9/11, Energy Monopolies, & Oil

[Pinkertontrunks]

This is my first post on this forum. I don't quite know how I've managed to miss the existence of this website after 2.5 years of following the 9/11 cover-up but at least I'm here now.

I just wanted to post a link that you may or may not have seen before. It's for a site called oilempire.com and its aim is to connect the dots between 9/11, Iraq and so on. Here's the link

http://www.oilempire.us/

When I first heard about other 9/11 conspiracy theories (different to the official conspiracy theory of course) I always had a problem explaining the stuff to others. I never had a problem telling the real facts as I saw them but I could never answer the question - "but why would the Bush administration do it?" Unfortunately that is where my argument used to fail. To give the answer that it was all about setting 21st century US Imperialism in motion and make references to the PNAC and so on was never enough to make the case convincing. That is until I read about Peak Oil. Now I'm sure that most of you know about Peak Oil but in case you've overlooked it or am unsure of what it means then Peak Oil is the simple fact that the day-to-day global output of oil is currently peaking such that within the next few years, or even months, the amount of oil available to human beings on a daily basis will begin to fall. Peak oil is not about the end of oil, that is a few decades ahead, but it is about the problems associated with having declining supplies. And for those Alex Jones fans, Peak oil is not a Government trick to control us all (although it will create that situation), nor does abiotic oil exist which IS nonsense and something Jones loves to talk about.

Peak Oil will change our lives forever, for the worst in most ways. Our whole lifestyle is based on oil. Our banking system and economy thrive on it. Our food is grown and distributed using it. It heats our homes, runs industry, allows us to live in suburbia and travel to work in private cars. There is no alternative that will help us to retain our lifestyles in so easy a manner. Oil has helped the world's population expand 5 fold in 100 years to 6.4 billion people due to better medicines, better food production, increased economic growth and prosperity. And now, we are set to see the supply of oil fall. It will be slow, about 2% per year, but it will apply the brakes to our way of life over the next 10-20 years. Since the US has 5% of the world's population yet consumes 25% of its oil, the need to secure its future energy supplies is now critical - and that's the reason why 9/11 happened as far as I'm concerned. The CIA knew about Peak Oil back in the seventies.

As the oil price rises in the next year or so, as it has done sharply in the past 2 years, we will see inflation rise as the price of fuel, goods, food and so on increase (this is already happening above Gordon Brown's forecast and the reason why investors are now buying gold - which is an historical way of beating inflation). This will lead to recession and job losses, increased fuel and food poverty, and create social disatisfaction on a scale not seen since the Thatcher years. IMO this is why the government is so keen on ID cards (and used 7/7 to push this debate); it's a way to control us as tensions rise. A way of monitoring the trouble makers and tracking our moves as we literally start to move around the country and abroad to find new work, food and so on.

OK, I know what you are thinking. A new nutter on the scene. But please believe me when I say that we should all be aware of what is happening in the world and that 9/11 is a major catalyst in a crucial change of events in human history. I am concerned for my two young children and do voluntary work for agencies who promote the awarness of Peak Oil to the general public, industry and so on. Peak oil is a very real event and I would urge you all to read about it. It will help to explain 9/11 further.

Enough said.

Please look at the link above, especially the Peak Oil part. The connection between Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and 9/11 is very interesting also.

If you want more on Peak Oil and what books and web sites to read if you are interested then please refer to

http://www.drydipstick.com/

You might like to visit a site by Matt Savinar, a leading Peak Oil advocate in the US who has a book out called 'The Oil Age is Over' in which he discusses 9/11.

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Thanks for reading. I'm very pleased I have found a 9/11 site on home soil for a change. And if I am repeating old information then please accept my apologies.

Happy New Year (if you can remain happy about what I've said)

[Andrew Johnson]

Hi Pinkertontrunks (were do people get these handles - much nicer to use people's real names I think, but there you go)

Welcome to the forum. I have seen the sites you mentioned and have listened to Matt Savinar.

I thought that the Peak Oil issue was one of the undisclosed excuses for the 9/11 attrocities. But, as with just about everything, I began to question this, when certain people seemed to be pushing this issue and certain things didn't add up.

The PTB like to create problems for us. This is one of the key concepts in my opinion. They like to control things. People think that they invaded Iraq because of the scarcity of oil. But what if the truth is the oil, like Diamonds (supply controlled exclusively by De Beers), is not scarce, but is continually produced by a-biotic processes deep below the earth's crust? (Not that we need to pollute the atmosphere with burning fuels either - another problem they have created for us).

For anyone convinced that Peak Oil is a real problem and is living in fear (key concept again), please listen to these 2 audios:

Alex Jones & Paul Watson - The Peak Oil Scam - Coast To Coast Oct 12 2005.mp3 (19.1 MB)

Jerome Corsi - Craig R Smith - Peak Oil Scam - Coast To Coast - Oct 26 2005.mp3 (16.4 MB)

Dr Nick Begich also shares this view (audio on request).

All the best for 2006.

[Pinkertontrunks]

Even if abiotic oil theory were true, how long would it take for all the oil fields to fill back up again? 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years?
The fact that the peak of discovery of oil fields was in the mid-1960's and we now extract 4-5 times as much oil as we find should be a little alarming to any sane thinking individual - regardless of whether abiotic oil theory is correct (which it isn't: read Deffys, Heinberg and Campbell for more information).

If anyone wants to stick their heads in the sand on this issue then please feel free to do so, but don't complain when TSHTF. I'm quite prepared to believe that oil companies could exercise control over the supply of oil and that climate change is overstated (it being used as the reason for controlling fossil fuel use to mask the true reality of Peak Oil), but abiotic oil......give me a break please. It makes me laugh everytime I hear it and the only example cited by anyone who talks about it (including Jones) is the apparently natural rising oil level in some field in Mexico or Russia (only one in tens of thousands of oil fields) which when you tell them is just the pool of oil that is collecting at the bottom of the source rock after the pressure has dropped, stare at you in disbelief. Please read a little about petroleum geological science before believing in it all.

http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html

No wonder 9/11 activists get such a bad name when they start to believe every story by someone like Alex Jones. Stick to Mike Ruppert, he has his finger on the pulse.

[Andrew Johnson]

Hi,

I listened to the audios and I think it is isn't as simple as people would have us beleive.

We need to address the fossil fuel issue - that's for sure. We need to be careful about the energy we use - that's for sure. We need the free energy technologies that have been kept from us since at least the 1930's.

We need to be aware that tactics can and have been used to misdirect the 9-11 truth movement.

When people say "we must save oil and not use fossil fuel", I don't disagree with them - at all. However, I personally am open to, having listened to Jerome Corsi and his partner that Peak Oil has either been grossly mis-portrayed (what does the remind you of?) or is a complete scam.

I posted the audios for people to listen to and make up their own minds. If you want me the post the audio of Matt Savinar, post back and I will upload it today or tomorrow - then people have an opportunity to hear both sets of evidence.

FYI, we recently decided to drop down to 1 car (a VW Polo - for our family of four) and we use public transport - even though we can probably afford a bigger car.

I think a few people would agree with me that 9-11 and 7-7 are both part of fear game - and I also include Bird Flu and Peak Oil (with the provisios mentioned above) in the same gammut. I won't spend a lot of time arguing with people who disagree with me - as long as my power stays on!

Regards

[Pinkertontrunks]

[Andrew Johnson]

As I try to be responsive to people's requests here is the Savinar audio

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/The%20End%20of%20Oil%20-%20Matt% 20Savinar%20-%20Coast%20to%20Coast%20-%20Oct%2024%202004.mp3

Make of it what you will... You can also listen to this if you wish:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/Disclosure/Audio/OilSupplyDepletion.mp 3

This is a Dutch Radio programme which considers this important issue. (From this page originally: http://www.rnw.nl/amsterdamforum/html/030905oil.html)

I no longer place as much credence in the Peak Oil scenario as I once did (for the reasons stated above).

[Pinkertontrunks]

[Pinkertontrunks]

Matt Savinar's audio links are available here

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AboutMattSavinar.html

[Andrew Johnson]

In response to the previous post by PinkertonTrunks, I am not afraid of reality as evidenced by

1) My statements regarding the choice we made about a car
2) The posting of an audio at your request.

People can read anything into this thread of posts that they choose.

Regards

[Pinkertontrunks]

[ian neal]

Hi Pinkertontrunks

Welcome and a happy new year.

I'm very glad you've found us. When I first heard of peak oil I must admit that I found it to be believeable and fitting with the bigger picture, but having dug some more I'm inclined to agree with Andrew, namely that peak oil is actually a scam. That is not to say that there is not urgent need to move away from carbon based fuels

I'm happy to dig out the links that led me to question peal oil at some stage.

That is not to discourage peak oil debate and this is just my take on things.

One of the principle aims of this site is to build action and raise awareness of the 9/11 truth movement united in a call for a further inquiry. Uniting a swathe of opinion from Meacher to Icke, including 'peak-oilers' and 'non-peak oilers', 'pod people' and non-pod people', etc.

Having followed developments in the US where the 9/11 truth movement was damaged by divisions centred in part around 9/11 and peak oil, I urge us to be aware of this and understand that just on the many other areas of 9/11 truth where there is controversy, debate is great but any divisions are artificial

For my tuppence, I would say any debate about our energy options and the role of oil needs to be held within the understanding that the world is run by gangsters and 9/11 (and oil's elite) is key to this understanding

[Pinkertontrunks]

[Sinclair]

Hello Pinkerton,

Welcome to the forum. (Where have you been researching all these years?!)

I was interested to see your recommendations for Oilempire.us.

Are you aware that oilempire.us / Mark Rabinowitz has sent e-mails to websites that postulate certain 9/11 (what I believe are) truths. The story (contained within the link below), tells of the Pentagon Strike video & how people discussing stories around the origins of the video were contacted by Mark Rabinowitz.
:
http://catalyticconverter.blogspot.com/2005/04/email-from-cointelpro-a nd-shocking-911.html,

The link has some background research on oilempire.us /Mark Rabinowitz, together with his postulation/promotion of Peak Oil Theory, which (& I’m with AndrewJ on this), whilst it may be true to various degrees, in my view is a diversionary tactic from exposing the architects of 9/11 & the greater PNAC/Neocon plans.

I’d be interested in any comments you may have after reading the link.

After all my research I am convinced that 9/11 was the pretext to allow the invasion of Iraq, in order to revert the sale of Iraq oil in Euros. Saddam Hussein declared in September 2000 that he would sell Iraq’s oil in Euros instead of US Dollars. September 2000 was also the date of the PNAC declaration of their required New Pearl Harbour. For an excellent detailed background of the connection between US Petrodollar hegemony & the Iraq War see http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html .

The threat of the removal of the US Petrodollar hegemony is with us yet again - You must surely be aware of the current situation where military action is being threatened against Iran by the US, seemingly in response to Iran’s current nuclear policy, but, in reality, I believe it is because Iran has stated it’s intentions to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse & commence selling its oil (on March 23rd 2006) in a currency other than USDollars (see http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html for details).

The smokescreen over Iran’s Nuclear Policy is being perpetrated by the mainstream media. Iran IS NOT in contravention of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (see http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=496587 for details), whilst the USA IS. Other countries (i.e. like India at present, which is (like Israel) NOT a signatory to the NPT) are behaving unacceptably in the World nuclear arena, however because this is in legion with the USA, no fuss is raised.

The current situation where America would be crippled by the removal of the US Petrodollar as the Energy Reserve Currency has been made all the more worse by the continuing increase of the American Public Debt, now currently over 8 Trillion Dollars ($8,087,357,559,005.85 -check the latest figure at [url] http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm [/url] or updated every second at [url] http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/[/url]


Peak Oil or No Peak Oil, that doesn’t detract from the lies that are behind the Official Explanation of 9/11 & in no way should serve as an apology or an excuse. The people who engineered 9/11 should be exposed & the truth revealed.

Apologies for covering some subjects again, but my reply was compiled before your latest post.

Best Regards,

Sinclair

[Pinkertontrunks]

Hi Sinclair,

What the article exposes for me is that the whole 9/11 debate is conjecture upon conjecture. Twisting and turning facts until the reality is distorted in the mind of the reader.

My scenario - Peak oil is happening and will cause civilation meltdown, GW responds with 9/11 to grab energy supplies and control US dollar, Blair (once told about PO) responds with 7/7, CIA plants bird flue and so on.

or the scenario in the article you post - GW/PNAC/Neo-cons create Imperialistic catalyst in form of 9/11, CIA makes up a number of diversionary stories including Peak Oil and release Government funded website in form of oilempire.

Both are possible. Neither will explain why or how 9/11 exactly happened.

Neither does it resolve tha fact that peak oil was first discussed in the 1950's and that Colin Campbell has been promoting a possible timeline for the event since the early 1990's in the form of ASPO ( http://peakoil.net/ ). Campbell in the video "Peak Oil: Imposed by Nature" openly discusses the time recently when in Ireland he was spied upon and interviewed by the CIA who it would seem were keeping tabs on him. Strange that they would do such a thing if they are indeed wanting to promote peak oil themselves. Surely they would leave him alone, he's doing a great job without government intervention. http://www.postcarbon.org/store/imposedbynature

I'll be honest and say that the idea that oilempire and maybe even Ruppert are US Government helpers very interesting. It therefore proves to me that the internet is a source of information to be treated carefully. I repeat, this is conjecture upon conjecture. It also firmly establishes that peak oil is a significant factor behind 9/11 either as the excuse or as the diversionary tactic as suggested in another article from the same blog

http://catalyticconverter.blogspot.com/2005/03/all-peak-oil-all-time.h tml

[markburdge]

The big political story of 2006 will be Iran's plan to open an oil bourse priced in Euro's.

This has got the US govt spooked and is the sole reason for them ramping up the rhetoric about Iran building nuclear weapons.

If Iran open their oil bourse and the major producers use it, it will dramatically undermine the dollar and trigger a collapse that will really hurt the US.

That is why they are so scared.

As a currency trader, I love it, but the US govt will do ANYTHING to stop it. And we all know what they are capable of!!!!!

[Pikey]

I have followed the debate on this thread with interest as Ian Crane gave an excellent account of it at his Lytham St Annes presentation.

Pinkertontrunks IMHO is wrong on the subject of Peak Oil. I am with Ian Crane, Andrew Johnson, Ian Neal and Sinkey on this. All these guys are top class 911 Truth campaign ambassadors IMO.

Its all about control, fear, and money. Remember 911 was a crime scene and as Columbo would tell you the chief suspects are usually picked out on the basis of Qui bono?

I believe that the PTB are deliberately restricting the supply of oil in order to maximise profits and keep us in a negative state of poverty/debt so that they can maintain control. There are Free energy inventions which have been suppressed by the PTB, that is fact. Read about Tesla for starters!

Sinkey is spot on IMO in getting us to refocus by reminding us about the purpose of this website

Quote:

The people who engineered 9/11 should be exposed & the truth revealed.

I wish Pinky all the best with his Peak Oil website and am delighted to read that he believes that the official version of 911 is a lie and the conspiracy theory.

Expose the truth of 911, and those responsible, to the grassroots public and that pyramidal deck of cards will fall!

[Pinkertontrunks]

Oh Dear.

Have any of you heard of Bill Hicks. I saw him in Sheffield back in '92. He would have loved 9/11 I'm sure. He used to do a sketch about evolution, you know the one where he talks about the discovery of dinosaurs being an example of how creationism must be wrong only to be told by religious nuts that that was a way for God to trick us - to lead us up a different path, to obscure the debate.

I see now that you are applying the same argument. You are not happy that peak oil might be a very good reason for 9/11 to happen. No, it must be something more sinister. The very fact that the subsequent action of the US has been to secure a gas pipeline in Afghanistan and take a grip of oil output in Iraq (holding it, ready to use at a later date as well as gaining a strategic postion in the Middle East) is not good enough as evidence. The fact that people like Ruppert tell you to move on with the debate means he must be attacked as a non-believer and branded a government plant. Why, because Alex Jones and Joe Vialls have told you the truth. For all I know Jones could be a government double agent with a mission to create such over the top theories such that any real debate is obscured and make all genuine conspiracy theorists look like nutters. Just like Hicks was saying in his routine.

If 9/11 activists want credibilty, please stick to the facts as depicted on the video evidence and witness statements and leave the wacko thought processes out. It will help us all to look much better.

Remember Occam' s Razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Can I inform you all that free energy inventions (if they are true and there is no proof that they are - all that Tom Bearden non-sense) and Tesla theory will not put food on your plate or help drive the economy. Free energy is not something you can use to build cars, and all the other thousands of inventions that use hydo-carbons as a material. Look at what your computer is made of. What about the machines that used fossil fuels and are indeed themselves made from oil which were used to mine, manufacture and package that computer. No oil means no modern technology, which means no business, which means no growth, which means no jobs and bank loans and mortgages, which means happy civilisation over - for the West. It's back to the dark ages folks and I have a sneaky suspicion that the PTB really don't want that either, whoever the PTB are. As I said before, the real power is in the hands of the nationalised oil companies of the Middle East, not BP or Shell or Texaco or all the western countries you like to think are conspiring against us. That is why GW wants to be in the Middle East, not for fun, not to reduce the boredom of being a leader (which of course he isn't, Cheney and Rumsfeld are), but to gain control of oil! He needs it as much as the people do or else the US will go down the pan follwed by trillions of un-wanted petro-dollars.

Good luck with your mis-guided quest. I thought this would be a good site. I have been proved wrong.

[paul wright]

Good luck in your peak oil thing
Everyone here knows that the finite supplies will run out
While simply knowing that events are staged to try and fool us
We cannot accept a word officialdom feeds us
And peak oil as an explanation does not fit

[ian neal]

[ianrcrane]

I have been following the postings of 'Pinky' for the past few days and would observe that he/she would certainly seem to have a single-minded passion with regard to the relationship between 9/11 and Peak Oil! However, after a handful of postings on the theme 'Pinky' is now in a huff because none of the respondents (to date) are particularly sympathetic to the Campbell/Simmons/Ruppert vision of the Peak Oil mythology!

The Peak Oil issue has been delivered with sheer brilliance by the CSR triumverate, as Pinky's perception of the issue demonstrates most clearly! Big Oil is laughing all the way to the bank after posting the highest quarterly profits in corporate history; Exxon posting a 3rd quarter profit of $9.92billion; BP posting $6.5billion; Chevron/Texaco posting $3.9billion and Conoco/Phillips posting $3.8billion. The shareholders are also doing very well out of Peak Oil PR; with most oil related stocks at least doubling in the past three years. I think that it is probably safe to assume that messrs Campbell, Simmons and Ruppert are holding a chunk of energy related stocks and are doing very well out of their PR venture.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that oil was trading at less that $10 per barrel in 1999 and now we are at $60+ with much (if not all) of this price increase based upon a brilliantly presented mythology, coupled with the post 9/11 US/UK activities in the Middle East.

Now Pinky, before you put finger to keyboard and dismiss my observations because they are not kissing the butt of the 'Peaknik' cause, I have a proposal for you. To continue this debate via this web forum will potentially take time and effort that I would prefer to spend pursuing other interests; however, I note that you have registered your location as Bath (I am assuming that this is the City of that name as opposed to the specific location of your PC!); I am also located in the South-west of England and feel sure that our colleagues in the Bristol 9/11 Truth Group would help us out by identifying a location where we might produce an entertaining evening of debate.

The motion could be as follows:

"This house believes that the reality of 'Peak Oil' is the primary reason for the Bush Administration inflicting the events of 9/11 on the global community and that the case for 'Peak Oil' justifies the execution of the PNAC agenda as expressed in the document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses'."

This is a proposed motion so please feel free to propose any amendment.

If you are prepared to participate in the debate, it would be an excellent occasion for members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to enjoy a social event that would also present the opportunity to discuss the importance of the Energy issues which have a direct bearing on the events of 9/11 and the agenda for US hegemony in the 21st century.

Of course, you have the advantage on me as I elect to post under my given name but even if you are actually Colin Campbell, I would welcome the opportunity to debate the issue with you ............. in fact, especially if you are Colin Campbell!

Very best regards,

Ian R. Crane

[Pikey]

Top quality message Ian. I do hope that Pinky will take up your challenge of reasoned debate!

[Andrew Johnson]

Did we "close ranks" there?

Egad!

[ianrcrane]

Hi Pikey,

thanks for your comments; however, I would just like to emphasise that my proposal to have a live debate on the 9/11 - Peak Oil issue is very much intended as an 'invitation' ....... as opposed to a 'challenge'. Semantics perhaps ... but I do not take the line that I hold the definitive viewpoint on any particular issue. Indeed, I would state unequivocally that I will always retain the option to modify my views and opinions based upon the perceived quality of the evidence or hypotheses being presented.

Pinky does make some good points in his postings but they are over-shadowed by his absolute conviction of the case for 'Peak Oil', as evidenced by his response to Ian Neal's offer to provide him with some links.
Pinky wrote:

[Pinkertontrunks]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire (Attributed)

Hi All,

Thank you for your comments.

I'm not normally one for apologies but I will admit to being rather defiant on this occasion. I indeed had no right to stamp on your opinions and for that I am sorry. I come to this group in the hope that I may contribute in exposing the attrocities of 9/11 (and 7/7). For that I share many of your values and I would be a fool to fight you.

I value what you have to say and have been particularly impressed with ian crane's reply. To set the record straight, I am not from the US, or a government spy, or in any way affiliated with the PTB; just an ordinary guy from Somerset with a young family trying to make head and tail of the evil world we live in in the hope of making my children's lives better.

I am indeed very interested in the invitation. The fact that I have not replied thus far is a) to respect ian crane's request not to reply to his post of 04/01/06 without considering his proposal and b) I have been thinking carefully about that proposal in light of what you have all been saying. My answer so far, and please accept that I am speaking the truth here, is that I doubt whether I can commit the time - I run my own business and any spare time is usually spent with the children and her indoors. That's not to say it won't happen, but I am not willing to commit the extra time and energy to such an event right now. Maybe in the summer, if you're still interested.

In the meantime, I would prefer it if I could carry on posting my evidence, as and when I do get the odd hour to myself. Whether you choose to reply or believe what I say is up to you. I would be happy to see your criticism. However, I am not here to convince you to accept Peak Oil so please don't think that PO related material is all I will be posting.

I look forward to speaking with you all some more.

Regards,

Ben

[brian]

PinkT, glad to hear you will continue to contribute.

Timely.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE! **
ABIOTIC OIL vs. PEAK OIL: THE DEBATE IS ON

The much anticipated debate between Michael C. Ruppert and Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. will take place live on George Noory's Coast to Coast AM, January 12th from 11 PM to 2 AM Pacific Standard time.

Ruppert is the publisher and editor of the newsletter From The Wilderness, www.fromthewilderness.com, and author of the landmark Crossing The Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. Corsi is a frequent contributor to WorldNetDaily, and is also the co-author of both Unfit for Command and Black Gold Stranglehold. The two will debate this critical issue on one of America's favorite late night radio talk shows next Thursday evening.

The debate will last three out of the four hours of Noory's late night Coast to Coast broadcast and will include a period of time for on-air listener questions. A complete list of affiliates where the debate can be heard is on Mr. Noory's website at www.coasttocoastam.com.

For more information please contact Ken Levine at Ken@bighula.com.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

[Sinclair]

Ben,

Thanks for your response.

After involving myself in the debate in this thread, I did some further research into 9/11 & oil, & came across this site http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/. It is written by someone who has over 30 years experience of geopolitics & the oil industry.

I would recommend a number of articles from the site, specifically this 1 hour long audio link (10.4MB) at
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/fsn2005-0924-2.mp3 (right-click to save). This an EXCELLENT discussion (recorded in September 2005) and talks of the whole geo-political history of oil, right up to the present Iranian Oil Bourse issue & the $8 Trillion public debt of the USA.

Another very interesting article is the transcript of the Dick Cheney speech given in London in 1999. Cheney was speaking on behalf of Halliburton, in 1999, prior to his present US Government appointment This article is linked to at the above site, at http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Cheney_on_Oil/cheney_ on_oil.html. Let me quote a section of the article foreword:

One intriguing piece of evidence pointing in this direction was a National Security Council (NSC) directive, dated February 2001, instructing NSC staff to co-operate fully with the task force. The NSC document, reported in The New Yorker magazine, noted that the task force would be considering the ‘melding’ of two policy areas: ‘the review of operational policies towards rogue states’ and ‘actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.’ This certainly implies that the Cheney task force was considering geopolitical questions about actions related to the capture of oil and gas reserves in ‘rogue’ states, including presumably Iraq.”

In closing, let me say that I do not have a problem with the Theory of Peak Oil; it is evident that the amount of remaining untapped oil resources & the ease at which these can be extracted from existing fields is obviously declining.

However, Peak Oil, IS & SHOULD NOT BE used as an excuse or a defense or an apology for them that foisted the horrific events of 9/11 & the ensuing ramifications onto the world.

We are please to have your contribution to the debate.

==============================================
All empires crumble & America will just have to accept that its time has come.
After all, Britain was an Empire, ruled by an Emperor. Then it was a Kingdom, ruled by a King. Now it's just a Country, ruled by a **** .

[ian neal]

I'm so pleased you have come back to us Ben.

'Peak oil' is an important issue and as many will know a highly devisive one in 9/11 truth, given (IMO only) the ill judged criticism of fellow 9/11 truth campaigners by Mike R and Mark R that caused so much ill-feeling in the US movement. We certainly have no reason to fall out on the issue and if we can get over any initial tension, we will be all the stronger for it

I'll try and dig out some of my links and post something more informative soon

Best wishes

Ian

[Pikey]

Hey guys & gals,

Its good to talk! Never forget this website is a learning resource centre with the purpose of exposing the truth of 911.

United we stand!

[ianrcrane]

Hi Ben,

thank you for giving consideration to the invitation to debate the 9/11-Peak Oil issue. I would certainly be interested in extending the invitation into the summer months as I your postings raised some pertinent issues.

Meanwhile, you might be interested in the following article, atributed to Bruce Bartlett, was published in The Washington Times in June 2004.

Predictably, the recent rise in oil prices has the usual doom-and-gloom crowd, which has consistently been wrong for 30 years, out saying once again that this proves we are running out of oil and that severe curbs on gasoline consumption must be imposed to preserve what little is left for future generations. They need not worry. There is growing evidence that oil is far more plentiful than we have been led to believe.

The prevailing theory of the origin of oil is the dead dinosaur hypothesis and dates back to the 18th century. Its originator was a Russian scientist named Mikhail Lomonosov, who put it this way in a 1757 paper, "Rock oil (petroleum) originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time, transforms into rock oil."

However, in the 1950s, Russian and Ukrainian scientists developed a new theory about petroleum's origins called the abiotic or abiogenic theory. According to this view, oil is fundamentally inorganic and has no relationship to dead plant or animal life. Rather, oil originates deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic material that is part of the planet's origin.

In the words of geologist Vladimir Porfir'yev, "The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have erupted from great depths."

For more than 50 years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have successfully used the abiotic theory to find oil and natural gas. For example, the Dnieper-Donets Basin has yielded a significant amount of oil and natural gas even though it is an area that conventional biological theories reject as unpromising. A recent technical paper found that the results "confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found in?the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin."

As Russia has opened up since the fall of the Soviet Union and because it has become a large and growing factor in the international oil market, American scientists are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about and interested in the abiotic theory of petroleum. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences published a paper on the topic. The Gas Research Institute has financed exploration based on abiotic theories, with encouraging results. And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has taken an interest in the subject as well.

The leading supporter of the abiotic theory in the U.S. is Prof. Thomas Gold of Cornell. His 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere" (Springer-Verlag) is a thorough discussion of the issues. It is based in part on research financed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Among prominent scientists whose work supports the abiotic theory are Jean Whelan of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Mahlon Kennicutt of Texas A&M University, and J.F Kenny of the Gas Resources Corporation.

Interestingly, economic research also implicitly supports abiotic theory. A leading researcher in this regard is Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research and formerly chief energy economist for DRI-WEFA.

In a new paper, Lynch debunks a common theory called the Hubbert Curve, which postulates that the yield of oil fields is inherently limited. The problem, as Lynch points out, is that actual experience in many instances contradicts the Hubbert theory. Its primary flaw is that it views geology as the sole factor in oil discovery, recovery and depletion. In fact, oil prices, government policy and technology play critical roles. But the evidence he presents of oil fields that yielded far more than the Hubbert Curve predicts is consistent with the abiotic theory, which says that oil fields can be refilled from sources well below those in which production now takes place.

Finally, it is important to remember that improving technology improves the oil situation regardless of the theory of its origins. A study last year by Cambridge Energy Research Associates found that five emerging technologies--remote sensing, visualization, intelligent drilling and completions, automation, and data integration--will greatly improve the ability of energy companies to increase their drilling success rate, better manage reserves, and operate more efficiently.

William Severns, the study's leader, explained, "With these capabilities, companies may be able to increase the amount of oil and natural gas recovered in a given field by 2 percent to 7 percent, reduce lifting costs by 10 percent to 25 percent, and increase production rates by 2 percent to 4 percent."

Of course, higher prices also make known deposits of oil that were previously too costly to exploit viable economically, as well as reducing demand. Consequently, it is impossible to ever literally run out of oil. The possibility should not be a factor in the energy debate.

You may have noticed that 'Big Oil' remains extremely tight-lipped on the issue but it should not be any surprise that the two major sponsors of the Colin Campbell's Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO - not to be confused with an ASBO!) are Halliburton and Schlumberger. The two companies that effectively carve up the oilfield services industry, sharing 90% of the available global market! The two companies that have the most to gain from the perception created by fears of depletion.

One only has to look at the number of Oil Rigs still in 'mothballs' to see that Big Oil is not exactly panicking about any inability to meet projected demands. Like all major industries, the oil industry spends millions of dollara on forecasting and will initiatie appropriate plans of action to maintain supplies.

Meanwhile, as illustrated in an earlier posting, 'Big Oil' will undoubtedly be reporting staggering levels of profitability in 2005, thanks primarily to the efforts of Messrs. Campbell Simmons & Ruppert!

However, I hasten to add that I would be the first to advocate that it should be an absolute priority for the world to find alternative energy sources to hydro-carbons (I think we can all agree that oil is indeed a 'hydro-carbon!) .......... but we need to be developing and utilising 'clean' alternatives because we fundamentally believe that it is the right thing to do from environmental and ecolgical perspectives.

I am currently in the process of preparing my schedule of speaking dates for 2006 and hope to post the Spring dates by the end of January. As some of the talks will be in the Southwest, I hope that I may have the opportunity to meet up with you; especially as I shall be including an explanation of the 'Peak Oil' debate.

Having clocked-up almost twenty years in the international oilfield services industry, I will be presenting the case of 'Peak Oil', Abiotic Oil (both of which are hypotheses) and the increasingly important role of Reservoir Management Technolgy; which is applicable regardless as to the origins of oil.

The content of the Cheney/CFR report titled 'Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century' would indicate that it was the 'risk' of the Peak Oil theory being correct that ultimately prompted Cheney's decision to launch the events of 9/11, this enabling the launch of the present campaign of US Hegemony in the resource rich areas of the globe.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Dave McGowen in countering the Mike Ruppert rhetoric. Without McGowen's web postings, the runaway mythology of Peak Oil may have benefitted the oil companies and their shareholders to an even greater degree!

Ben, I look forward to continuing the discussion with you at some future date.

Best regards,

Ian R. Crane

[brian]

Out of my depth here but -

Why are ALL major powers scrambling to secure energy supplies?

The abiotic case is not new, what is the in the ground evidence for it?

Oil reserves have been overstated by some of the majors, Shell being a classic example, with the odd circumstance of a number reporting reserves increasing yet output decreasing, what lies behind this?

I suppose the question of those above which can be answered with any degree of accuracy is what is the in the ground evidence for the abiotic case.