9/11, Energy Monopolies, & Oil

[Pikey]

Its only doom and gloom if we join the silent majority!.

Look at mans history of evolution and there is one consistent thread to our continuing survival:-

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

My final reminder chaps lets remain focused on the 911 issue and get out on the streets 911 truth campaigning, increasing the size of our local 911 truth groups, and winning over the minds of the grassroots public.

[Pinkertontrunks]

[ian neal]

If Mike Ruppert were correct in his assertion that peak oil is NOW and if he could prove it, then I would agree that it would be logical to link the 2 issues. Undoubtedly 9/11 and oil are linked, but to my mind the peak oil is NOW argument has yet to be proven

Take this claim in Mike's presentation that there has been no significant finds (500m barrel +) in the last 2 years. If this story is to be believed then that's not true

Mike speaks well and he's very confident in his position. He talks a lot of truth about for example the dangers of sudden onset climate change, but he does not mean he is right in claiming the Peak is NOW

[Pinkertontrunks]

Hi ian,

With reference to the 2004 Mexico story in El Universal, it was totally disproved one month later. See here.

http://www.mexidata.info/id270.html

[Andrew Johnson]

Are we anywhere near Peak Posting on this thread yet?

(Sorry folks, call me what you like - I'm just not bothered...)

[Pinkertontrunks]

In which case Andrew, can I suggest you shut up and let those who want to discuss it carry on.

Perhaps you're just pissed off because this is generating more interest than any other thread.

If all the policemen and teachers demonstrate even half the negative attitude to something new that you display here then I'd be very surprised if you get any responses to your recent letters. The poor grammer will no doubt put them off regardless.

If you're not open minded and tolerant, then why should they be?

I'm out of here. With * like Andrew around who needs the PTB. He thinks he is the PTB.

*.

[Andrew Johnson]

PT/Ben,

As I said, I really don't mind what people call me - I'm a nobody.

I am watching the Ruppert vid. that you posted a link to and I noticed a couple of interesting points.

I won't take your comments to heart.

Police and teachers can make their own minds up about the information that I have sent them (which is based very much on people's other statements and material not my own).

I'm not bothered about my grammar etc. I am not paid to do this.

You have done your own research and made your mind up. I have mentioned several times my position on Peak Oil and have presented links to audios discussing BOTH sides of the argument.

Good luck with distributing Peak Oil info - if you think it's important, do it - I'm certainly not going to stop you. But I will offer alternative information, as I have done/tried to do here.

[Andrew Johnson]

PT/Ben,

I am going to contradict myself now, because I said I wasn't bothered what you called me. However, as this message board is based in the UK, I would be obliged if you could call me an "*" rather than an "*". It just sounds more abusive with an English lilt.

Thanks

[Sinclair]

[Andrew Johnson]

Sinclair,

PTB = Powers That Be.

I know I am being facetious here - maybe not the best approach, but I have tried to post relevant info too...

Cheers

Andrew

[Jim]

Now, now ... no ad hominem remarks please Pinkerton. This is a discussion forum and not the place for taking out frustations on its members.

This is a good thread so (everybody) please be respectful.

[alkmyst]

Having spent a few hours, over the past few days, reading through the extensive posts and links on this thread, I note a similarity between the style adopted by Pinkertontrunks with his attachment to Peak Oil and Rachel North with her attachment to certain aspects of the events of 7/7.

Rachel has persistently and consistently dismissed anyone who questions her 'world view' with insults, rant and vitriol. She has, perhaps, had a bit more practice than Pinkertontrunks but he would appear to be heading in the same direction! Perhaps they have learned their trade from the same 'tutors'?

Surely the benefit of these forums is the opportunity to ask questions and to present ideas, theories, speculation and conjecture and to generally 'shoot the breeze', on topics that are relevant to the particular forum in question. The benefit of such debate and discussion is that we might be able to increase our breadth and depth of awareness/knowledge and formulate opinions based upon the sharing of ideas, random thoughts, information and even knowledge!

Projecting repeated dogma can become rather tiresome.

This particular thread is (IMHO) highly relevant to the events of 9/11 but the thread is titled '9/11 & Oil'. The theory of 'Peak Oil' is not unrelated but there is surely much more to be gained from the discussion that getting bogged down over one aspect of the issue.

Pinkertontrunks said:

[alkmyst]

We have to learn how to sort the true from the false. .............a little hint from G. I. Gurdjieff:

[who murdered di ?]

C`mon everybody stop the forum name calling. No need to use negativitiy. Thats what Big Busines Men do due to loosing numerilogical profits ! But it just shows what Oil can do to us men/women i.e. become trance like or possesed when discussing it, lol.

[shareit]

@ Everyone....Hi and great to be here following the progress of this board. I am interested in any aspect of the corrupt hidden honeypot which is, of course, 9/11. From peak oil to suppressed technology,I look forward to reading more and more from your member collective, as it has certainly made good reading thus far! (apart from one potty mouthed member spoiling the pleasant flow of brotherhood here and nearly falling out of his pram doing so!)

@ xmasdale......I think you can find a crystal quality edition of the P.O.N's here:

[Andrew Johnson]

Bob,

Thanks for the note - I will check out Madcow when time! Sounds good! Nice to have you on-board. I think everyone here hopes we can change SOMETHING and for me it might possibly be just my underpants or something - the way things are looking just now...

[skeptical]

Article by CEO of Shell in Financial Times on 24th Jan

[James C]

Have been following this argument with interest. I am personally concerned about our future oil supply, peak or no peak.

Have listened to the Alex Jones/ Paul Watson interview on Coat to Coast. My concern is that these guys present no evidence at all. We are expected to accept what they say at face value.

It's interesting that they talk about how they have been looking at the theory of peak oil for almost a decade. Well according to the propagandamatrix website, Paul Watson is only 23, barely out of short trousers. By the sounds of that interview he must of started when he was still at school. A fat middle aged American obsessive documentary maker and a 13/14 year old boy, now there's a story!

Incidently, the Club of Rome was set up to examine rigourously the problem of sustaining human growth, economically and materially. I don't believe the association with the Bilderburg Group can be substantiated as Jones/Watson claim. Have any of you read the book they commissioned? - The Limits to Growth. The facts are scary. We are exploiting the world beyond its carrying capacity and still we carry on as if it is our right to do so. To set the record straight, the club of Rome has not to my humble knowledge made any statement with regard to supporting peak oil theory. Does anyone know different? Again, this makes Jones a liar.

I guess it's typical of an all consuming American likes Jones to go on about how he has a right to oil because that's what all Americans and westerners are conditioned to think. But if the oil aint there, then it aint there and no amount of conspiracy theorizing will change that.

I love the bit where the interviewer makes the point that we should move away from using oil, only for Jones to quickly backtrack by suddenly agreeing and talking about the supression of car technology that will allow greater fuel economy. Basically, you can't win with Jones, he has to turn evrything into some great conspiracy without examining other reasons like simple market forces, capitalism, stupidity and so on. Either way he wants to have a go at big business and big politics and nothing will stop him.

I'd be interested to see if anyone has any hard facts on abiotic oil and the like and, please, no snippet from someones blog, but a proper research paper with references and all. Come on, prove PT wrong.

[Andrew Johnson]

I think you make some fair comments about Alex Jones and I agree with some aspects of what you said.

More interesting to me are the views of Dr Nick Beggich and Jerome Corsi. I also found it quite revealing to read reviews of Corsi's book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1581824890/ref=cm_cr _dp_pt/104-5494829-0463163?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

A good split of opinion. I thought the Ruppert/Corsi debate was more interesting.

I will have to dig out the Beggich audio if I have it.

I don't have any papers about the abiotic oil theory myself. Anyone else?

[ian neal]

Whilst I claim no great knowledge of the subject I thought readers may be interested in an email I received this week from Jimmy Walters (of www.reopen911.org) on evidence for abiotic oil. I don't claim this proves anything. Like everything else it needs checking out, but I did dig this link that provides background. I would also repeat my previous point that this debate is not solely peak oil vs abiotic oil, but if abiotic oil is ruled out, that still leaves the question of WHEN a peak would occur and the mainstream jury is still out on this one. IMO Peak Oil is NOW remains unproven since so much relies on whose evidence and opinion you trust and in the world of oil there are very few informed independent voices

Ian

Anyway for what it's worth here is Jimmy's email. He also included this link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

On the oil supply there are many questions and a practical alternative.

Some say that oil comes from deep within the earth, not from biological sources.

Middle eastern oil reserves from long established fields has been increasing according to reports from those countries. Rupert and others cry fowl claiming the increases are inflated, merely bargaining ploys to determine how much oil is pumped by which nation under OPEC's rules. There is no such factor in the US reserve reporting in the article below which mimics the ballyhooed, allegedly inflated middle eastern increases. The following quotes are particularly interesting:

"geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life... oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil."

Therefore, the organic theory has major problems. Where did the oil come from?

I oppose the increasing and increasingly mind distracting-numbing consumption of junk, trinkets, and meaningless symbols (name brands) by the rich (me and you, that is 80%+ of US and western Europe).

I oppose the massive pollution and despoliation of our planet in these frivolous quests. I oppose the increasing use of fossil and atomic fuels.

However, that does not mean I agree with global warming being man-made or that oil has peaked, though oil has virtually peaked regardless: demand is increasing so fast that even the relatively limitless supply people cannot keep up with the daily demand of 3 Billion Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, Pakistanis, etc., etc., etc.

What most people do not know is that the relatively infinite methane gas found in earth can be converted into oil with the long established Fischer -Tropsch technology developed decades ago. There is no shortage of methane gas. The process is simple. You put natural gas or even coal into a tank with the right heat and pressure and it becomes oil. It is that simple. But energy and equipment to produce it icosts money and energy, but there is no shortage of potential man mande oil! It also means that any and every refinery in the world can just add a few towers and boilers, hook up to natural gas, and they can produce all the petroleum products anyone needs.

"Currently, two companies have commercialized the process . Shell in Bintulu, Malaysia, uses natural gas as a feedstock, and produces primarily low-sulfur diesel fuels. Sasol in South Africa uses coal as a feedstock, and produces a variety of synthetic petroleum products. The process is today used in South Africa to produce most of the country's diesel fuel from coal by the company Sasol. A small US-based company, Rentech, is currently focusing on converting nitrogen-fertilizer plants from using a natural gas feedstock to using coal or coke, and producing liquid hydrocarbons as a by-product. The FT process is an established technology and already applied on a large scale, although its popularity is hampered by high capital costs, high operation and maintenance costs, and the relatively low price of crude oil." - Wikipedia.

However, There is a huge shortage of oil refining ability - which is a serious, dangerous shortage, economic and military. It is the major proof of the congentital defects of capitalism and markets. The market only responds after a failure. And then it over reacts. It sends in to much capital and labor resulting in the failure of all those new businesses. If the civilization survives AND understands what happened, it might change. The market will be long destroyed.

We have suffered repeated and catastophic failures from capitalism's chronic failures to provide a stable and reliable energy source at every level.

The "market" is not magic, mystical, nor scientific. It cannot anticipate. Well or mine discovery, oil refineries, pipe lines, automobile plants, road construction, parking, etc. take decades to plan and build with no and then uncertain income. Business men seek to avoid risk, not to take risk. Other than war and taxes, governments were first developed to build and control national projects behond the scope of any individual or cartel: roads, canals, and dams to control flooding and agriculture and facilitate transportation. Or we can wait on Ken Lay's five year plan as we pray to the market and they prey on us.

End of Jimmy's email

[skeptical]

Did anyone read the link I posted earlier. This is an article that featured in Monday's Financial Times and written by the Chief Exec of Shell.

Basically he says that the 'easy' oil has probably peaked and the oil industry has its work cut out to maintain demand using non-conventional oil.

Here's the link http://www.energybulletin.net/12327.html

Isn't this therefore further proof that peak oil is upon us. If I understand it correctly, peak oil theory says that the conventional 'easy' oil will peak sometime soon and that non-conventional oil will prove incapable of coping with demand. Therefore this is what he is talking about. Not an easy thing for the oil industry guy to admit since it may hit the share price of his company.

Someone posted a few days ago on this forum a question asking, if the oil industry is not in trouble, then why are all the companies making deals to get their hands on the unconventional stuff? See here for instance http://www.energybulletin.net/3535.html

IMO, we are entering the resource wars, of which Iraq is the first and biggest so far. The war over gas has just begun and Putin is currently firing the shots. Look at poor old Georgia. Within 5 years the UK will gain 90% of its gas from Russia and I think Russia is sending out a few warning signals that the UK better be careful with its handling of Iran and the Middle East, allied of course with the US.

More on Georgia here. This could be us in a few years. Makes you think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4650876.stm

I am beginning to wonder whether 9/11 was about energy after all, not having thought too much about it before. I'm not saying it is in anyway an excuse, but as it states in the Rebuilding Americas Defences report, public support for a rise in miltary spending will only happen with a Pearl Harbour type attack. The reason is therefore made explicit. The US government (as * up as it is) knows it will be at war for a long time and so needs to gain moral and financial backing from its people.

I think the reson behind 9/11 is a very important one and I agree with Pinkertontrunks here (sorry, but I do). To talk openly about 9/11, one must be able to give a reason for it happening. Otherwise, people might just say the conspiracy theory lacks credibility. Isn't it therefore a requirement that we as a group look into why, so that we can spread the message properly. I don't think just saying its all about a new world order is easily digested by most people.

Anyway, just my opinion.

Thanks for listening.

skeptical

[ian neal]

[Pikey]

Ian Neal states:-

[who murdered di ?]

"9-11 conspiracy" is just like when a car owner starts to have money worries (losing grip of money etc due to external influences) and the onwer has to get money quick ("LEGALLY"). What do they do ! organize for thier car to be stolen for insurance money, There you have it, a motive for a conspiracy. Just like 9-11 but 9-11 involves everyone in a bigger scale. Just a thought !

[skeptical]

Hi Ian and co,

I think you're right. Oil is probably just one of many reasons. But whatever the motive, 9/11 should be exposed as the crime of the century.

Just thought I'd leave you with something from the BBC yesterday. Makes interesting reading whatever your view.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648710.stm

[who murdered di ?]

Good link there "skeptical" as its about the most open minded one i have read on BBC. Also i will give you all another scenario ! I have friends who work with an electric making company which there wages pay for there mortgage, food, car, petrol etc..... and when i even mention other possible forms of energy they go into a blind panic as my mere suggestion of other forms of energy. It is obvious what happems when this topic is discussed. They think to thereselves "My future is reliant on the `Now sytstem`and if anyone takes this away from me then they are my enemy" i.e. They have tooo much to lose in terms of there future (How many men are told to leave there family home due to becoming unemployed !) as they are the bread winners in there families. Also what has been said to me many times by friends, "Do you think for a minute that i have studied for years and stayed in many nights to get the qualifications that i needed to get that job and have all that personal effort to be taken away from us due to a new energy system ! NO CHANCE !" In other words the system in Britain meaningfully engineer this type of thinking in terms of qualifications (within the british systems CHOSEN energy product) and when people pass theses qualifications then they by default become sort of under the spell of the blue print (subject) of which they studied. Therefore, they protect it (blue print) wrightly or wrongly ! Just a thought.

[skeptical]

Sorry to carry on with the debate over peak oil but just wanted to share this info with you. The more I read about peak oil the more it makes sense to me.

This is a list of countries with relevant official start dates and peak dates of oil production. Since most of these have peaked already, it does make one a little worried.

This info comes from ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil). You can see that the US peaked in 1971 (as Hubbert predicted), UK in 1999 and so on. Iraq won't peak until 2025 due to the restriction in output.

Thanks,

Skeptical

Austria,1947,1955
Germany,1952,1966
Venezuela,1941,1970
Libya,1961,1970
Ukraine,1962,1970
Bahrain,1932,1970
US-48,1930,1971
Canada,1958,1973
Turkmenistan,1964,1973
Iran,1961,1974
Romania,1857,1976
Indonesia,1945,1977
Algeria,1956,1978
Trinidad,1959,1978
Brunei,1929,1978
Tunisia,1971,1981
Chile,1960,1982
Peru,1861,1983
Albania,1928,1983
Brasil,1975,1986
Cameroon,1977,1986
Russia,1960,1987
Netherlands,1980,1987
Hungary,1964,1987
Croatia,1950,1988
France,1958,1988
Dubai,1970,1991
Turkey,1969,1991
Pakistan,1983,1992
Papua,1987,1993
Egypt,1965,1995
Syria,1966,1995
Gabon,1985,1996
Argentina,1960,1998
Angola,1971,1998
Uzbekistan,1992,1998
Sharjah,1980,1998
UK,1974,1999
Colombia,1992,1999
Yemen,1978,1999
Australia,1967,2000
Norway,1979,2001
Oman,1962,2001
Congo,1984,2001
China,1959,2003
N.Zone,1951,2003
Mexico,1977,2004
Nigeria,1967,2004
Qatar,1940,2004
India,1974,2004
Malaysia,1973,2004
Ecuador,1969,2004
Denmark,1971,2004
Italy,1981,2004
Vietnam,1975,2005
Sudan,1980,2005
Thailand,1981,2005
Chad,1977,2008
Azerbaijan,1871,2009
Bolivia,1966,2010
Saudi Arabia,1948,2013
Kuwait,1938,2015
Abu Dhabi,1964,2021
Iraq,1928,2025
Kazakhstan,2000,2030

WORLD,1964,2004

[ianrcrane]

Why Is Bush Running Away From Oil?

By Jerome Corsi - co-author (along with Craig R. Smith) of Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil.

Feb 8, 2006

In his State of the Union speech, President Bush asked America to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy" because he evidently buys into "peak oil" theories that we inevitably must run out of oil. Since we are taught to believe that oil is "fossil fuel" and there had to be a finite number of dinosaurs, inevitably we must run out of oil too.

Fears that we are "running out of" a critical energy can be traced back to the English coal scare and the 1865 publication of The Coal Question, a book written by one of the 19th century's greatest scientists, W. Stanley Jevons. The argument was that England's dominance in the industrial revolution was doomed because at then-current consumption rates the world would soon be out of coal. Jevons was famously wrong; he completely missed completely that inventors would find cheaper ways to get more difficult to mine coal out of the ground, or that transportation engineers would come up with cheaper ways to move the coal economically over longer distances.

Today, "peak oil" theorists are repeating the classic mistake of viewing hydrocarbon fuels as a finite resource that must inevitably be expended. Maybe oil is not an infinite resource, but we need to think of hydrocarbon fuels an "open system." Economist Julian Simon argued a decade ago that we will never run out of oil, not because oil availability is unlimited, but because the resource is truly not a fixed resource. Human creativity and technological innovation today make more hydrocarbon fuels economically available, recovered from deeper levels within the earth and transported efficiently across greater distances.

Today the fastest growing sector of the oil industry involves deep-drilling, at depths three miles or more below the surface of the earth, including a boom in worldwide off-shore drilling that a decade ago was unimaginable. Russia and Vietnam have formed a joint-venture in which they are recovering off-shore oil from basement rock that is volcanic in nature. The U.S. Department of Energy has launched a "Deep Trek" project to recover abundant natural gas within the continental U.S. at depths of 15,000 feet or more.

Moreover, we are getting increasing confirmation that hydrocarbon fuels form inorganically. NASA just confirmed that the probe which landed on Saturn’s giant moon, Titan, has found abundant abiotic methane. No one yet has argued that Titan had little dinosaurs (or ancient forests, or plankton, or any other type of organic material) that formed the natural gas we find there.

In saying that America is "addicted to oil," President Bush has bought the conventional wisdom of the political Left hook, line, and sinker. Rather than focus on bio-fuels that require the expenditure of more hydrocarbon fuels to produce than is saved, an innovation that merits consideration is natural gas. Liquefied natural gas receives little play from the mainstream media because it is still a hydrocarbon which the political Left hates. Nuclear power is yet another serviceable energy unpopular to the political Left. Still, today many European cities are powered by nuclear power plants two or three generations more modern than the nuclear plants we have allowed to be built in America.

Oil companies are making record $100 billion annual profits not because oil is scarce, but because we believe it is. The government's own data do not validate the conclusion that we are running out of oil. The Energy Information Administration documents proven oil reserves have continued to increase worldwide, to a current historically-high level of 1.28 trillion barrels, despite world oil consumption increasing by 60 percent since 1970. The truth is that at $55 dollars a barrel or higher, we will have abundant oil and natural gas for as far into the future as anyone can see. Would someone please explain to President Bush that the "peak oil" theory is a classic energy resource hoax?

Source: www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12297

[brian]

This does not undermine the abiotic argument but it certainly questions the objectivity of the author Jerome Corsi.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

[James C]