Moderator: Peak Moderation
Well said.EmptyBee wrote:However, when it comes to talking geopolitics, there's no getting away from some fundamental truths - blood will almost certainly be shed over the rest of the oil, and we will continue to be lied to.
You misread what I wrote.Bozzio wrote:How can the killing of tens of thousands of innocent children, women and men not to mention 3000+ soldiers be a good thing? Assuming the scenario was the other way around I would hate to see my children blown to pieces just so that another country can take our resources.Bandidoz wrote:Sorry but that is naive. In a way, the Iraq war was good in so far as it made a "soon" Global Peak Oil a whole lot more believable to many people. Energy policy on display to the world.
That's a very poor way of promoting or marketing Peak Oil theory. I prefer to stick to facts and figures in books and on the internet. Much more peaceful.
No one should ever say that war is a good thing! That's naive.
Look at this excerpt from The PNAC's report Rebuilding America's Defences. Page 51 ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf )Bandidoz wrote:I wrote that it's naive to suggest that the Iraq war wouldn't have happened if masses of people had uncovered 9/11 and made a fuss over it.
The process of transformation they talk about here is a military one, one ready to prove American world dominance especially in the Persian Gulf and Indonesia.Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor.
As soon as those planes penetrated the buildings, it was 99.9% job done. If it happened again tomorrow, the result will be the same. We'd be branded "terrorist loving liberals" and treated with utter contempt (I was called a moron by 99% of people when I dared to suggest that the US were going to embark on sequential war at midday 11/9/2001). The lesson from history is that we don't learn from history.Bozzio wrote:What they are saying is no 9/11 = no leverage to allow an Iraq invasion to happen. Likewise, one can argue, if 9/11 had been exposed for what it is, a scam, the propoganda over Saddam and WMD might not have been so easy to use. I don't think I'm being naive in saying that.
You are absolutely right here. I couldn't agree more.Bandidoz wrote:The lesson from history is that we don't learn from history.
I have seen them. There is a link on PO.com. The link showed film of the front of the Pentagon asking questions like "Where is the wreckage" - then there would be some funky music and then a voice from a witness would come and say "it sounded like a missile " etc etcMost of the answers to your questions can be found in the free DVD's I'm offering. The visual evidence is quite stunning - certainly raises a lot of questions which one cannot deny run counter to the story we've been told. There's lots of stuff in those documentaries that you won't even know exists, unless you watch them. It includes accounts by many witnesses talking about their involvement but who have been silenced by law.
I heard of PO through LATOC initially but then researched it on the basis of the science and geology. NOT through crackpots like Ruppert. The evidence is solid for PO, unlike many conspiracy theories. You only have to look at the oil producers in decline to work out that the sum of all the producers will take a similiar shape (up , peak then decline - no brainer)I agree. So tell me, how did you find out about PO? Did someone tell you or did you read a book, or both I wonder? Can you believe everything you've read about PO because many people will knock PO theory as being BS. Who is right, you or them? How do you convince others that PO is real - show them a copy of The End of Suburbia or give them a book such as The Party's Over? Are these to be believed or should we only accept what the PTB tells us? If it's the latter case then PO doesn't exist. Has Bush stated it to be true. Has Blair? Get my point?
We will. But I will tell you what, to be fair, if the US invades Iran as per the PNAC strategy and "Axis of Evil" strategy, I will change my position more towards yours. Particularly if the justification for it is a 9/11 type event.I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. Thanks for at least showing some passion.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
and the second, a response to the article above, titled 'Was 911 a hoax?'Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
Please have a read. These guys aren't crazy.Frankly, I was appalled at what I read and heard from this man. I found it difficult to believe that he wasn't right. The thought flickered into my mind that I might live in a country run by a bunch of mass murderers.
Which I rejected. Not on rational grounds, on emotional ones. I guess my feeling is that if the light goes out in the United States, maybe mankind is a failed species. It's that large an issue, and if our leaders did indeed cause this catastrophe in order to juice their popularity ratings and cement themselves in power, that is a tragedy of historic proportions. Along with the collapse of the Roman republic and the transformation of Weimar Germany into the Nazi dictatorship, it is one of the great subversions of an institutional republic.
This is really groundbreaking. That Yahoo carry the story that is. MSM has shunned this completely until now. I'm encouraged. The Internet is a true revolution. This kind of public dissemination of a subject was simply not possible 20 years ago.Bozzio wrote:Ok, Ok, I know I should stop harping on about this issue on this forum but since Totally_Baffled and I spent a weekend in hot debate over the truth about 9/11 I thought I'd just post a couple of articles that have appeared in the last few days.
The first from Yahoo news titled 'Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/ ... eb339303_5
Yahoo is up there with msn, google and all the other popular news/ search engine style sites. You cannot just submit anything, there is an editorial team.clv101 wrote:I guess I'm asking how mainstream is Yahoo?
Well, the office building I sit in now contain sh*tloads of cabling and infrastructure stuff I don't see. When it comes to WTC 7, occams razor say "explosives".Totally_Baffled wrote:So these guys quote the "controlled demolition theory"
Are you telling nobody not involved in the plot would not of noticed the shedloads of wires and charges wired up all over the 3 buildings to enable a controlled collapse?
Any explosive experts out there?
I suggest it would take a lot of explosives, man power and time to set such a thing up?
I really do wish you'd take up my offer TB. It will help you to see my point.Totally_Baffled wrote:Are you telling nobody not involved in the plot would not of noticed the shedloads of wires and charges wired up all over the 3 buildings to enable a controlled collapse?
Any explosive experts out there?
I suggest it would take a lot of explosives, man power and time to set such a thing up?
or hereBen Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower.
How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on.
Unusual evacuations and security checks. Strange. And who was in control of security for the WTC? Securacom, who was headed by GW's brother, Marvin.Security personnel at the WTC are working extra-long shifts because of numerous phone threats. However, on this day bomb-sniffing dogs are abruptly removed. Security further drops right before 9/11. WTC guard Daria Coard says in an interview later on the day of 9/11: ?Today was the first day there was not the extra security.?
