9/11, Energy Monopolies, & Oil

[Greenwich]

Operation Dangerfield

Well someone who has weasled a monitor position has moved my thread again and deleted all my posts again. However done it was for no good reason. You do have to know there are Federal Government people on here looking at these posts.

Operation Danger field - U.S. internal government policy that states that we have only ¼ of the worlds oil is left. Which means that if we do not obtain the remaining oil. It would mean severe financial instability. This policy would also mean that food could not be grown delivered. It would stop everything including shipping, military, heating.

This all is being used to justify and bring cohesiveness to all of the agencies of the respective govt. In the name of National security. The oil is running out so we must secure it for our people. Anyone in charge of authority in the Federal Government has to be involved in this policy. With the subordinates answering to them. Anyone speaking out or disclosing this internal security policy could be brought to justice quickly (Detainment without reason. Unlimited wiretap without court order) or worse. In short. This internal policy makes it ok for Federal agents to become a part of what is 9/11. It’s the glue that holds it all together another words.

Heretofore it was a conspiracy of wide order. No one could conceive of this because it would take so much to keep it quiet. You would have to have the cooperation of a wide group of people with no reason. Simply by saying we want oil and everyone would join in unquestioningly plan all of this and carry it out. No this is a matter National security. With the internal security policy of very little oil left worldwide That if not acted on and carried out severe consequences will result.

This is not the external public ruminations of peak oil. This is nothing but a topic for open debate and can be either made salient or discredited

Operation Dangerfield may be stupid sounding. But not stupid as what they have done with it. Is a security policy of the U.S. and the U.K. The U.Ks internal policy is called something different.

This all is being used to justify and bring cohesiveness to all of the agencies of the respective govts. In the name of National security. The oil is running out so we must secure the remainder for our people.

The Operation Northwoods disclosed to the public by the government was also for the security of the U.S. There have been others not disclosed. That one just wasn't acted on so that was ok to tell. Some of the others were far more disgusting and carried out.

This is all bothering someone a great deal because they keep moving my thread and deleting all of my posts. They do not seem to be doing this to very many people. I would think the Hologram planes that didn’t hit the world trade center would qualify. Things like that and some of the other nonesense posted just that does not make sense.

Operation Dangerfield. This is a real internal policy and that is the real name of the internal policy for the U.S. If we do not stand up to this policy.

A lot of people are going to die for no good reason. Simply because some very rich oil people getting together with their govt. lackeys. Coming up with a way to justify the authority to do all of this. Killing for all of the money they can get from it. How much is to much money after all? Don’t they have enough piled up already?

[John White]

Greenwich, I dont feel its agents moving/deleting your posts, its just this is a 911 focused site

If you'd like to come to Illusions, you can have a much space for your material as you like

[graphicequaliser]

[John White]

[optimus79]

I'm not sure where Grenwich is coming from, but his last posts regarding this topic had slid back to page 2 or 3 and are now missing. It does seem kind of strange to have these particular posts singled out.

It obviously does have a strong link to 9/11 in any case.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Greenwich]

OK......

[Greenwich]

You were very cute with that Mr. Johnson. Very cute. All you have done is confirmed the truth of what I was saying. Thank you very much. You do not have to keep this thread Mr Johnson. I will keep posting my own threads like it or not. This is a very very large internet. Put yourself in a postion where you can do the most good I guess. Well several people saw those threads and what happened with them.

First you kept the thread on this page deleted all my posts and replace it with some gibberish about peak oil. Then still not knowing what to do. You moved it to oil and 9/11.

Then this what I will do is start my own forum and hotlink to every single 9/11 truth site on the planet. Your choice

GET MY PEOPLE OUT OF THAT DAMN DESERT. Its not going to get better only worse prepare yourself for it.

I delt with a whole room full of your people I suggest you check how much in the the SEP your going to need it.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Greenwich]

Lets see Mr. Johnson. Well I guess we can look here and examine why you did this. Try this,

General
General forum for all other 9/11 information. Isn't that what this forum is called?

Some other people have looked into this and drawn different conclusions?
I see who are the "other people" Mr. Johnson? WHO SAID THIS WAS A CONCLUSION?

I guess oil is not relevant to all of this. Mr. Johnson was 9/11 done for the insurance money on the buildings?

On your website you have UFOs. A favorite of the disinformation rats. Through the absurd in with the real to make it all appear abusrd.

What happened here? I can tell you I hit a raw nerve with something far more accurate than you care for.

You have tried to delete everything I have posted here. Then attempted to repost it as buried. I am not fooled I looked. Also you screwed up because 6 of the posts you removed your forgot to put back. Only part of them. Also you seem to be the only one censoring posts Mr. Johnson. Why is this?

There is not nonesense and I am very serious. You just plain do not like it. Why? Can you tell us?

You also seem to have no problem with the ridiculous "there were no planes and they were really holograms thread?" That suits you OK and of course there is no proof for that nonesense. But oh again UFOs and things like this you seem to like. You have provided no good reason or justification for what you have done. That is your mistake. Spare me Mr.Johnson something else is obviously going on here. You don't like my thread why? Whats the real reason because Mr. Johnson because your explanation is very very weak indeed. Try reading what THE PUBLIC FOURM IS AGAIN!

General
General forum for all other 9/11 information
IT SAYS GENERAL FORUM READ CLOSELY MR. JOHNSON

Do you understand this part of the board anyway?

[Greenwich]

Here I will give you an example of disinformation Mr. Johnson. This topic is so incredible that anyone with half a brain is going to think you have lost your mind and walk away. AND MR. JOHNSON THATS JUST WHAT YOU WANT. You posted this about holograms. You are a real piece of work.

YOU POSTED THE FOLLOWING IN THE NO PLANES NONSENSE THREAD


You missed something. There is substantial evidence for TV Fakery. Most agree that it looks like SOMETHING hit the towers. "No planes" is suggestive of "nothing at all", "No 7x7's" is less ambiguous.

So, the debate is really between CGI and Holograms. I favour CGI (with SOMETHING hitting the towers).

Oh the subtlelty of labels. It's exactly the same method used as with "conspiracy theory" - people have a fixed picture of what the phrase means and therefore shut out other evidence with automatic rejection.
_________________
Andrew

[Andrew Johnson]

Greenwich,

I have now moved this thread. I will try to answer some of your points in general terms, re-iterating what has already been said.

1) This is a primarily 9/11 truth campaigning board and we try to keep threads tidy/categorised to make it easier to navigate.

2) This was why your posts were originally moved, as they were repeating themes discussed on another thread.

3) I have never deleted any of your posts - they are absolute gems, frankly, which I have enjoyed immensley on a personal level (the ones making accusations against me are the best)

4) The content of my own website is not specifically promoted or discussed here and just because I have audios by Steven Greer, Colonel Corso and many others does not affect 9/11 Truth issues one bit. You will, of course, find links to my website on here for some audio and video material - I use it as a repository.

5) I am encouraging debate about the No 7x7 issue, for those people that it interests, having looked at the evidence more closely myself. People are reluctant to discuss it - I understand that. I have indulged in some speculation on this issues and pointed out certain pieces of evidence. I haven't accused anyone of anything. Speculation and optional discussion are not the same as disinformation.

By the way, your comparison/points have essentially already been made in the UK Daily Telegraph, so you're not the 1st person to make such points.

People can draw their own conclusions from the tone and content of your posts compared to mine.

Unless you have specific evidence to back up your assertions, I don't see a need to respond to them in any more detail than above. People can contact me and discuss anything they like - they can then decide for themselves whether I am a Disinfo Shill or whatever expression you care to use.

I politely asked you not to abuse our board. You can insult and accuse me all you like - it's water off a duck's back frankly. But by not discussing 9/11 Truth issues and evidence, you are not making a positive contribution to this board.

By the way, call me Andrew - everyone else does.

[Greenwich]

How about Jackass that name would apply to you a little better. I am not describing peak oil. How many times do you have to see that. Its not peak oil its no oil practically. Go back to your UFOs and Hologram planes. You embrace the things they mislead with and kill the relevant. You are censorsing a post and burying it so people can not address it. You did not place 6 of my posts back and originally you did delete those posts. Stop lying

[James C]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

For those of you who still believe the lies about peak oil - listen to Alex Jones (Alex checks everything out as you know).

See link below

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/

Alex says that Peak oil is just a scam perpetrated by the oil companies who want you to believe their is a shortgage. (he has documents on his infowars site if you want proof)

Oil companies have been actively buying up oilfields and shutting them down to reduce the supply - and keep prices up.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

see documents below re peak oil scam



http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/

[prole art threat]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Mark Gobell]

I read an article about Mark Nolan, Chairman of ExxonMobil, Australia only this week, was going to post it, but didn't.

I went back for it today from the Australian msm source and it is no longer available:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20390685-1702,00.html

It is here still at The Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Peak-oil-theories-wrong-oil-bos s-says/2006/09/11/1157826859227.html

and at The Energy Bulletin: http://www.energybulletin.net/20377.html

Peak oil theories wrong, oil boss says
September 11, 2006 - 2:04PM

The world has an abundant supply of oil, and high petrol prices are just the reality of a globally-traded commodity, ExxonMobil Australia chairman Mark Nolan says.

Mr Nolan used his speech to the Asia Pacific oil and gas conference in Adelaide on Monday to debunk the theory of peak oil, which suggests oil supplies have peaked and will dwindle over the next 20 years.

Such predictions, he said, had been around since the 1920s, particularly at times of high oil prices.

"The fact is that the world has an abundance of oil and there is little question, scientifically, that abundant energy resources exist," Mr Nolan said.

"According to the US Geological Survey, the earth currently has more than three trillion barrels of conventional, recoverable oil resources.

"So far we have produced one trillion."

Mr Nolan said the oil industry had always underestimated the extent of global resources and the ability of technology to both extend the life of existing oil and gas fields and find new ones.

"We should not forget that we can recover almost twice as much oil today as when we first discovered it over 100 years ago," he said.

"And when you consider that a further 10 per cent increase in recoverability will deliver 800 billion barrels of oil to our recoverable total, we have every reason to be sure that the end of oil is nowhere in sight."

Mr Nolan said that by 2030, conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) would still account for 80 per cent of the world's energy requirements.

But Mr Nolan said it was very difficult to predict what would happen in the future with both crude oil and petrol prices.

"They are both regionally traded commodities, they are priced by the market, priced by the region," he said.

"The fuel price is ultimately driven by the source of the product, which is the crude price, and of course that is traded regionally and internationally."

Mr Nolan's comments were endorsed by the president of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Eve Sprunt, who said the proponents of peak oil theory often confused oil reserves with available resources.

"When you are talking about reserves, you are only talking about a very small fraction of the total resource base," she said.

"The reserves are the portion for which the infrastructure is largely in place, the technology is in place and that can be produced at the current oil price.

"But if you are planning for the long-term energy future of your country you need to understand the resource base.

"The whole name of the game is moving resources into the reserves category."

Ms Sprunt said high oil prices also presented opportunities such as the viable development of other fuels.

"It's a time when new alternatives emerge," she said.

[James C]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

James said

" The US still has masses of oil and will be pumping the stuff out for a few decades to come but it cannot pump out the stuff fast enough anymore to supply its own needs"



So what about the documents posted earlier that clearly show the oil companies deliberately reducing potential production

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

here they are again

have you read them?


http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/

[Mark Gobell]

James

Your passion for Peak Oil is clear but in this case a little misdirected.

I am not a critic of Peak Oil at all. I presently do not know anywhere near enough about it to decide one way or the other.

Neither have I stated that I believe any bosses of any oil companies.

I posted the article simply to further the debate as I believe a view such as this from an oil industry exec would be pertinent to that debate.

Clearly you disagree.

[James C]

[James C]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

James you really are a complete w@nker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mark Gobell]

No need to have apologised James. Passions run high sometimes, most are guilty of that from time to time, these are passionate subjects after all.

TTWSU3 - those documents are scandalous.

There is obviously a hell of a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Market manipulation, refinery capacity, black outs in CA.

They've threatened energy shortages here for winter too I recall.

You've certainly sparked my interest further with that post.

[James C]