Monbiot - Reappraisal at Heathrow

[Adam1]

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

Heinberg does indeed believe that there are significant holes in the official version of 911 events. He doesn't, as far as I know, extrapolate that into a highly developed conspiracy. I also agree that 911 should be investigated impartially, same with JFK's shooting. However, it's not something that I feel is very productive to expend so much energy on because, given where we are with PO-CC, it's more practical and pressing to focus on personal preparations and on pursuing changes to mitigate PO and CC at a community and (marginally) national level. Also, most of us on this forum live in Europe, not the US, and this is where we are more likely to have an influence.

Even if I was personally able to bring Bush and his neo-con cronies in front of a court and proscecute them, it would not advance humanity's efforts to confront PO and CC one bit. Let's imagine that the whole of the current US Admin were locked up and a Democratic Party Administration were in charge, do you really think it would change things that much? I don't think so.

[gug]

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

or of course, a phrase that is significant in very few buildings that collapse "accidentally" has collapsed via the route of *most* resistance, but thanks for assuming that on the basis of one post that i'm a cultist.

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

Its standard for large buildings running data centers to store diesel for backup generators.
Wouldnt be much of a data center OR an "emergency bunker" if the entire building was put out of action by something as simple as a power cut.

anyway, according the firefighters on the scene, they were described as minor isolated fires.

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

But the trouble is, it doesnt look like you have genuinely questioned very much at all (other than bozzio's sanity)

I mentioned WTC 7 simply because it *doesnt* involve

aircraft,
plots,
pools of molten metal for 5 weeks after,
planes without windows,
demolition squibs,
photographed 45 degree angle cuts on core steelwork,
eyewitness and film evidence of multiple explosions in the north and south towers before and after the planes hit,
The fact that the pancake theory cannot explain the disappearance of the central core of the buildings
The fact that WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse, they exploded outwards
The fact that film of the collapse of WTC 1 was preceeded by explosions
provable so in advance that they were heard at ground level before the buildings start to move (sound travelling much slower than light </obious>)
Impossible freefall speed of the buildings collapse
weirdly inconclusive film of planes/missile/drones hitting the pentagon when much better film reported to exist
reports that titanium and steel engine components were (claimed to be) vaporised by jetfuel fire but passengers remained to be indentified by their DNA
jetliners apparently hitting the ground at 450 mph and leaving no debris but simply a 10ft "hole".
Norad being stood down,
Dick Cheney taking vice presidential control of war room ops for the first time ever that morning prior to the attacks,
physical evidence of thermate use on steel samples,
eyewitness and firebrigade reports contrary to what has been widely reported
The weird live footage from the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened (with an embarrassingly erect WTC 7 in the background of the "live" footage)

etc etc etc (disturbingly , I really could go on )

NO... i mentioned none of that on purpose - you could claim any of that was contentious without examining any available evidence, I simply wanted to mention the single question of WTC 7 collapse.

If we cant even answer why for the first time in the history of the planet a 47 story building, suffering what was described by fire brigade staff as minor isolated fires, that hadn't been hit by planes, collapsed, straight down into its own basement (via the path of most resistance) then its obvious that theres no point in trying to tackle anything even slightly more difficult.

If conspiracy theorists make you nuts then challenge them on the evidence presented.
Some of them *might* be nuts. Some of them might not.


Sure, we have little influence in europe, but its my belief that, assuming this *was* conspiracy, Peak Oil is one helluva motive.
And whilst we'll all have to deal with peak oil and CC, its no reason to not hold our politicians to account. If we dont do this, just imagine how bad they are going to get when things get really tough.
9/11 is the driving factor behind 2 wars so far, in the uk the reason for draconian changes to our laws (suspension of habeus corpus / socpa ) complicity in extraordinary rendition.
Thousands of people have died as a result of events that day - we should be damn sure that we know the facts about it - I'm in no way convinced that thats been achieved.

So its fine if you assume i'm a nutty cultist, ignore that , i'm not important in this, but as an intelligent human being can you reasonably come up with an innocent scenario that explains any/some/most/all of this - because the least likely story appears to be the one that the governments are telling us.

Apologies to other posters here as this has gone way off topic - i really did intend to return to lurking before it was assumed that i'm just a nutty cultist ROFL ( PO and CC were the domain of nutty cultists once) .

I think Bozzios greatest crime is that he's too passionate about the subject. I dont blame him for his passion but it can intimidate others and bring at an adverse reaction in some at times.

[Bozzio]

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

Heinberg does indeed believe that there are significant holes in the official version of 911 events. He doesn't, as far as I know, extrapolate that into a highly developed conspiracy. I also agree that 911 should be investigated impartially, same with JFK's shooting. However, it's not something that I feel is very productive to expend so much energy on because, given where we are with PO-CC, it's more practical and pressing to focus on personal preparations and on pursuing changes to mitigate PO and CC at a community and (marginally) national level. Also, most of us on this forum live in Europe, not the US, and this is where we are more likely to have an influence.

Even if I was personally able to bring Bush and his neo-con cronies in front of a court and proscecute them, it would not advance humanity's efforts to confront PO and CC one bit. Let's imagine that the whole of the current US Admin were locked up and a Democratic Party Administration were in charge, do you really think it would change things that much? I don't think so.

Just a few points then I'll shut up.

Firstly, you use the phrase 'highly developed conspiracy'. Can I remind you that the official story is a conspiracy if you accept the dictionary definition of the word being an illegal act performed in agreement between two or more people. Therefore, whatever your view as to who committed the act, we are all conspiracy theorists. I just happen to believe it was the Bush government and others think it was a bunch of Arabs (a few of whom, it would appear, are still alive and well).

Secondly, if 9/11 were exposed as a US constructed crime. Do you think the world would ever trust America again? In my opinion, a negative answer to this question would change everything and the balance of global power would swing in a different direction. This is not just a case of having Bush removed but making the people of world accept that the state of the world's affairs is based upon a lie.

Finally, Heinberg has addressed the 9/11 Truth movement on several occasions which would suggest that he does believe in the alternative theories. This is how he finished a speech he delivered at a meeting in 2004 in which he discussed PO in relation to 9/11. From here

And the unraveling scandals from the books by Richard Clarke and others are putting tremendous pressure on the current administration. These are people who are not going to give up power easily or lightly. If they have already done what they did on September 11, what would they do in order to retain power, if threatened? It?s, I believe a very dangerous time, but it?s a window of opportunity that we must seize.

If we do so, our children and our grandchildren will thank and praise us. And if we do not, I shudder to think what we and future generations will have to endure. Thank you very much.

That said, after going to see The Police in concert last night in Birmingham, I'm so high I don't really care about anything anymore.

[Adam1]

To Bozzio and all those focusing so much energy on 911, there's a good piece on EB today, worth a read. I've quoted the concluding paragraph.

http://www.energybulletin.net/34458.html originally from http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

Finally, it may be worth thinking about where today?s search for scapegoats could lead. Imagine for a moment that the rhetoric we?re discussing succeeds in pinning the blame for peak oil on the Bush administration and American business leaders. It?s unpleasantly easy to imagine Republican politicians hanged en masse for crimes against humanity, oil executives and their families dragged from their homes and torn to pieces by screaming mobs, and the like. Such things have happened far too often in recent history to be dismissed as abstractions; they could all too readily shred what little is left of the basic civility any society needs to function at all, but they would not bring us one step closer to a meaningful response to the predicament of industrial society. I can only hope that enough people are willing to step back from today?s rhetoric of partisan hatred to make such things a little less likely, in a future that will be difficult enough without them.

[Bandidoz]

I do like a good old-fashioned forum fight.

Makes a change from watching Big Brother and the X-Factor

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zbVqs5BfRFc

[Bozzio]

To Bozzio and all those focusing so much energy on 911, there's a good piece on EB today, worth a read. I've quoted the concluding paragraph.

http://www.energybulletin.net/34458.html originally from http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

Finally, it may be worth thinking about where today?s search for scapegoats could lead. Imagine for a moment that the rhetoric we?re discussing succeeds in pinning the blame for peak oil on the Bush administration and American business leaders. It?s unpleasantly easy to imagine Republican politicians hanged en masse for crimes against humanity, oil executives and their families dragged from their homes and torn to pieces by screaming mobs, and the like. Such things have happened far too often in recent history to be dismissed as abstractions; they could all too readily shred what little is left of the basic civility any society needs to function at all, but they would not bring us one step closer to a meaningful response to the predicament of industrial society. I can only hope that enough people are willing to step back from today?s rhetoric of partisan hatred to make such things a little less likely, in a future that will be difficult enough without them.

Mmmm, it's sad when intelligent people choose to ignore the evidence for fear of being branded a conspiracy theorist which in the case of 9/11 is strange since as I've said above, 9/11 is a conspiracy whoever you decide the conspirators to be. Even sadder then is the fact that we'd prefer to see Arabs and Muslims slaughtered in their own country as retribution for their sins against us when all evidence points to them having done nothing (but only if we're brave enough to look at that evidence).

So what the conclusion is saying, is for the sake of civility, we should ignore partisan hatred since it answers nothing. Perhaps we should ask the families of all those in Iraq and Afghanistan who have lost relatives due to several years of neo-conservative propaganda whether they think we are in anyway justified in called ourselves civil.

That said, I agree with the overall message of this article which I take to be about not blaming others for every bad event and accepting that we all have responsibility, which in the case of PO is true. But I do question why it is argued time and time again that crying conspiracy is somehow wrong or whether manufacturing conspiracies is the means used to avoid that responsibility. Isn't it just because certain people believe themselves to be above such discussion even if it requires them to ignore the omissions and distortions in any official story?

[Adam1]

Mmmm, it's sad when intelligent people choose to ignore the evidence for fear of being branded a conspiracy theorist which in the case of 9/11 is strange since as I've said above, 9/11 is a conspiracy whoever you decide the conspirators to be. Even sadder then is the fact that we'd prefer to see Arabs and Muslims slaughtered in their own country as retribution for their sins against us when all evidence points to them having done nothing (but only if we're brave enough to look at that evidence).

So what the conclusion is saying, is for the sake of civility, we should ignore partisan hatred since it answers nothing. Perhaps we should ask the families of all those in Iraq and Afghanistan who have lost relatives due to several years of neo-conservative propaganda whether they think we are in anyway justified in called ourselves civil.

That said, I agree with the overall message of this article which I take to be about not blaming others for every bad event and accepting that we all have responsibility, which in the case of PO is true. But I do question why it is argued time and time again that crying conspiracy is somehow wrong or whether manufacturing conspiracies is the means used to avoid that responsibility. Isn't it just because certain people believe themselves to be above such discussion even if it requires them to ignore the omissions and distortions in any official story?

I'm not sure that being branded a 'conspiracy theorist' is worse than being branded a 'doomster' or an 'environmental pedant', as a colleague once described me. The problem many in peak oil camp have is that they spend a lot of time looking at data from which they draw conclusions. They pride themselves in being ready to change their thinking in the light of new information and they get upset when referred to 'peak oil theorists', as it implies that they have extrapolated too far from the facts to draw highly conjectural conclusions.

I agree that we shouldn't ignore that there appears to be contradictions in the facts about 911 as presented. The PNAC website is pretty clear about the Machiavellian agenda of the neo-conservatives that have ruled the roost in Washington since Jan 2001. For me, it's just a question of where I want to direct my energy (such as it is) and how important I think it is to get to the truth of 911 versus raising awareness of our energy predicament and the constraints of many of the touted solutions. There are only so many hours in the day. I think Vortex is right that it takes a lot time and determination to research something properly from original sources. I also think that governments don't operate in the single-minded way they would need to, in order to pull off a vast conspiracy. They are complex, opportunistic, tactical (rather than strategic), disparate, conflicted by personal and political (internal and ideological) differences. That's why conspiracies are always going to self-limiting.

[Erik]

For me, it's just a question of where I want to direct my energy (such as it is) and how important I think it is to get to the truth of 911 versus raising awareness of our energy predicament and the constraints of many of the touted solutions. There are only so many hours in the day.

Couldn't agree more. Best to focus on areas which give the best return on whatever energy and time you can afford to spend. I wish I had the time to research all sorts of things, including 911 (what the hell, why not?), but there are simply more useful things to be getting on with.

I'd also say that, whether or not the events surrounding 911 are more sinister than the official story would have us believe, I think that blending the 911 and peak oil debates together can be rather counter-productive when it comes to raising PO awareness (even if they really are linked!).

[clv101]

I think that blending the 911 and peak oil debates together can be rather counter-productive when it comes to raising PO awareness (even if they really are linked!).

Indeed. The main challenge for peak oil "activists" is to get broad acceptance of the depletion into society as a whole but particularly into decision makers in corporations and governments. For this credibility is key and I can't imagine much else that would reduce credibility when talking to the Tesco board about energy security than if you started talking about how 911 was an inside job!

[YossarianUK]

Quite frankly, Bozzio, when comparing the two, PO isn't as big an issue as climate change. PO isn't a threat to the biosphere, it's just a threat to industrialised civilistaion.

And as for the 911 truth movement...

Excuse me, since when has the concept of climate change ever meant the destruction of the planet? PO is purely a human issue. Climate change is a whole life issue. Neither will destroy the biosphere and neither will cause the end of life, they'll just change it although the world has been imposing such changes for years.

As for 9/11, I suggest you take time to read a little about the inconsistencies and subsequent changes in the official story to counter these before rolling your eyes in disgust. Us humans could be affected far sooner by global war started as a result of 9/11, long before PO and climate change have had chance to affect us significantly, which will be sad because 9/11 is a lie and you have been fooled into accepting the propaganda. Before making further criticisms I suggest you read the books of David Ray Griffin. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory should educate you a little. Or in case you are too lazy (a common trait of the proponents of the official 9/11 conspiracy story) I've given you a couple of links to Mr Griffin talking on video below. If you listen to him then you'll do better than Monbiot who admitted to never having heard the intelligent and well structured arguments of the guy before he made his silly attacks in the Guardian.

here and here although there are more.

Seeking the truth on 9/11 is not an issue on the scale of climate change or peak oil. Assuming 9/11 doesn't lead to a large scale nuclear war, it will be no more important in the long term than the truth about Pearl Harbour - a historical curiosity, not the end of civilization as we know it.

I'm well aware of the inconsistencies in the evidence about 9/11, but there are as many inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the 9/11 truth mob. The fact is, in the grand scheme of things, we are where we are, and no amount of searching for the truth will end the war on terror, or America's self-perceived leadership of the world.

And, at the end of the day, its just not important. The Vietnam war is now remembered as an embarrassment to the US, together with the memory of millions murdered in the conflict. Iraq will be remembered as the same. Its not right, its just the way of things.

Peak Oil has the potential to reverse thousands of years of human progress. Climate change WILL reverse thousands of years of human progress, if Peak Oil doesn't beat it to the punch. 9/11 just doesn't matter on this scale.

[Bozzio]

For me, it's just a question of where I want to direct my energy (such as it is) and how important I think it is to get to the truth of 911 versus raising awareness of our energy predicament and the constraints of many of the touted solutions. There are only so many hours in the day. I think Vortex is right that it takes a lot time and determination to research something properly from original sources. I also think that governments don't operate in the single-minded way they would need to, in order to pull off a vast conspiracy. They are complex, opportunistic, tactical (rather than strategic), disparate, conflicted by personal and political (internal and ideological) differences. That's why conspiracies are always going to self-limiting

Maybe you don't want to spend effort on this issue but I am quite happy to. I therefore think it is up to me whether I do so and all the sabre rattling by yourself and others on the site is not going to deter me.

As it is, I gave up promoting 9/11 as part of the PO debate some time ago. This new argument has occurred not because I wanted to continue where I had left off but because I was making a comment about my assessment of Monbiot's character which, for me, had changed in the light of his silly attitude to the 9/11 Truth movement. That's all I said. It was Vortex who decided to turn it back into a major issue and, as ususal, Vortex took the step of making it personal to which I chose to defend myself. Nothing wrong with that - or am I not allowed to waste my own energy on that either?

Can I remind you that this is an open, public forum where potentially all subjects can be debated. In my opinion, a thread about baking bread has nothing to do with peak oil. I happen to think that climate change has nothing to do with PO either unless we discuss the direct impact of PO on it - which is something Monbiot no longer wishes to discuss and why I made my comments about him, raising the 9/11 issue in the process. I don't see a forum as a way of spreading the message very well. Forums are not popular amongst the general public. If you really want to promote the issue then get on the streets and show the public directly. You may just want to compare how many PO versus 9/11 demonstrations there were last year? I think you'll find PO = 0 and 9/11 = a few hundred worldwide (and I've attended a few). Also, while I'm at it, maybe you'd care to see how many times this thread has been viewed. When I mentioned 9/11 in my post last week the total was about 76 if I recall. It's now 1141 and if you care to look back at all the other 9/11 threads you'll see the same high viewing figures. Now either this means we are gaining a lot of interest by the secret services all of a sudden or the subject matter has just become a hell of a lot more interesting to passers by. Either way, it shows that the discussion of 9/11 is not necessarily putting people off.

And for the final time, because I'm getting quite annoyed that you keep ignoring what I say, 9/11 is a conspiracy and it doesn't matter how you look at it. So I find it strange that you can say, on the one hand, that the US government could not have pulled off such a single minded event even though they were in control of all the machinery to make it happen and yet a bunch of guys who allegedly lived in caves could, using only box cutters and employing sub-standard skills in flying light aircraft. I find that remarkable especially as it is based purely upon your own assumptions about how the upper echelons of government work. For instance, to counter your claim that such events are self-limiting because of the lack of unity between players, can I ask, who was in control of security at the WTC prior to the attacks? The answer is that up until 1999 it was Marvin Bush (GW's brother) and between 1999 and 2002 it was Wirt Walker III (Marvin and GW's cousin) which is important because it helps to answer those who ask how it could have been possible to rig up the WTC complex with explosives. This fact has been claimed by many people and I can give original sources if you want them.

Do you want me to continue or am I wasting my own energy? Perhaps I should go and tell the joggers in the local park to stop running because they are wasting energy they could put to better use elsewhere.

[clv101]

So your opinion of Monbiot and his message has been diminished by his attitude towards the 9/11 Truth movement?

This is exactly the problem, but for the majority and certainly for mainstream decision makers the relationship is the opposite. Argument credibility is diminished by association with 9/11. This is one reason why we shouldn?t let 9/11 stuff become related to peak oil and climate change, the credibility of all three issues will be brought down to the lowest common denominator, which with the people that mater is most certainly 9/11.

[Bozzio]

So your opinion of Monbiot and his message has been diminished by his attitude towards the 9/11 Truth movement?

This is exactly the problem, but for the majority and certainly for mainstream decision makers the relationship is the opposite. Argument credibility is diminished by association with 9/11. This is one reason why we shouldn?t let 9/11 stuff become related to peak oil and climate change, the credibility of all three issues will be brought down to the lowest common denominator, which with the people that mater is most certainly 9/11.

Chris, would you care to read my original post about Monbiot please, especilly the bit where I say I have two reasons for not trusting him anymore, one being due to 9/11 and the other because of his attitude to PO.

As I said, this is a forum, where the circulation of ideas and related PO issues should be allowed. This is not the House of Commons and I am not speaking to people who make policy decisions. I know many people here would love to think of themselves as being that important.

[Andy Hunt]

On a point of fact, personally I discovered Peak Oil because I was a regular on the Antiwar.com discussion list, and someone on there suggested that there was a link between 9/11, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Peak Oil, which I had never heard of.

I had always been interested in climate change and environmental issues, but hadn't come across PO before.

The rest, as they say, is history . . . I haven't bothered with Antiwar.com for ages now, mainly because I feel I have actually got to the root of the problem these days.

[clv101]

Bozzio, I know that?s not your only criticism of Monbiot, but it is a criticism of yours. My point is that the same criticism can be made in the opposite direction ? sure Monbiot?s credibility is diminished in your eyes due to his 9/11 position but him taking the opposite position would have damaged his credibility in more eyes. Has Meacher?s public discussions on 9/11 increased or decreased his mainstream credibility and influence? I?d say decreased.

Of course you can say what you want on the forum ? just don?t be surprised to receive criticism from others who either disagree with your interpretation of events or believe establishing association between the 9/11 Truth movement and peak oil & climate change is to the detriment of the latter.

You say ?that climate change has nothing to do with PO either unless we discuss the direct impact of PO on it?. This I strongly disagree with, the two issues are intricately related especially in the most important area of how we react, what actions we take. Not to simultaneously consider PO and CC in very decision about the future is to make bad decisions.