Again, the topic is your fascination with the Rothschild family.
Again, I already showed the errors in those claims. Just because you find someone else that makes the same claims, doesn't make your post any more factual. Nor is it a form of credible rebuttal.
Now, can you or can you not explain the connections, with proof, other then just their names? Yes or no?