Monbiot - Reappraisal at Heathrow

[Bozzio]

Have you spoken to oil industry execs in Saudi on a one to one basis about PO?

When I first heard about Peak Oil I suspected that the PO web sites might simply be juvenile junk.

Accordingly I spent some of my hard earned money and attended the "Oil Depletion" event last year at the Energy Institute in London in order to see if industry professionals had ever heard of Peak Oil, and if they believed in it.

I was prepared to hear them laugh it off ... but in fact the presenters were all convinced of Peak Oil .. although the dates varied a bit.

The scariest bit was the UK government representative saying that they couldn't deal with Peak Oil at the moment because they were finding it hard enough to keep natural gas flowing into the UK on a day-to-day basis!

Much more importantly, during the coffee & lunch breaks I chatted with the attendees ... many/most of whom were from the major oil companies. I asked THEM if they thought that Peak Oil was real ... and, yes, they did.

A few months later a friend introduced me to a millionaire who owns a big chunk of Alberta. I asked HIM if he thought Peak Oil was real. He didn't answer for a while, but eventually said: "My people have estimated Peak Oil will arrive in 2008".

So, yes, I have made a fair attempt to check out the Peak Oil story .. using sources apart from the web ... in fact talking to real grown-ups in the oil & gas industries.

Likewise, I have spoken to all sorts of grown ups from many different professions who seek questions to the 9/11 story. I have seen this man, William Rodriguez, talk about his first hand experience of that day during his UK tour this year.

You nitpicking is getting very boring and shows a strong sense of desperation.

[clv101]

If the situation is so serious, how can Monbiot cut loose the PO element of the debate and suggest it doesn't matter, when clearly it does?

Probably the same way most people don't consider peak oil - nothing special about Monbiot in that regard.

So why listen to Monbiot at all?

Not sure I do... See my critical response to him here:
http://transitionculture.org/2007/04/23 ... e-monbiot/

Anyway - we won't get very far in life if we only listen to people who share our exact world view! To his credit Monbiot has done a lot of good raising awareness of the climate change issue.

[Bozzio]

Probably the same way most people don't consider peak oil - nothing special about Monbiot in that regard.

So why listen to Monbiot at all?

Not sure I do... See my critical response to him here:
http://transitionculture.org/2007/04/23 ... e-monbiot/

Anyway - we won't get very far in life if we only listen to people who share our exact world view! To his credit Monbiot has done a lot of good raising awareness of the climate change issue.

Agreed, he has and I am aware of the response to Monbiot you posted on your website earlier this year.

Still, he is one of the best known figures in the climate change lobby and yet he is not giving the full picture. I just wonder why.

[clv101]

Still, he is one of the best known figures in the climate change lobby and yet he is not giving the full picture. I just wonder why.

We can't all be perfect!

[kenneal - lagger]

... in fact talking to real grown-ups in the oil & gas industries.

Bitchy

You nitpicking is getting very boring and shows a strong sense of desperation.

Equally Bitchy

[Vortex]

... in fact talking to real grown-ups in the oil & gas industries.

Bitchy

Bozzio simply needs a wake up call. A short, sharp shock.

Why do I know this?

Well, many, many moons ago in my early 20s I spent two years of my student life obsessing about a certain UK government "secret operation".

I spent all my spare time deep in the archives of government offices, daily newspapers etc, I also spent a lot of time doing - err, cough - "field work".

Sure, I did find out about many of the details of this secret activity ... but gave up when two armed goons shooed me away during some of my "field work". That scared me I must admit!

However later on in my career I actually started to see these secret activities from the inside. They turned out to be tatty pointless schemes run by bored civil servants, purely as a duty to the state.

I learned from this:

1. You need to do DAYS of boring legwork to find out the details of anything "interesting". If I had access to the web in those days, I doubt that it would have helped much. The REAL goodies are tucked away in a boring paragraph of a government memo jammed into a grubby box file marked "Misc Memos".

2. The whole exercise is a waste of time anyway. Most activities of the state seem to be boring and mundane, even if given a fancy titles such as "Integrated Scenario Plans"

3. During my government-related work, I did come across a few truly amazing "secrets" ... of Frederick Forsyth quality ... but again, if revealed, these would have only filled the papers for a day or two.

4. The world is FULL of secrets ... just think of every criminal & military operation, worry, precaution etc. Each one will spawn a raft of activity ... it's the job of THOUSANDS of civil servants to do this stuff, day after day, year on year.

5. The state couldn't organise a truly major conspiracy if it tried. The truth would quickly leak out, especially if the plot was something huge & unpleasant like a 9/11 set-up.

I suppose I had an interesting hobby for two years .. but I am fairly sure that I should have been doing something more useful with my time.

I was simply an obsessed youngster with too much time on his hands.

At least I actually DID something to find the data I sought. I travelled MILES on my quest. I didn't simply download second-hand sensationalist shite from the web and then pass it around willy nilly.

I must have bored the pants off everyone I discussed "The Secret" with.

The whole exercise taught me how to research data (in the pre Web era) and also how to climb barbed wire fences ... but that's about it.

It's fun imagining that you are "special" by being one of those "in the know" ... but real grown-up life is better ....

[clv101]

Very good points Vortex, however you can't expect us to let you write all that without us wondering what had you so intrigued all those years ago. What was it?

[Bozzio]

... in fact talking to real grown-ups in the oil & gas industries.

Bitchy

Bozzio simply needs a wake up call. A short, sharp shock.

Why do I know this?

Well, many, many moons ago in my early 20s I spent two years of my student life obsessing about a certain UK government "secret operation".

I spent all my spare time deep in the archives of government offices, daily newspapers etc, I also spent a lot of time doing - err, cough - "field work".

Sure, I did find out about many of the details of this secret activity ... but gave up when two armed goons shooed me away during some of my "field work". That scared me I must admit!

However later on in my career I actually started to see these secret activities from the inside. They turned out to be tatty pointless schemes run by bored civil servants, purely as a duty to the state.

I learned from this:

1. You need to do DAYS of boring legwork to find out the details of anything "interesting". If I had access to the web in those days, I doubt that it would have helped much. The REAL goodies are tucked away in a boring paragraph of a government memo jammed into a grubby box file marked "Misc Memos".

2. The whole exercise is a waste of time anyway. Most activities of the state seem to be boring and mundane, even if given a fancy titles such as "Integrated Scenario Plans"

3. During my government-related work, I did come across a few truly amazing "secrets" ... of Frederick Forsyth quality ... but again, if revealed, these would have only filled the papers for a day or two.

4. The world is FULL of secrets ... just think of every criminal & military operation, worry, precaution etc. Each one will spawn a raft of activity ... it's the job of THOUSANDS of civil servants to do this stuff, day after day, year on year.

5. The state couldn't organise a truly major conspiracy if it tried. The truth would quickly leak out, especially if the plot was something huge & unpleasant like a 9/11 set-up.

I suppose I had an interesting hobby for two years .. but I am fairly sure that I should have been doing something more useful with my time.

I was simply an obsessed youngster with too much time on his hands.

At least I actually DID something to find the data I sought. I travelled MILES on my quest. I didn't simply download second-hand sensationalist shite from the web and then pass it around willy nilly.

I must have bored the pants off everyone I discussed "The Secret" with.

The whole exercise taught me how to research data (in the pre Web era) and also how to climb barbed wire fences ... but that's about it.

It's fun imagining that you are "special" by being one of those "in the know" ... but real grown-up life is better ....

You just still cannot accept that I have a different view to you on this subject can you? You moan and whinge, quote from non-related books, your past experiences and your own views on how you believe the world works, in fact anything other than debate the subject using the official story as a starting point. I imagine the problem is that you don't know enough about the official story to do so. Here's something from my experience, most debunkers of the 9/11 truth movement haven't a clue who said what and when and in what order things happened and how on 9/11. As for myself, I have no desire to be special but I have every desire to stick to what I believe in.

A few posts ago I gave reference to an author who has written more about the holes and contradicatory evidence than just about anybody; a man called David Ray Griffin. Now if you care to take some time to view the video links I gave in that post then you will find answers to some of the questions you have just asked above. I'd advise you do that than continue to stress yourself out further over this issue. It must be quite a strain for you. If after you have watched the videos you want to debate the issues with me then I'll be all ears.

[gug]

... in fact talking to real grown-ups in the oil & gas industries.

Bitchy

Bozzio simply needs a wake up call. A short, sharp shock.

Why do I know this?

Well, many, many moons ago in my early 20s I spent two years of my student life obsessing about a certain UK government "secret operation".

I spent all my spare time deep in the archives of government offices, daily newspapers etc, I also spent a lot of time doing - err, cough - "field work".

Sure, I did find out about many of the details of this secret activity ... but gave up when two armed goons shooed me away during some of my "field work". That scared me I must admit!

However later on in my career I actually started to see these secret activities from the inside. They turned out to be tatty pointless schemes run by bored civil servants, purely as a duty to the state.

I learned from this:

1. You need to do DAYS of boring legwork to find out the details of anything "interesting". If I had access to the web in those days, I doubt that it would have helped much. The REAL goodies are tucked away in a boring paragraph of a government memo jammed into a grubby box file marked "Misc Memos".

2. The whole exercise is a waste of time anyway. Most activities of the state seem to be boring and mundane, even if given a fancy titles such as "Integrated Scenario Plans"

3. During my government-related work, I did come across a few truly amazing "secrets" ... of Frederick Forsyth quality ... but again, if revealed, these would have only filled the papers for a day or two.

4. The world is FULL of secrets ... just think of every criminal & military operation, worry, precaution etc. Each one will spawn a raft of activity ... it's the job of THOUSANDS of civil servants to do this stuff, day after day, year on year.

5. The state couldn't organise a truly major conspiracy if it tried. The truth would quickly leak out, especially if the plot was something huge & unpleasant like a 9/11 set-up.

I suppose I had an interesting hobby for two years .. but I am fairly sure that I should have been doing something more useful with my time.

I was simply an obsessed youngster with too much time on his hands.

At least I actually DID something to find the data I sought. I travelled MILES on my quest. I didn't simply download second-hand sensationalist shite from the web and then pass it around willy nilly.

I must have bored the pants off everyone I discussed "The Secret" with.

The whole exercise taught me how to research data (in the pre Web era) and also how to climb barbed wire fences ... but that's about it.

It's fun imagining that you are "special" by being one of those "in the know" ... but real grown-up life is better ....

Not that I want to get caught up in this spat, but just because your own experience lead you down an unsatisfying alleyway shouldn't have a reflection on anyone elses.

Also, conspiracies *do* happen. The lucitania, the Reichstag fire, foreknowledge of pearl harbour, the gulf of Tonkin incident etc.

All conspiracies, all later discovered.
Its interesting that you say that its impossible to keep big conspiracies under cover, could the emergence of the truth about the evens of Sept 11th be the proof of your statement.

As for the impossibility of keeping things secret - how do/would you know ?


The most stunning example of the need for further investigation that i can see is the fact that WTC 7 was bought down that day.

Quite ignoring the fact that this whole building collapse was completely ignored by the 911 commission, the US gov cant get the record straight. They say it collapsed, Silverstein says they demolished it.


So, if it collapsed (after a couple of minor fires) then its the first steel frame building in the history of the planet that has collapsed simply through fire damage.

If they pulled it down, you're telling me that after the biggest (apparent) terrorist outrage the world has ever seen, next door they had guys, spending all day, wiring up a building so that it collapsed into its own footprint 9 hours after the first plane hits the tower.

If it collapsed into its own basement by fire, shouldnt there be an investigation (especially as this is the very building that Giuliani had his "emergency bunker" - so you'd imagine that they'd site it somewhere fairly resilient to disaster.). Arent all buildings now apparently at risk of collapsing due to minor fires ???

If it was bought down, why did they have guys working in there wiring it up all day in order to make it collapse. Didnt they have more important things to do that day ?

Or , scenario C) - Do some buildings now come pre-wired with explosives ?

The tenant list of WTC 7 makes for interesting reading.


Sure, you may not buy into the whole conspiricy thing, it matters little if you do or dont, but if you've really studied the evidence (well, if you ignore the fact that the whole buildings were shipped off to china before anyone had a chance to physically examine the evidence) and you're completely satisfied that it all happened due to 15 saudies flying hijacked airplanes into those buildings, then I seriously doubt that you've looked at any available evidence at all (assuming that you'll allow me to rely on scientists and architects and pilots for their expert opnions rather than having to fly to New York, become a qualified stuctural engineer/architect/pilot/scientist before i'm allowed to comment either.


Anyway, that my 0.02 eu on the subject. Back to lurking

[Vortex]

If it collapsed into its own basement by fire, shouldnt there be an investigation (especially as this is the very building that Giuliani had his "emergency bunker" - so you'd imagine that they'd site it somewhere fairly resilient to disaster.). Arent all buildings now apparently at risk of collapsing due to minor fires ???

This is what Bozzio does whenever he starts losing an argument. He uses a switch to WTC7 to distract you from the failure of his prior argument:
"Well, what about WTC7 then? It collapsed in its own footprint ... blah ... blah ... blah"

The "collapsed in its own footprint" phrase is a sure-fire sign of a 9/11 cultist.

Giuliani instructed that WTC7 be fitted with diesel fuel tanks. This daft decision made a minor fire somewhat worse.

The fire also threatened the other dodgy tenants in the building.

Perhaps the diesel tanks did the all the damage ... or perhaps they did most of the damage which was then "helped along"?

Giuliani / the CIA/ the FBI deciding to ensure that nothing was left of whatever secrets they had in their offices their does NOT make the rest of 9/11 a plot.

Giuliani was also too busy being a super-hero to risk embarrassment about those darned fuel tanks.

As a trivial example: Suppose the police raid a hotel looking for terrorists: you could find the manager rushing to hide his/her SECOND set of account books; the door porter could be hiding his prostitutes in a broom cupboard; the married businessman could be hiding his gay friend under the bed; the international drug courier in room 203 could be flushing his stash down the toilet; the local riff raff could be sneaking in along with the police to nick any loose stuff; a bent copper could pocket the charity tin from the counter. None of this wickedness going on - however serious - actually has any connection to terrorism ... but it sure doesn't look good.

Anyway, you'll be glad to know that I too will go back to lurking now.

I shouldn't have been tempted to react to Bozzio in the first place ... nothing will divert him from his crusade to disseminate second hand twaddle.

At least I research my fads before I bore the pants off everyone!

[Pippa]

We all have our own points of view.

Personally, I can see some truth in all the topics discussed on this thread but can't see why we have to be so antagonistic towards each other.

Surely there's enough **** flying around in the world as it is.

I log in to PS forum to find allies not make enemies.

These arguments scare the pants off me not because of the subjects involved but if they are a reflection of how society behaves and might react in the resource depleted future things ain't looking so good.

We've all got feelings and good manners are free (although I suppose that may change soon too ).

[Adam1]

The main point about the 911 conspiracy question is that it doesn't matter very much at all, next to peak oil and climate change, what the truth is. There may well have been some sort of cover up of embarrassing information or worse. In the end, it's of passing interest because, whatever the truth is, we have a far bigger problem to contend with; a problem that, unlike 911, we can respond to at some level meaningfully.

There is a lot more cock-up than conspiracy there. If 911 was a neo-con conspiracy, everything that has following it has been a neo-con cock-up of the tallest order.

p.s. Pippa, you are spot on there!

[Bozzio]

If it collapsed into its own basement by fire, shouldnt there be an investigation (especially as this is the very building that Giuliani had his "emergency bunker" - so you'd imagine that they'd site it somewhere fairly resilient to disaster.). Arent all buildings now apparently at risk of collapsing due to minor fires ???

This is what Bozzio does whenever he starts losing an argument. He uses a switch to WTC7 to distract you from the failure of his prior argument:
"Well, what about WTC7 then? It collapsed in its own footprint ... blah ... blah ... blah"

The "collapsed in its own footprint" phrase is a sure-fire sign of a 9/11 cultist.

Giuliani instructed that WTC7 be fitted with diesel fuel tanks. This daft decision made a minor fire somewhat worse.

The fire also threatened the other dodgy tenants in the building.

Perhaps the diesel tanks did the all the damage ... or perhaps they did most of the damage which was then "helped along"?

Giuliani / the CIA/ the FBI deciding to ensure that nothing was left of whatever secrets they had in their offices their does NOT make the rest of 9/11 a plot.

Giuliani was also too busy being a super-hero to risk embarrassment about those darned fuel tanks.

As a trivial example: Suppose the police raid a hotel looking for terrorists: you could find the manager rushing to hide his/her SECOND set of account books; the door porter could be hiding his prostitutes in a broom cupboard; the married businessman could be hiding his gay friend under the bed; the international drug courier in room 203 could be flushing his stash down the toilet; the local riff raff could be sneaking in along with the police to nick any loose stuff; a bent copper could pocket the charity tin from the counter. None of this wickedness going on - however serious - actually has any connection to terrorism ... but it sure doesn't look good.

Anyway, you'll be glad to know that I too will go back to lurking now.

I shouldn't have been tempted to react to Bozzio in the first place ... nothing will divert him from his crusade to disseminate second hand twaddle.

At least I research my fads before I bore the pants off everyone!

I think you are confused, I haven't once mentioned WTC7. The quote you refer to is taken from the words of a self-confessed lurker who I applaud for saying such things. Thanks gug and nice to see you post on the forum.

Vortex, it's good to see that you still spout vile on this forum in response to me rather than view the material I offer you. Nothing changes.

As for Giuliani. At midday on 9/11, his office instructed the NY fire department not to tackle the small blaze which started in WTC7 because they stated the building would collapse. Since no high-rise steel structure had ever collapsed completely before and the fire was only very small, how could they have concluded that would happen? WTC7 finally collapsed, vertically and symmetrically, straight down into it's own footprint at 5.20pm. This is very strange when you consider that the steel structure was asymetrical. There's no proof that the fuel tanks were even on fire.

I can go on, but what's the point, Vortex has a closed mind although I find it funny that Vortex knows why WTC7 collapsed and yet the official investigative body (NIST) assigned the job of studying why WTC7 fell to the ground still, after almost 6 years, cannot answer that question. Perhaps you'd care to contact NIST here and show them your findings Vortex? Here is NIST's latest satement re: WTC7.

A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building adjacent to the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) that collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. WTC 7 collapsed later that afternoon.

NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

"We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible," said Shyam Sunder, WTC lead investigator for NIST. "The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."

The NIST investigation team initially worked simultaneously on both the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapses. In June 2004, the team shifted to full-time study of the towers to develop needed simulation methods and other research tools and to expedite completion of the WTC towers report. Work resumed on the WTC 7 study in October 2005.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Updated information with the specific date for the public release of the NIST team's draft report will be posted on the WTC investigation Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov.

Surely it can't take a team of scientists several years to work it out. Mind you, they still can't explain just how the twin towers fell to the ground so completely. They only have theories, based upon hundreds of simulations, as to what happened to the towers up to the point of collapse. But as I said, they're only theoies. Can't be that hard can it?

As for you doing research. What research? You've presented nothing to prove me wrong. Nothing. I defy anyone to find any research that Vortex has presented to further his case in his last few posts on this topic. You talk absolute bullsh*t man!

[Norfolk In Chance]

I think some people need to cut down on their intake of red meat....

[Bozzio]

The main point about the 911 conspiracy question is that it doesn't matter very much at all, next to peak oil and climate change, what the truth is. There may well have been some sort of cover up of embarrassing information or worse. In the end, it's of passing interest because, whatever the truth is, we have a far bigger problem to contend with; a problem that, unlike 911, we can respond to at some level meaningfully.

There is a lot more cock-up than conspiracy there. If 911 was a neo-con conspiracy, everything that has following it has been a neo-con cock-up of the tallest order.

p.s. Pippa, you are spot on there!

I, of course beg, to differ although I agree that PO and climate change are paramount concerns.

The US is occupying the Middle East as a result of 9/11 and they don't look set to leave anytime soon. Their occupation may not have been a success in the eyes of the media, because the media believes they are there to fight terrorism and that is not happening, but in reality they are there for oil and gas and Haliburton, defended by the US army, is doing very nicely thank you (along with all other associated US businesses in Iraq). As Dick Cheney looks increasingly likely to give the green light for an attack on Iran, then all hell could break loose with Russia and China joining in the match. But for what? A terrorist act which happened 6 years ago, without which the US could not have taken up the position it is in now, moving the world closer to global war.

So I don't buy the idea that we should ignore it and let the world descend into chaos before anyone has the chance to speak. Heinberg doesn't either as he discusses in his book 'Powerdown'. I believe that 9/11 should be investigated impartially and thoroughly (unlike the official, Republican led, investigation of 2003/4) to determine who really carried it out. And if the Bush administration are found to be the culprits then that would change the whole ball game and could save us, and the people of the Middle East, from further suffering

As for 9/11 being a success, it wasn't, it was a cock-up or else there wouldn't be the 500+ problems with the official story. Only someone who hasn't looked at the problems can regard it as being a success and sadly that's nearly all of the critics I speak to.