9/11, Energy Monopolies, & Oil

[Maureen]

Hi Catfish

Thanks for the info.

If you are going to be anywhere near the Lake District my husband could do with some information regarding how this can be done. He is a motor trader and wants to trade my little car in for a Land Rover which I have said I will only do if he converts it and runs it off this method.

He's a bit of a skeptic and thinks it wouldn't work but if you were up this way I know he would be interested in talking to you.

Love-light


Maureen

PS Watch "The Secret" if you get the chance. I know if you are going to Blackpool that David Boyle at the Exhibition of the Universe (Opposiste the big wheel on central pier) has this showing in the exhibition.

[James C]

MPs warned of UK's fragile energy supply

[James C]

Peak Oil Passnotes: A Peak Oil Critique

[Mooter]

My two pence:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2981

Peace

Someone has already mentioned Tesla elsewhere in this post so I apologise for the repetition, but more people need to know about this guys work!

[James C]

[Mooter]

Hi James C,

Ok, this could be the start of an extremely long post, but I am not going to regurgitate everything I have read about Tesla's work as it is all available on the web and in various books. In a nutshell, he created a way to generate electricity from the atmosphere - free energy - and he is supposed to have built one of the worlds first electric cars powered from the atmosphere:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/teslcar.htm

Currently, his work is being sat on by NASA - look up Gary McKinnon and the reason he hacked into their systems - and has been supressed from the mainstream for years.
Basically, if we had the means to generate free energy from the atmosphere then the demand for oil would decrease tremendously.
I am linking it to 9/11 as I believe 9/11 was carried out to assist the justification of a bogus "war on terror" which, ultimately, is all about control of oil & gas reserves in the middle east.

I'm not sure what the book you have read says about Tesla's work but it is apparent (IMHO) that much of his work has been supressed as it was quickly realised the impact it could have in terms of making money from domestic electricity.

Hope this helps.

[Mark Gobell]

James C

I guess another link between Tesla and 9/11 is warfare and weaponry.

Hold onto your hat !

Among many great things from the genius of Tesla was his research into Scalar Electromagnetics.

It is no secret that the US Miliitary is using this technology in it's the HAARP project in Alaska.

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

There are many claims about HAARP as an exotic, environmental weapon.

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id6/pg1/

[James C]

Hi Mooter,

I absolutely agree with your assumption that 9/11 was about creating a reason for gaining control of oil and gas in the Middle East - which is the crux of this thread.

I also am inclined to agree that 'free energy' technology could easily have been supressed over the years. However there is little proof of this and also the problems of declining oil supply coupled with rising oil prices will not be ameliorated even if such technology were made available for the simple reason that oil and gas are essential to the primary manufacture of modern products such as cars. High oil & gas prices = high production costs = high inflation = recession. High inflation and recession for a country like the US which floats on a sea of debt is not good and cannot be tolerated by its leaders hence the need to control the primary energy supply.

With regard to Tesla, the book I've just read goes beyond the detail of any other book I've seen on the subject and is a true chronological and scientific account using every known source available on Tesla. What it does highlight is that although Tesla was a genius he was also a very secretive man who made many claims without disclosing his proof to the world. He even believed and widely propogated the myth that there was life on Mars because he accidentally intercepted a morse code message sent during an experiment executed by Marconi and assumed it was from another planet only to realize his mistake years later - although he couldn't bring himself to admit it publicly until his twilight years.

Maybe Tesla's car experiments were real - maybe not.

High oil & gas prices and declining output versus free energy technology are a real chicken and egg issue. To use free technology you need to manufacture parts like nuts, bolts, neoprene gaskets, plastic washers and so on but only by using oil and gas can we do this on the scale required to maintain our current lifestyle and fuel economic growth. If, say, in 2015 you only have enough oil & gas to manufacture half the cars that you could in 2006 then this will put a massive strain on the global economy and human wants (no car = no job = recession = mass unemployment = social unrest) regardless of whether these cars run using free electricity or not. And if our human desires are affected in such a way that leads to social unrest on a scale way beyond that witnessed during the Thatcher years then no wonder the government is so keen to push ID cards and abolish the doctrines of the Magna Carta since it is in preparation for controlling the revolt of the masses - IMHO

[Mooter]

James C,

I don't want to deviate this thread too much, but I will give my thoughts on your points above.
With regards to free energy (specifically electricity) this could have a major impact on our world. I understand that we would need oil and gas to manufacture various parts needed to make this technology available, but I think it would be a better way of using the resources we have left. There are also other options, synthetic oils exist although these tend to be more expensive to produce. In my car I only use synthetic oil which, costs a little more but also lasts longer than mineral oils (granted I still use diesel fuel but I am looking into biofuels as an alternative). Essentially, it requires a different way of thinking that at present companies do not seem to be willing to pursue.

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

I also understand the US's desire to control these natural reserves as their economy is based (almost) entirely on oil, but this is not justification for the actions they have taken in the middle east or the heinous crimes they have committed in order to get popular support for such endeavours. Especially given that there are alternative ways of generating energy for the world.

With regards to your last point about ID cards and destruction of the doctrines of the Magna Carta, I am not sure what point you are making. Are you saying that they are justified in removing the freedoms that we have because, at some point their actions are going to lead to revolt?

[James C]

Hi Mooter,

I entirely agree that the desire to control oil & gas supplies is no justification for the crimes committed on 9/11. I'm just stating that I believe it to be a fundamental reason behind the decision to carry out that act.

As for synthetic oils and alternative technology, all are great and work perfectly. The problem is that we cannot produce them without fossil fuels, especially oil and there is every indication that oil is in decline. Also, the world currently consumes almost 90 million barrels of oil a day and no amount of wishful thinking will see synthetic oil and alternative energy replace this amount of energy - we just cannot manufacture it that quickly or effectively.

As for your final question, I obviously confused you in my last post. As oil and gas start to decline their price will rise (as they are already doing). As they rise it will dampen the economy leading to higher inflation, high interest rates and therefore recession. Since this recession will be never ending in real terms it will put enormous pressure on social conditions and will probably lead to civil unrest on an unprecedented scale - riots in the streets and so on, especially when the stock market crashes and wipes out everyone's pensions. I was making the claim therefore that ID cards and changes to human rights will be used by future governments to keep tabs on the population and allow sweeping changes to the law in an effort to control possible disorder.

You might like to look at these web sites on the subject,

http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk

[Mark Gobell]

I know this question is based on an assumption and is therefore hypothetical but I would like to understand this:

When debating the Tesla "free electricity" scenarios many people say that we would still need oil to produce "stuff".

Could someone explain this to me please, in layman's terms.

It's just that if we could indeed produce free electricity then, wouldn't that be all the energy we would need to do anything, including ore processing, manufacturing, travel etc.

I understand that oils of some kind would still be required for lubrication etc, and imagine that synthetics would suffice.

I just cannot understand why so many claim that oil would still be needed for other energy systems, given that hypothetically we could drive everything with the free electricity.

[Mark Gobell]

Also, any thoughts on the abiotic debate ?

From what I've read so far it seems the world's best cannot even agree whether oil is fossil based.

[James C]

Hi Mark,

Does free electricty exist and is there some conspiracy theory suggesting it is being supressed? Personally I think the answer is no on both accounts but that's just my opinion.

According to DTI figures, end use electricty accounts for 10-18% of all energy use depending on whether you account for system losses. Free electricity, if it is possible to create, won't really go very far will it?

There is a possibility that abiotic oil is for real, however, there is one problem if it is and that is the time it takes for the the oil to be produced. If we are consuming 4 times the quantity we are finding then simple mathematics suggests even abiotic theory will not preserve our modern lifestyle. True, we would never run out of oil but similarly we'd still have to change our lifestyles to cope with an oil limited world and that won't be easy.

In case you are still wondering whether oil & gas are still as important to us as people claim then you might like to ponder the fact that for every one calorie of food you eat nine calories worth of equivalent energy from oil and gas are neeed to grow, fertilize, protect with pesticides, harvest, pack and distribute that food. A reduction in fossil fuels will see a corresponding decline in global food production. Better start growing your own!

No wonder the US is so keen to stir up anti-Muslim feeling, it's a perfect propaganda ploy to soften the stategy of invading and exploiting the resources of the Middle East under the guise of anti-terrorism measures.

[Andrew Johnson]

James,

Listen to Dr Eugene Mallove, murdered in 2004. He used be the Chief Science Writer at MIT.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/Dr%20Eugene%20Mallove%20-%20Coas t%20to%20Coast%20-%20Feb%2003%202004.mp3

Watch this video - Channel 4, 1995.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044

Realise that Stanley Meyer is now dead.

Are you seeing a pattern at all? Of course, just like with 9/11, these items of evidence are all coincidental....

[James C]

Andrew,

You have already made your views known on this thread many times and yet every time you appear to miss the point which coming from someone who calls himself a scholar is quite concerning.

Energy from water will not help the problems associated with fossil fuel decline - period! Now let's move on to a rational debate instead of this conspracist claptrap which is confused with being the answer to the world's problems. As the original author of this thread repeated time and time again, oil and gas are not just energy and so their value is immeasurably greater or is that too hard for you to comprehend?!

I'm sorry to get so angry but that google video shows an error which every person claiming to make more energy from water always falls into and it is that electricity is used to make the inventions work. Unfortunately that electricity has no doubt been produced from fossil fuels, much of which has gone up a chimney as heat making the system losses before the invention even begins to work already greater than the benefit the invention appears to make. It's so obvious that it's laughable and coming from someone who suggests we should ask the tough questions, proves that you are incapable of investigating the big picture preferring instead to assume that everything is just some big conspiracy theory because it is easier to answer questions that way.

I can see the proof of government complicity in 9/11 thank you so please don't patronize me. I cannot see any proof for free energy and the murder of scientists and believe me I've looked. Perhaps you could provide me with some?

[Andrew Johnson]

James,

My point, certainly with the first broadcast (have you actually researched Eugene Mallove?) is that the people I referred you too are Scholars - Dr Eugene Mallove and people such as Dr Paul Csyz (sp?) for example. The interview with Mallove is almost 2 hours long, including a phone in. To me, this gives you a much better chance of being able to form an opinion of a person - actually hearing them, and hearing them asked random questions. This is why I "bleat on" about this particular broadcast. To me, it is one that is of key importance. Others may disagree.

Let me explain my "Scholar" label. I am a part time Scholar - pseudo intellectual, if you will. I was invited by Prof Jones to join ST911 as a Full Member, even though I made it clear I was only a "part time academic" etc and I therefore asked to be an Associate Member. I would like to think this might have been because of my attempts to engage people on the Physics forum thread about 9/11, which I am still not sure whether it was a success or a failure!! (Hopefully the former)

I am not trying to patronize anyone, and I sincerely apologise here if my tone appeared that way to you.

So I am quite happy for people to call me a "Yorkshire Git", a sanctimonious bore or a "pointless peasant with a working class background". It matters not 1 jot to me. I have been called all of these things on at least 1 occasion. I just do my best with what I have.

Until one can have and hold a free energy device in one's hand, one might never believe it was actually real. I therefore offered you a selection of information (there is a lot more) which you may follow, if you so wished, so that you can come to your own view - which may be the diammetric opposite of mine. I don't claim to be an expert on free energy. I just try to present evidence which might (or might not) make people think.

I have another key argument which I use, which I don't want to get into on this thread. If you would like to PM or e-mail me, I will explain it to you.

All the best,

[Mooter]

[Mark Gobell]

James C

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I really feel silly posting this as it is a follow up to my question based on the hypothetical free electricity issue.

You quote that our current electricity usage is about 18% of all energy consumption. Fair enough.

If we did have "free" electricity, I still cannot see how we would have to rely on oil or gas for energy. At all. Ever again.

In that hypothetical case, I personally imagine, everything that currently uses oil & gas for energy to be replaced by the "free" electricity devices.

Vehicles, trains, planes, plant, presses, heating, everything.

Obviously there would be a transition period, that is clear.

Hence I do not understand why people claim we would still need oil & gas to make the things that go into the car. I just don't get it.

Thanks also for your thoughts on the abiotic issue. It's difficult for me to comprehend fossils into oil, coal & gas, just as it is something else into oil, coal & gas.

If the abiotic theory has substance, (no pun intended) then that could mean that the old fossil fuel stuff is nonsense.

In that case, it is easy to see that a lot of other "laws" could also be nonsense.

Whether an argument can be made for a "conspiracy" that existed to cover up such "misunderstandings" depends upon the evidence of a conspiracy.

The worrying thing is, what else have we been told to hold sacrosanct that may not be true. This may be because once we get oil to do the work for us we stop looking for alternatives. Therefore it could be argued that if we didn't have the oil, we may by now have the free electricity for example.

I must say that everytime I hear "It just isn't possible" I think of all the times that must have been said throughout history.

I imagine a cynic saying "You can't invent the internal combustion engine because we don't have the petrol to run it on".

What did they run the fist IC engines on out of interest ?

To think that we are debating the possibility that oil might not come from dead animals is a very good case in point.

[James C]

[Greenwich]

The inside U.S. policy says we are running out of oil and very little of the oil reserves in the world are left. This justifies a lot. This inside policy started in around 1993. The name for U.S. policy in this is Operation Dangerfield. The public policy on this says that we are half way through consumption and need alternative energy sources and need to work on that.

The inside policy also says that oil prices can be made high to discourage consumption of oil. This policy also avoids panic. This policy is of an National emergency nature creates a government which much which must combine forces to combat and solve this problem. The emergency is classified. Again this justifys a lot.

They do not like this being discussed very much so be aware they get upset at the mention of this. I am sure this will be looked at and refuted in different ways by the knowing and unknowing.

[Sam Danner]

To Greenwich:
I am sorry sir if I spelled your name wrong. Sir I want to tell you as an American YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD!!!!!! That statement alone facters in almost all wars that the U.S. Goverment get into. I get so Damn angry when a sitting President in the United States saids it is in our interest or National interest. That is why we are in Iraq. I am with you %100 and I would like to talk more about this topic.
Sam

[scar]

I agree that securing energy resources is a large part of the imperialism adopted since 911 but there are other reasons as well. Controlling the middle east is essential to attain the goals of those who desire a unified world order. Setting up bases in Iraq in order to attack other countries like Iran, Syria, N.Korea etc etc
Peak Oil is a highly contentious issue but that doesnt change the obvious energy grabbing motivations laid out in 'The Grand Chessboard' and various PNAC documents and others.
Many believe oil is abiotic and therefore this energy grab is more about controlling the supply for more profit and/or securing the petro-dollar as many attempt to move away from it to the euro.

Peak Oil theories wrong says Exxon Mobil boss:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20390685-1702,00.html

I dont claim to know either way and im quite sure the implications for us will be the same whichever is true. If its a myth that is going to be used to engender catastrophic global economic collapse or if its real leading to the same it makes no odds to us little folk. Im quite sure some will refute that but there is much smoke and mirrors over this and i dont think its possible to know for sure unless you are a high up insider.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=84 33

Much Peak Oil theory makes good sense as well. But is Peak Oil what we are supposed to believe is the reason for the wars?

[Greenwich]

What I am saying is this in the public policy domain the discussion pertains to peak oil. The inside policy of both the U.S. and UK is only a fraction is left of the worlds oil reserves. The name to obtain what is the remainder of the oil left on the earth is Operation Dangerfield. It is called something else in the UK.

This is classified and is what unites the government people that are under authority to carry out orders to maintain the stability and security of both the Kingdom and the United States.

[scar]

[Greenwich]

I see your question is how do I know about it. It is common knowledge in certain goverment circles.

[scar]

[Greenwich]

I am more than glad to inform. I find the fact that a internal policy that would be used and not given wider examination under the cloak of “they shouldn’t know because it would cause widespread panic” disgusting. If it was about an enemy with bad intentions that would be another matter. So often we see the same players involved in the same misdeeds. As we all know history is the best form of propaganda. The unwashed find it believable. Whoever is in control either by conquest. Or either by complete deception of a people write the facts. Glad to assist

[graphicequaliser]

I think you are all wrong about oil. It is a replaceable commodity, despite its current revenue-attracting potential. There are alternative sources of energy that can be used, for example, hemp oil and ethanol, and these have been proven. It's just a matter of time before they are forced into the mainstream.

Subversion of long-standing communities is what the NWO are all about. Their goal is to run everywhere in the world. The spread of consumerism is another string to their bow to keep people away from running their own communities, with no interference from any "government". What is consumed is entirely unimportant.

[Roger the Horse]

For more on Peak Oil stuff I would definitely recommend Greg Palast's book 'Armed Madhouse'. A great read though I reckon he's wide of the mark regarding 911!

[Roger the Horse]

Shortcut to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5340542.stm


Oil prices reach seven-month low

Traders had been worried about a repeat of last year's storm damage
Dips in demand and an easing of threats to supply have pushed oil prices to a seven-month low.
US light, sweet crude futures traded down $1.85 to $63.76 a barrel on
Tuesday while Brent crude futures slid $1.56 to $62.99 a barrel in London.

Prices have fallen by almost 18% from the $78-a-barrel highs recorded in
mid-July at the height of the crisis between Israel and Lebanon.

Concerns that the US hurricane season would damage oil rigs proved
unfounded.

Damage to refineries, offshore rigs and pipelines from Hurricane Katrina
last year pushed oil prices to new records.

Traders are increasingly doubtful that Iran's diplomatic stand-off with the
UN over its nuclear ambitions would lead to it using its oil as a bargaining
chip if sanctions were imposed against it.

On Monday, the Opec cartel of oil producers said it would continue producing oil at current levels but added it would scale back production if prices kept falling.

Seems to me that we are being told the price of oil is high because of tensions yet if there is any sign of the price falling then OPEC will do what is necessary to keep it high. Oil companies are making massive profits out of this and there have been numerous reports of companies intentionally restricting their own production in order to reap ever bigger profits. Oil production in Iraq has, for decades, been intentionally set WAY UNDER capacity. If the market for oil was flooded then the price would drop massively making it far less profitable to extract. Oil companies are also not going to tell us that there is loads of oil left for the same reason.



[/b]