ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 55 of 417
« First < 5455152535455 5657585965105155 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>911 was an inside job.
Taco John 12:06 AM 02-09-2006
After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.
[Reply]
patteeu 07:05 AM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
Dick Cheney himself has talked about it.
In a 1999 speech he gave while still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney stated:

"By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent
annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,
along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline
in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we
will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a day. "

It's also been talked about in congress:

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Bart...y19th2005.html




http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/...eakOil_FCD.pdf
First of all, that Cheney quote doesn't mean what you are suggesting it means. It comes from a speech he gave to the London Institute of Petroleum when he was still CEO of Haliburton and it is in the context of the reality that oil companies need to continually find and develop more oil production capabilities to maintain growth and to meet demand. He's not suggesting that we face a imminent crisis. You can read it in context here.

Second, you still haven't explained why this "crisis" hasn't gained the same kind of mainstream notoriety as global warming. If true, this crisis would be far more threatening to civilization than climate change is claimed to be.
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 07:56 AM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav:
If the director was using it as basis of argument or inference it would have to be so stated. Because it was not, it cannot be a premise of the video. Because it was not, it cannot be a premise of the video...
So all directors must clearly state their underlying premises and hidden agenda, explicitly, within their work?

Very interesting opinion. Oliver Stone should have been made aware of this rule.

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav:
.... Because it was not, it cannot be a premise of the video. It can be a conclusion that Robb drew on his own. I have no argument that Robb does not think or does think there is or was a conspiracy. Frankly that is his choice, where Robb went wrong was stating it was the director's premise.
Jim, please allow me to ask you the following questions:

1. Is there a popularly accepted and government sanctioned explanations of these events of 9/11? Hint: Yes.
2. Is that explanation disputed by this film, either directly or indirectly? Hint: Yes.
3. Has it been suggested by the government (or, ironically, even the terrorist groups involved--haven't they, in fact, claimed credit?) that their version of these events is ambiguous, deceptive, or in any way subject to interpretation, as it relates to the motives of the attacks, or the actual events of 9/11? Hint: No.
4. If the government has knowingly promulgated an official and definitive explanation of 9/11, and has not offered any suggestion of ambiguity to that explanation, would continuing to stand by the "official" explanation be considered a "cover-up" by the government. Hint: Yes.

In light of the above, the director of this video has clearly premised his work on the ridiculous notion that the government "explanation" of the events of 9/11 have been an elaborate, deliberate, and well-orchestrated lie. As a lie, the government in feeding us this explanation would, by definition, be engaged in an elaborate cover-up of epic proportions.

Any other interpretation of what this video presents (much of which is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified), would be illogical.
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 10:00 AM 02-15-2006
Just a thought worth considering for the conspiracy theorists that claim a plane could not have hit the Pentagon.

The plane crashes you have been using for reference were those that were typically in the pattern for landing or have just taken off. Their air speed is considerably less than that of the plane that struck the Pentagon. What happens to a plane flying at cruising speed when it crashes?

Regarding Flt. 93: What happens to the structure of a plane that inverts and flies nose first into the ground?
[Reply]
B_Ambuehl 12:36 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by :
First of all, that Cheney quote doesn't mean what you are suggesting it means. It comes from a speech he gave to the London Institute of Petroleum when he was still CEO of Haliburton and it is in the context of the reality that oil companies need to continually find and develop more oil production capabilities to maintain growth and to meet demand. He's not suggesting that we face a imminent crisis. You can read it in context here.
Read between the lines of what he said. He said 3 percent decline from existing reserves and 2 percent increase in consumption. Those are the exact figures thrown around by the tinfoil hat wearing asshats. What he didn't tell you was how to get 50 million +more barrels of oil per day considering all the oil reserves have already been discovered.

Here's another quote from that same speech that is open to some interpretation but tells me that Cheney "gets it" and wants to make sure his people "get it" too. Generally people don't talk about "end of eras being here yet" unless there is a real threat to the end of an era, but that's just my opinion.

Ex: husband to best friend. "My marriage is not over YET, but it sure is on rocky ground"

Ex: football coach to media. "At 4-6 we're not out of the playoffs YET, but we gotta play better"

Dick Cheney:

Originally Posted by :
Well, the end of the oil era is not here YET, but changes are afoot and the industry must be ready to adapt to the new century and to the transformations that lie ahead
Originally Posted by :
Second, you still haven't explained why this "crisis" hasn't gained the same kind of mainstream notoriety as global warming. If true, this crisis would be far more threatening to civilization than climate change is claimed to be.
1. The majority of people are idiots that won't think for themselves and don't care
2. Its in the gov'ts (particular the republican party's) :-), best interest that they dont' know and don't care about this particular topic.
3. It is in the american economy's best interest that they don't know and don't care.

Let me also clarify the problem isn't about "running out" of oil. The problem is that ~50% of the oil is already gone or very close to being gone. That's a figure that eveyrbody pretty much agrees upon as far as I know. Whether the exact 50% point occured in 2005, will occur in 2010, or even 2020 is debated about but nobody debates that it's either gonna happen soon or has already happened. Only a small % of the worlds population used the first 50% but the entire god damn world is in battle over the 2nd half.

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-depend

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty

The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary. The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% per year, every year.
[Reply]
jiveturkey 12:36 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
Just a thought worth considering for the conspiracy theorists that claim a plane could not have hit the Pentagon.

The plane crashes you have been using for reference were those that were typically in the pattern for landing or have just taken off. Their air speed is considerably less than that of the plane that struck the Pentagon. What happens to a plane flying at cruising speed when it crashes?

Regarding Flt. 93: What happens to the structure of a plane that inverts and flies nose first into the ground?
I'm not buying the cover-up or inside job theories but I will say that the lack of bodies and larger debris at the pentagon and in PA is a little odd.

I can't remember any other aircraft disintegrating after a high speed crash.
[Reply]
Taco John 12:41 PM 02-15-2006
Wouldn't both engines leave substantial holes in the pentagon?
[Reply]
jiveturkey 12:51 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Wouldn't both engines leave substantial holes in the pentagon?
Even if they smacked the walls and didn't push their way through (which is unlikely) they would have been found in one form or another on the lawn.

I would also like to note that I'm just jumping in for arguments sake.
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 01:06 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by jiveturkey:
I'm not buying the cover-up or inside job theories but I will say that the lack of bodies and larger debris at the pentagon and in PA is a little odd.

I can't remember any other aircraft disintegrating after a high speed crash.
What other high speed aircrashes are you familiar with? Links.
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 01:08 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Wouldn't both engines leave substantial holes in the pentagon?
I may, or may not. It would depend, of course....on precise circumstances and conditions.
[Reply]
jiveturkey 01:21 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
What other high speed aircrashes are you familiar with? Links.
I'll do a couple of searches and see if I can come up with something.
[Reply]
patteeu 01:40 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
What he didn't tell you was how to get 50 million +more barrels of oil per day considering all the oil reserves have already been discovered.
Where did you get that idea? All of the discovered oil reserves have been discovered, but that doesn't mean that all the oil reserves have been discovered.

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
1. The majority of people are idiots that won't think for themselves and don't care
2. Its in the gov'ts (particular the republican party's) :-), best interest that they dont' know and don't care about this particular topic.
3. It is in the american economy's best interest that they don't know and don't care.
There are a lot of non-idiots out there in the oil & gas industry and in the field of geology and we aren't hearing many alarm bells going off.

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
The problem is that ~50% of the oil is already gone or very close to being gone. That's a figure that eveyrbody pretty much agrees upon as far as I know.
I don't believe that at all. As I mentioned, I don't believe that we've already discovered all the oil reserves, but on top of that, I don't believe we've depleted 50% of the known oil because I think a heck of a lot of it has just been too expensive to develop so far. Some of it may never be economical to develop (in terms of the energy required to extract and process being equal to the energy gained by it's retrieval), but a lot of it is just waiting for the right price point.

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty

The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary. The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% per year, every year.
When the scientists get behind this doomsday theory, I'll start to worry about it. Until then, I'm comfortable letting the rising cost of oil drive us to evolve our energy model.
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 02:17 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by jiveturkey:
I'll do a couple of searches and see if I can come up with something.
I've tried that and didn't come up with anything substantial, but if you look at some of the pictures of crash sites from the planes that did crash on takeoff you will still see that there aren't very many large parts left. In a crash like at the Pentagon the burning fuel would also have some drastic impact on the components that might be left from a plane. Remember that the material used in aircraft is typically lightweight for obvious reasons. I'm not sure what components make up the jet engines.
[Reply]
B_Ambuehl 02:24 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by :
When the scientists get behind this doomsday theory, I'll start to worry about it. Until then, I'm comfortable letting the rising cost of oil drive us to evolve our energy model.
What do you think drives the rising cost of oil?

This is a good non-biased presentation

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/...y%20School.pdf

And this is the most recent official bigwig meeting about it.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/07/mark..._oil/index.htm

Lawmakers: Will we run out of oil?

A House subcommittee meets to muse over the once-fringe belief that the end of oil is near.
December 7, 2005: 6:00 PM EST
By Katie Benner, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money.com) - The world's oil supply won't run out tomorrow, but lawmakers worry so much about the possibility that they're dealing with it today.

A House energy subcommittee met Wednesday morning to learn more about the so-called peak oil movement, which claims that by 2008 humans will have extracted half the earth's oil. In other words, we're using oil faster than we can ever hope to retrieve it. (note: the peak oil movement is not based on naming specific dates or years it is only the realization of the impending increasing demand and decline in reserves)

"We have all been enjoying the greatest party the world has ever seen: the great oil party," said Kjell Aleklett, president of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, or ASPO, and a physics professor at Uppsala University in Sweden. Aleklett appeared as a key witness at the hearing.

The professor said in a paper last year, "After the climax comes the decline, when we have to sober up and face the fact that the party is coming to an end."

The hangover would mean not only the end of low oil prices but also a slowdown in world economic growth. The morning after could also lead to social and political unrest as many countries try to keep the party going even as oil disappears.

While there is debate over when this peak will occur, said Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., everyone can agree on one thing.

"At some point in this century, oil production will peak and then decline," Gilchrest testified. "But more uncertainty calls for more caution, not less. And in this case, caution means finding alternatives."

Witnesses, including Robert Hirsch, senior energy program advisor at Science Applications International Corp., and Robert Esser, a director and senior consultant at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, also testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality in an attempt to quantify the true threat of peak oil.

Reason for concern
People have predicted the end of the oil age since the first oil well was drilled in the mid-19th century, but as oil production increased in the 1960s the theory was ridiculed.

But recent events -- especially light crude's recent jump to a record intraday high at $70.85 a barrel in the wake of Hurricane Katrina -- have brought ASPO's 24 geologists, physicists and former oil-sector employees into the spotlight.

U.S. government analysts also say that the amount of oil that can be pulled from the planet is finite. But they estimate that global oil production will likely peak in 2037, rather than in 2008. (note: For obvious reasons that is a very optimistic figure and there is a lot of debate about it - that 2037 figure is based off of countries self reporting their reserves which are always vastly overestimated and having a very positive outlook when it comes to extraction technology- that figure could just as easily be 2005 or 2020)

"All or nearly all of the largest oil fields have already been discovered and are being produced. Production is, indeed, clearly past its peak in some of the most prolific basins," the federal Energy Information Administration said in a recent report on peak oil.

"Over the last 20 years, the size of oil discoveries has fallen off dramatically. We are finding more fields than in the '60s and '70s, but they're much smaller," said Michael Rodgers, ex-oil geologist who is now senior director of PFC Energy, a nonpartisan energy consulting firm. "We're producing three barrels of oil for every one barrel of oil that we find."

Technology to the rescue?
Many peak oil critics say it won't happen because technology will keep petroleum depletion at bay.

Anxieties about running out of oil "are not frivolous, given the stark realities evident in many areas of the world," Alan Greenspan said in a speech in Washington, D.C., last October.

But Greenspan ultimately rejected the specter of oil reaching its peak, saying that technology will prevail to ensure the necessary oil supplies as long as technology has a "more supportive environment" -- meaning more money and government support.

"The industry is not standing in place. It's not sitting idle," Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst with Oppenheimer, told CNN. "It is improving exploration, production, development and delivery of oil."

Despite political turmoil, "countries are always drilling and exploring for oil, because there is power in having oil," ASPO's Aleklett said in an interview with CNN/Money.

However, this takes us to the heart of a security issue, said PFC's Rodgers. "It is likely that OPEC can step in and meet demand if a peak in non-OPEC regions happens. But then we'll be even more dependent on parts of the world that aren't stable and reliable."

Beating the peak
Even if we don't run out of oil, the federal government admits it may become phenomenally expensive. "Will the world ever physically run out of crude oil? No, but only because it will eventually become very expensive in the absence of lower-cost alternatives," the EIA report said.

Echoing Rep. Gilchrest, analysts said the nation and its lawmakers must turn its focus to conservation. Several witnesses dismissed things like drilling in Alaska, saying such small stopgap measures won't put off the inevitable for long.

However, while politicians may agree that more drilling won't save us, analysts said they are loath to reflect the need for conservation in domestic energy policy because it could have serious ramifications for energy producers, utilities and even automakers.

"People don't want to face this reality," said Rodgers. "Once you accept it as a possibility -- not even as a certainty, but just as one of many possible scenarios -- then you have to make all sorts of changes [in the way you live], because it would not make sense not to."
[Reply]
Logical 02:28 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Wouldn't both engines leave substantial holes in the pentagon?
Given a jet enjine is typically around 6-10 feet in diameter on passenger airliners, one certainly would think so. In addition they now are typically made of materials such as titanium and composites with extremely high melting points so the likelihood of them disintegrating in a fire is almost nil.
[Reply]
Logical 02:38 PM 02-15-2006
[QUOTE=Mr. Kotter]

Jim, please allow me to ask you the following questions:

1. Is there a popularly accepted and government sanctioned explanations of these events of 9/11? Hint: Yes. People are comfortable being sheep and don't want to doubt, this means nothing.

2. Is that explanation disputed by this film, either directly or indirectly? Hint: Yes. No, it is not all it does is bring up questions that are unanswered that is not disputing it is simply questioning.

3. Has it been suggested by the government (or, ironically, even the terrorist groups involved--haven't they, in fact, claimed credit?) that their version of these events is ambiguous, deceptive, or in any way subject to interpretation, as it relates to the motives of the attacks, or the actual events of 9/11? Hint: No.
Other sources have indeed disputed the governments video claiming credit by the terrorists, the authenticity of that tape is very much in doubt. However that is not in the video at all.

4. If the government has knowingly promulgated an official and definitive explanation of 9/11, and has not offered any suggestion of ambiguity to that explanation, would continuing to stand by the "official" explanation be considered a "cover-up" by the government. Hint: Yes. No it would simply mean the government is satisfied they have mollified the people and want to move on. It is actually possible they have no bad intentions. Only in the case of the video not being released at the pentagon is their signs of a cover-up. Since this is about the WTC there is only a loose connection.

In light of the above, the director of this video has clearly premised his work on the ridiculous notion that the government "explanation" of the events of 9/11 have been an elaborate, deliberate, and well-orchestrated lie. No you are projecting that on the video it does not say it.

As a lie, the government in feeding us this explanation would, by definition, be engaged in an elaborate cover-up of epic proportions. Again this is your projection not the video's assertion.

Any other interpretation of what this video presents (much of which is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified), would be illogical. Only your opinion.
[Reply]
Page 55 of 417
« First < 5455152535455 5657585965105155 > Last »
Up