Peak Oil and 911

[clv101]

Major peakniks such as Mike Ruppert, Colin Campbell, Matt Savinar and Richard Heinberg all take the view that the two are linked.

And it hasn't helped their mainstream appeal at all. The biggest challenge peak oil faces is lack of awareness and acceptance amongst the population at large. Intertwining 911 and peak oil discussion (as intertwined as they may be) doesn't help with the challenge of raising awareness of and moving the discussion on to response to peak oil. Isn't that the main objective of PowerSwitch and all of us?

Cost, benefit analysis, the cost is the number of people who dismiss the peak oil message due to the association of the messengers with the 911 conspiracy, what's the benefit?

[Bozzio]

Major peakniks such as Mike Ruppert, Colin Campbell, Matt Savinar and Richard Heinberg all take the view that the two are linked.

And it hasn't helped their mainstream appeal at all.

Are you honestly suggesting that these people have not helped to raise awareness of PO regardless of their viewpoint on 9/11!? I find that an astonishingly arrogant comment to make.

Can I remind people that this forum is not the sole tool by which Powerswitch promotes the issue of PO. It is merely the place to discuss all the subjects connected with PO from buying gold, to growing food, to the extremes of political thinking. I would like to see your evidence that this thread is in any way endagering the PowerSwitch cause. Can I ask what the benefit is to the promotion of PO by discussing the buying of gold for instance? I would like an answer to that.

[clv101]

Major peakniks such as Mike Ruppert, Colin Campbell, Matt Savinar and Richard Heinberg all take the view that the two are linked.

And it hasn't helped their mainstream appeal at all.

Are you honestly suggesting that these people have not helped to raise awareness of PO regardless of their viewpoint on 9/11!? I find that an astonishingly arrogant comment to make.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all, these people and a few others are almost solely responsible for getting the message where it is today, apologies if I led you to believe I thought different.

My point was that their association with 911 hasn't helped their peak oil case, I think they would have had more success with the mainstream had they not talked about 911. I have first hand experience from someone I gave Heinberg?s books to, they read the books then a few weeks latter came back and rubbished the guy due to the politics in the books. The peak oil message was lost since the reader had no respect for Heinberg?s politics.

Many of people I know who know of Ruppert dismiss much of what he says due to his association with conspiracy theories. I?m sure Campbell and Heinberg would have more success with the mainstream if they weren?t so heavy on the politics. What about Campbell?s recent DVD that starts with a visit by US intelligence agency or something? those first few minutes weaken the incredibly important message Campbell is trying to get across in the rest of the film.

Look at the success Matt Simmons has had ? best selling peak oil author (also in business bestseller lists), regularly on TV, radio and mainstream conferences. He has creditability since he sticks to the point and doesn?t lose people along the way by suggesting the US administration blew up the World Trade Centre.

[Bozzio]

Hi clv101,

You make fair points and I agree with you entirely about Simmons.

I do disagree about the others losing ground because of their association with outside politics. Heinberg for instance is very careful in the way he approaches the subject. If you were not aware of the alternative conclusions to 9/11 and read Powerdown, you would miss the reference completely. It is not there directly. In 'The Party's Over' it is not there at all so maybe you gave your friend the wrong book or your friend cannot tolerate politics of any kind.

Similarly, Campbells telling of the CIA story has nothing to do with 9/11 and for me highlights how significant the PO campaign is to the US secret services. Why shouldn't we be allowed to talk about this stuff? I thought it was one of the most interesting bits in that film and since I distribute the DVD's for Powerswitch and occasionally enter into correspondence with the purchasers of these by email, I know that a few others have found that event fascinating also.

I'm sure Tess will consider this a fallacious argument but considering the interest this thread has generated I don't think you could call me foolish for thinking it is a topic that has struck a few chords with people. Maybe it has annoyed them, maybe not, but there are plenty of other discussions to be had if the former is true. The aim of this thread is not to rile people but to examine the very simple association which may or may not exist between 9/11 and PO. I fail to see what is wrong with that and why myself and others should be so vehemently attacked for it.

[Bandidoz]

There are some PO authors that get involved with the Geopolitics. There are others who do not. Each author is going to appeal to a different audience. If people don't like "The Party's Over", then show them "The Long Emergency".....

[RevdTess]

I'm sure Tess will consider this a fallacious argument but considering the interest this thread has generated I don't think you could call me foolish for thinking it is a topic that has struck a few chords with people.

It is an interesting topic and worth discussing. The question is however, "Should we discuss it on powerswitch or elsewhere."

For myself I'm quite interested in discussing whether the collapse of the top few floors of the towers had the force necessary to collapse the rest of the floors in a series of explosive compressions, or whether deliberate demolition was required. That seems to come down to which experts you believe, and that's pretty much where my investigation into 911 comes to a halt, because I can't feasibly make that judgement. Similarly with Building 7. Looks like demolition to me, but what do I know? Experts are divided. Who to believe? No idea.

At least with peak oil, the moment of truth is coming (like it or not).

[Bozzio]

For myself I'm quite interested in discussing whether the collapse of the top few floors of the towers had the force necessary to collapse the rest of the floors in a series of explosive compressions, or whether deliberate demolition was required.

Hi Tess,

This link might help. This was posted by marknorthfield a few pages back so you might have seen it already. The author is Steven Jones who is a physicist based at Brigham University in Utah. It also helps to answer the question you asked earlier about the significance of the antenna dropping first on the North Tower.

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

There is also a presentation of this research by Steven Jones himself on this site which includes many other pieces of interesting analysis.

http://www.st911.org/

[RevdTess]

Hi Tess,

This link might help. This was posted by marknorthfield a few pages back so you might have seen it already. The author is Steven Jones who is a physicist based at Brigham University in Utah. It also helps to answer the question you asked earlier about the significance of the antenna dropping first on the North Tower.

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

Cool thanks. I didn't quite get around to reading that earlier. I expect that in the end it'll get down to whether I believe a physicist over a structural engineer or an architect over a demolitions expert... and there are probably many of each on both sides... but I'll hold fire on that until I've read the piece.

[Bandidoz]

I'm sure Tess will consider this a fallacious argument but considering the interest this thread has generated I don't think you could call me foolish for thinking it is a topic that has struck a few chords with people.

It is an interesting topic and worth discussing.....

*cough* I didn't write that

[marknorthfield]

Well I'm glad the gratuitous insults and calls for censorship seem to have stopped flying about - it was all starting to get rather depressing.

Thanks for drawing attention to the Steven Jones link again Bozzio. I do think it's a pivotal one for reasons I stated before: it comes from someone with relevant intellectual credentials who stands a chance of being taken seriously; it is also a fairly recent development. The professor has clearly thought through the subject very carefully having not been satisfied by the official reports of FEMA and NIST, and he is calling for an investigation pursuing all appropriate lines of enquiry by a cross-disciplinary, international body of suitable experts with access to documentary evidence not currently in the public domain.

Another point I made earlier which is probably worth making again in the light of Tess' comment about not knowing who to believe: any sufficiently controversial scientific work is likely to cause problems on a personal and/or institutional level, therefore it stands to reason that there will be self-censorship going on within the scientific community. Most experts value their reputation (their jobs, their families, their life...) after all. Conversely, it may well be that studies defending the status quo are 'encouraged'. It is always worth bearing this in mind when weighing up contrasting arguments and the numbers of people supporting either side.

Of course, if this body of experts he is calling for were to end up persuading prevailing scientific opinion to tip in favour of controlled demolition, it would be utterly astonishing. But perhaps the science might become impossible to ignore. Who knows?

(In case any casual browsers are thinking - 'Surely FEMA and NIST consist of experts?' Ah yes, but their funding came from the US government and, most curiously, they came to contradictory conclusions. But never mind all that... Have you noticed all the other wonderful topics covered in this here forum? Go on, sneek a peak - it's very educational!)

[RevdTess]

I'm sure Tess will consider this a fallacious argument but considering the interest this thread has generated I don't think you could call me foolish for thinking it is a topic that has struck a few chords with people.

It is an interesting topic and worth discussing.....

*cough* I didn't write that

Sorry. Fixed in my post.