Peak Oil and 911

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 26 Feb 2006, 21:51

It's quite obvious that you haven't even looked at the analysis put forward by those claiming the buildings were demolished or you might be aware of a number of facts that make the aircraft collision the cause of the collapse implausible, but I won't bother you with them as it's quite clear you've closed your mind on the subject.

EDIT: (for what it's worth)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 26 Feb 2006, 21:59

Hi andyh,

With due respect, you obviously know nothing about how buildings work, how they collapse, how fire spreads throughout buildings and what significance smoke has. It is clear that you haven't seen the full evidence.

If you do know all of these things and can pull the conspiracists arguments apart then I am all ears but please don't patronise me and the thousands like me who have investigated, read and written about 9/11 in depth and who don't share the official Hollywood style stunt.

I am sorry if it annoys you when others tell you that you have been fooled but I am afraid that you have.

Occams razor applies very well here. Since no building has ever collapsed vertically downwards into its own footprint destroying it entirely except for the Twin Towers, WTC building 7 and all those buildings which have been 'pulled' via professional demolition, Occams razor says the Twin Towers and WTC building 7 must have been a controlled demolition also.

It is the US governments ham-fistedness with 9/11 that has led to the evidence being criticised in the way that it has. If you care to look at what people say you might be a little surprised.

andyh · Post by **andyh** » 26 Feb 2006, 22:23

On a slightly different note a mate was asking at a party what the most recent data was on the character traits associated with those who are instinctive consumers of conspiracy theories. He reckoned he'd seen an article in an old human behaviour tome (he's a molecular neurochemist) which grouped 'susceptibility to conspiracy theorising' (his words) with various other personality traits, belief systems etc. I guess coming from his background he was interested in the potential biochemistry behind it all - its amazing how the human genetics guys are pulling all this sort of stuff together with the aid of the genome project. Any of you folks got any links to this area as I reckon you might be well informed about this sort of thing too?

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 26 Feb 2006, 22:46

andyh wrote:On a slightly different note a mate was asking at a party what the most recent data was on the character traits associated with those who are instinctive consumers of conspiracy theories. He reckoned he'd seen an article in an old human behaviour tome (he's a molecular neurochemist) which grouped 'susceptibility to conspiracy theorising' (his words) with various other personality traits, belief systems etc. I guess coming from his background he was interested in the potential biochemistry behind it all - its amazing how the human genetics guys are pulling all this sort of stuff together with the aid of the genome project. Any of you folks got any links to this area as I reckon you might be well informed about this sort of thing too?

Frequently conspiracy theorists get accused of magical thinking, which is a real enough phenomenon in human psychology. In the case of questioning (or the inability to question) the official version of 9/11 I think the myth of The Emperor's New Clothes provides a good approximation of the groupthink necessary to perpetuate widespread belief in something demonstrably false.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 26 Feb 2006, 22:55

Andyh makes me look positively open-minded

That said, I do still agree with his point that this thread doesn't belong on a peak oil site, fascinating though it may be.

andyh · Post by **andyh** » 26 Feb 2006, 23:07

Indeed Tess; I am but the vessel by which your glory and brilliance can be reflected and magnified........

Yep I agree Tess - surely the site admin folk should shunt this thread off to one of those 'if its tuesday it must be NASA faked the moonlandings conspiracy thread' sites?

EDIT; actually even the most cursory search of the internet reveals articles that demolish (if you'll pardon the pun), the 9/11 conspiracies....

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y

dr_doom · Post by **dr_doom** » 26 Feb 2006, 23:12

andyh wrote:One thing that always make me laugh about these sort of theories is that the evidence of gross incompetence whenever governments get up to dirty tricks are all around us; think of US attempts over 30 years to kill Castro, think of their ham-fisted interferences in Latin American countries, think of the French blowing up Rainbow Warrior. At one level we are encouraged to laugh at the yanks (in particular) because of their obvious incompetences (and boy do we laugh along), and then at another level we are to believe that no in actual fact there are super secret, super efficient forces which never get found out, never leak and always get things right, and are constantly succeeding in 9/11 sort of episodes. Yeah right.

On some level you could say 9 11 was a bit of a cockup; otherwise there might not be such a *massive* movement calling for truth to be publicly acknowledged on the issue.

You'd think the planners would check whether it is actually physically possible to make a cell phone call from a moving aircraft before arranging for victims to call their relatives during the hijacking *using cellphones*. Doh!

You'd think someone would tell Larry Silverstein not to admit on tv that he "pulled" his building.

And you would think that someone might be smart enough to consider that if the official story that's going to be put out is that a plane crashed into the pentagon then that's what should be used, and not a missile.

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 26 Feb 2006, 23:53

I have to say I agree to a large extent. 9/11 is only tangentially related to Peak Oil, although it clearly forms a big piece of the jigsaw in many peoples minds regarding current geopolitics. Personally I came to question the official explanation of 9/11 after I became convinced of the importance of Peak Oil. One of the main obstacles to the conspiracist view of 9/11 was firstly the audacity of it all, and secondly the difficulty of establishing a credible motive that would make it worth the risk. I'm less bothered by these matters now; the motive seems obvious and I think the risk taken by the conspirators was substantially less than you might intuitively believe if you understand history and group psychology. As I said before, I simply don't think it's possible for a functioning society to come to terms with such a crime (at least until it has receded into history a little) which even if it has parallels in the past is unparalleled in its sheer scale and audacity.

On the other hand I'm actually fairly convinced that Peak Oil and its full significance will completely blindside the vast majority of people in spite of the heroic efforts of Peak Oil promoters on and offline. Like 9/11 its full truth is too ugly for mainstream opinion to come to terms with. I would like to be proved wrong, that like climate change, Peak Oil could become an issue that our society can engage with, if not solve, but I suspect that it's already too late to do much more than brace for the impact.

That said it's obvious that someone skeptical of Peak Oil is probably going to be looking out for anything which might discredit it, hence association with a movement/subculture that lacks mainstream credibility is obviously a hindrance in the PR battle.

That said I'm here to debate and discuss with like minded (hopefully that means open-minded) individuals, so a good part of me couldn't care less if we put off people who are already looking for an excuse to reject what they're reading, or mentally file Peak Oil under 'space aliens and fake moon landing conspiracies', although such a person could have been me a couple of years ago.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 27 Feb 2006, 00:08

andyh wrote:Indeed Tess; I am but the vessel by which your glory and brilliance can be reflected and magnified........

Oooh, harsh... but true

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 27 Feb 2006, 00:44

andyh wrote: EDIT; actually even the most cursory search of the internet reveals articles that demolish (if you'll pardon the pun), the 9/11 conspiracies....

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y

I thoroughly disagree. Firstly there's no consensus within the 911 truth movement about the precise details or explanations. However pieces such as that above are actually rather flimsy when you break them down. For example the official explanations for the collapse of WTC7 practically require the re-writing of physics they're so full of holes. The collapse was perfectly symmetrical, when the damage explanation is both unproveable and obviously asymmetrical. There's no mention or attempt to debunk the widely reported evidence of molten metal (weeks after the collapse) in the ruins, something which is utterly inconsistent with a collapse due to simple heat stressed steel.

The principle point I would make is that there are numerous such anomalies in the physical and photgraphic and video evidence. I would have expected a much more thorugh public debate about what caused the collapses than has actually happened, especially when such collapses are unprecedented and have substantial implications for the safety of existing structures. Instead the evidence of this crime - and this was surely a crime scence if ever there was one - was simply carted off and destroyed without forensic examination.

Regardless, as I'm not a structural engineer or a physicist I'm more inclined to contemplate the enormous amount of circumstantial evidence that has lead me to believe that even breathtaking incompetance cannot explain the deliberate obstruction of investigations within the FBI that could have stopped the attacks dead in their tracks, the failure to heed repeated and specific warnings (52!), mysterious multiple wargames excercises that can only have created confusion and paralysis in the FAA and NORAD on September 11th itself. Much of this evidence is in the public domain staring us in the face. The official conspiracy theory simply does not make sense. 'The system was flashing red all summer' said the official 9/11 report, and this was the response? No, I'm sorry, it won't fly.

marknorthfield · Post by **marknorthfield** » 27 Feb 2006, 01:34

Does a discussion of 9/11 merit being on a site about Peak Oil awareness? That depends on whether or not you choose to tie in the 'war which will not end in our lifetimes' (to which it gave, and continues to give, the green light) with geopolitical strategies to secure future energy supplies. I suspect most of us here would make that connection, whatever our theories may be as to how it came to pass. The interest is unsurprising considering the enormity of the event and the passions it rouses, but it remains merely one topic out of many on this site.

Does it put people off? A few, perhaps, and it's their problem. This forum has a huge amount of intelligent discourse going on, and if they cannot take the time and effort to appreciate this simply because one particular topic has upset their assumptions, then why are they bothering to look in the first place?

Is the Popular Mechanics article worth reading? Yes, as an object lesson in how to tar a whole group of people with the same 'loony' tag through misrepresentations, omissions and downright idiocy. A fair analysis of it can be found at http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html (Whilst clearly not in the same vindictive league as the PM article, the Economist's 'Bottomless Beer Mug' a year or so ago left a similarly sour taste.)

Enough already - I need to go to bed...

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 27 Feb 2006, 06:33

andyh wrote:I dont actually feel it helps the peakoil cause that much, as a recent partial convert to peakoil whom I had convinced to visit the site e-mailed me back to say she thought some of the 'nutty speculation' (her words I hasten to add) here (she was referring to this thread, hence my visit) turned her right off (for the record she is the head of a civil engineering concern, and an architect).

Well, this site contain an enormous amount of information and links, and the forum is just a small part of it. If someone browse this site, find the forums, and finally find this single thread, and use it as an excuse to dismiss the entire site, that person was actually just looking for a reason to dismiss the entire concept of PeakOil.

According to my experience, most people fight with everything they have to be able to stay in denial. I would guess that something like 99 out of 100 who encounter this site will get the hell out of here as fast as they possibly can, without even bothering to invent a reason, and I think it is futile to attempt to convert them. Deniual is strong stuff.

On a sidenote, the Popular Mechanics thing is the ONLY semi-official attempt I found to argue with alternate-conspiracy theory on 9/11. Please remember that the official explanation also is a conspiracy theory.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 27 Feb 2006, 09:47

andyh wrote:On a slightly different note a mate was asking at a party what the most recent data was on the character traits associated with those who are instinctive consumers of conspiracy theories. He reckoned he'd seen an article in an old human behaviour tome (he's a molecular neurochemist) which grouped 'susceptibility to conspiracy theorising' (his words) with various other personality traits, belief systems etc. I guess coming from his background he was interested in the potential biochemistry behind it all - its amazing how the human genetics guys are pulling all this sort of stuff together with the aid of the genome project. Any of you folks got any links to this area as I reckon you might be well informed about this sort of thing too?

Hi andyh,

I value your opinion but I do think that it is important that you look at the evidence for yourself rather than seeking the influence of your friends. In that way you might just learn something. Sorry to sound so critical.

I wonder what your neurochemist friend would say about the traits of those who follow PO theory compared with the millions of people who don't. There are those who see PO as a conspiracy created by the oil companies and they have a very good point. How would you argue that? Would you ask them to look at the evidence? Mmmm I imagine you would. However you feel fit to attack others for daring to talk about this stuff and its possible link with resource wars and so on without knowing a jot about it.

Isn't it amazing how we are here to raise awareness about PO and that many of us criticize the lack of political support for this cause, accusing politicians and others of continuing to lead us down a path that will ultimately bring great suffering, destruction and death and yet cannot tolerate the idea that a government would have murdered its own people on 9/11. The two concepts don't tally. And please don't say that you don't agree with me here since you yourself have moved to NZ to get away from such possibilities. Who can be seen to be crazy now....move to the other side of the world because of a theory!

You may not like what is talked about on this thread but it is only one thread among hundreds and one could argue that the massive interest it has raised so far in such a short space of time has possibly attracted many more subscribers to PO than the number it is has lost, if any. If your architect friend is genuinely interested in PO then a few post about 9/11 shouldn't phase that person. They are free to ignore it in this democratic world.

Please look at the evidence yourself and take time to understand why it is so critical before attacking others. Are all these people wrong?

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/ ... i?11601TFS

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 27 Feb 2006, 12:54

Bozzio wrote:Are all these people wrong?

fallacious argument: Appeal to majority. Nil points! You won't convince people with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_belief

SILVERHARP2 · Post by **SILVERHARP2** » 27 Feb 2006, 13:27

One side point on this, I bought Colin Campbells latest book and he has a page where he lists out the conspiracy as if it is a widely held fact, I was disappointed as I thought it undermined the credability of his book, he is speaking in Dublin in April and would love to ask why he put that page in.

Ive seen the issue trashed out on various websides and I am none the wiser, to be honest it doesn't matter either way, as it's a past event and only uses up valuable "brain time" that could be used researching other topics.