IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Peak Oil, or self renewing oil supplies

conspiracy_chest...
post Jan 12 2007, 01:40 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 463
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 252



I am NOT well-versed on "Peak Oil".

I keep meaning to study it and research it, but I haven't yet.

However, from what I do know about "stuff", I think that "Peak Oil" might be a "farce", of sorts.

Although we still call oil (and coal, etc.) "fossil fuels", that is an out-moded name that has stuck all these years.

The "dinosaurs" did NOT end up as oil and coal and other so-called 'fossil fuels'.

And there have been some theories that state that oil may not be a limited resource. That it might be created, along with coal, etc., deep in the Earth through geological processes. I haven't looked into that for some time, either, so maybe some of the theories have been disproved and/or gone by the wayside.

But I'm pretty sure that "they" don't really know where they came from and how they were created to any truly scientific degree, even now.

If I can find any info on that, one way or another, I'll post it.

But that's my less-informed and aware than I like to be opinion at this point.


split from 'Mike Ruppert...'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Jan 12 2007, 09:31 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



Interesting question, CC

Here's a link to Prisonplanet

QUOTE
Peak oil is a scam designed to create artificial scarcity and jack up prices while giving the state an excuse to invade our lives and order us to sacrifice our hard-earned living standards.


It is a fascinating idea, that oil might be abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter - but from sources within the mantle of earth.

And not less a reason to start wars in order to controll the oil fields, if they are 'refilling themselves'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Jan 12 2007, 11:05 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



Considering the diesel engine was first demonstrated running on Peanut oil, I'd say there's some crap going on.

http://www.hempcar.org/diesel.shtml
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 12 2007, 11:16 PM
Post #4


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Yess, please post what you find.

I knew Mike Ruppert before 9/11. When 9/11 happened and he went off in the Peak Oil direction, initially I went along with him. However, once I happened upon the abiotic origin, I begin to have second thoughts. They've lied to us about everything so why not the biological origins of hydrocarbon oil as well? "Peak Oil" as a dramatic concept, makes 9/11 "justifiable." IOW, if they sincerely believed that Peak Oil was a reality, then, although unscrupulous and diabolical, 9/11 as an inside job could be "justified" as a national security strategy. Yeah, 3,000 people got killed but since it lead to our securing of the last remaining oil on the planet for US, then, it might be 'forgiven'. (Not advocating that, you understand, just parading the insane logic.) However, it is clear to me that THEY (those who have the closest thing to control over wealth creation on the planet -- the central banks -- and the oil cartels) want to control the energy MARKET. Since GOLD no longer underwrites our currency what DOES is our ability to wage war and our ability to control the global hydrocarbon energy market. AS both of THOSE things decline, naturally the value of the dollar declines as well. This is why a lot of us think we're going to hit rock bottom at some point -- taking down the whole global financial system.

Could be very rough BUT it is conceivable that an alternative system could be generated from the rubble.

This was the newsletter that started me questioning the Peak Oil scenario:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Jan 13 2007, 10:39 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



OK, now I'm really confused. It looks like Oil doesnt come from squished up dinosaurs after all. First a Russian scientist declares that oil is created from biological detritus, then he is debunked by western geologists who say oil is created from deep within the Earth and is not connected to any biological process. Then Russians secretly develop oil wells based on the deep creation, not the dead Dino's idea and pump away for thirty odd years. Is Peak Oil just a political tool?

http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...37289/index.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Jan 13 2007, 02:42 PM
Post #6


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



QUOTE (conspiracy_chestnut @ Jan 12 2007, 05:40 PM)
The "dinosaurs" did NOT end up as oil and coal and other so-called 'fossil fuels'.

And there have been some theories that state that oil may not be a limited resource. That it might be created, along with coal, etc., deep in the Earth through geological processes. I haven't looked into that for some time, either, so maybe some of the theories have been disproved and/or gone by the wayside.

My first run-in with Peak Oil was in college in an ecology class. The collegiate textbook and the professor both said that oil and the petrochemicals derrived from it comes from a species of microscopic plant life, like photoplankton, that went extinct en mass a million years ago, was trapped under sediment and due to the pressures put on it by being trapped underground decomposed in a way that turned it into oil. It took millions of years to form and the mass extinction that produced it was a once-in-the-history-of-the-world type thing; ergo it is a limited, non-renewable resource.

Now for some sources. I went to the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The school's population is at about 33,000. The professor was Mike McKinney and the class was "Earth Ecosystems," and was a freshman level class. I have a couple of degrees from there and McKinney is a reference for me. I came to the Truth Movement from the environmentalist movement. I am a tree-hugger of the radical sort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hayduke). One day I saw the TM as the Alamo of progressives. If we can't win with the Truth Movement, if the TM can't defeat the corporate fundamentalists that have hijacked the world, then the world is doomed, I decided. Anyway, enviromentalism is a lost cause. The earth's ecosytem is dying and its death can't be reversed. blahblah1.gif

I digress. Now on to the Hubble curve.

Hubble was a geologist who foisted the oil supply line graph that basically looks like the trajectory of a curve ball. According to Hubble, the peak of this curve was in the mid 1970s. Now we are on the downward slope, according to Hubble.

According to McKinny Hubble was off by a couple decades. But was essentially right overall. Consider the most simple explanation for the righteousness of Hubble's assertion:

The earth is a closed system. It is a sphere; closed. Meanwhile our economic system, central-command quasi-capitalism, is based on the concept of "infinite growth." So the contradiction that is the existence of this economic system is that it entails infinite growth occurring in a closed system.

Anyway back to the oil.

Truth is we don't know exactly how much oil is out there because the shares of the oil companies are bought and sold on the stock market and they, like every corporation out there, create bogus accounting records to strategically bump up their stock value. You see, an oil company derives its value based on the amount of oil supposedly in the reserves it has staked out. So what they do is they hire geologists, fake scientists, whores if you will, to create a picture of reserves that may or may not be accurate. Plus, and this is the clincher, they pay taxes based on their reserves. So, for example, if a company announces in 1977 that its discovered and staked out a solid 10 billion barrels of oil then, bam!, it is taxed that year on the value of those 10 billion barrels.

You with me?

So the way they do it is they don't report what they have up front. They do it over the course of several years. Thus, oh, say, this time last year you hear about a "discovery" of a billion barrels off the coast of Africa. Well, truth is the discovery happened a decade ago. It simply wasn't reported until this year because the oil company didn't want to pay the taxes on it until this year. This nugget of truth can be found in the news stories. It usually goes like this, "Breaking news --a billion barrels of oil discovered in Antarctica." Suddenly stocks of the company doing the discovering goes up. Then over the course of a couple of weeks, the discovery is played down in stories running in the back pages of papers. In truth, the discovery happened 10 years ago and the reservoir peaked five years ago and there may well be nothing left to pump out.

Still with me?

On to pumping.

An oil company may have a reservoir of 10 billion barrels. But it will only get, say, 5 billion from it. That's because pumping oil burns oil. The machines doing the pumping are expensive to run and, of course, require energy. Ergo, a company will only pump oil from a well until a certain point. That point is when it is costing them a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil. Then they quit.

So here we have more deception. A happy-news economist will dance around saying, oh, there's trillions of barrels of oil left and he is telling the truth. What he is not mentioning is that of those trillions, only a few billion can be extracted.

There's more.

Of all the bad information out there on oil, the foremost is that we primarily need it to get from point A to point B. This has caused some radical confusion and keeps us from talking about the most important issues surrounding this limited resource.

Follow this equation:

Oil is petrochemicals which are the primary source of our hydrocarbons.

Hydrocarbons = insecticide
hydrocarbons = fertilizer
hydrocarbons = irrigation infrastructure

See where I am going with this?

Now there are, what, 300 million Americans, almost all of whom are slightly retarded. They are retarded because this is their line of thinking:

"Food comes from the grocery store."

Wrong.

Food comes from the ground. Check my math but ultimately, when you eat a quarter pound burger you are really eating (edit; many) pounds of grain (grasses). In other words it takes (edit; many) pounds of grain (ie corn meal) to get one pound of beef.

Therefore, to feed 300 million of us we have to have factory farms on an enormous scale. To run these farms requires a huge amount of, get this, insecticide, fertilizer and irrigation infrastructure.

So the issue in front of us is not our cars and getting around an the combustion engine. The issue is a food issue. Ruppert includes a powerful quote in his book and I'll post it here.

It has long been known that "he who controls the oil of Asia will soon determine who eats and who starves."

Now on to the most important question.

Have we peaked?

By most indications yes we have. Conservative scientists will tell you we are in the first transition period of Peak Oil. There are three major transition periods, T1, T2 and T3.

Unfortunately nobody can give us a clear picture of what each transition period will be, how long it will last and what it means.

Know this, Ghawar, Saudi Arabia's largest oil reservoir, was declared dead in 2005. This has been kept on the down low but the information on it is out there if you look.

And just this summer, the military released a memo in which it declared its intentions to pursue plans to adapting to Peak Oil.

So here we stand. Climate change approaching from the left. Overpopulation from the right. Now know this, the world burns through a billion barrels of oil every 11 days. Keep that in mind the next time the media is celebrating the latest incredible find of some million barrels of oil somewhere.

Anyway, I personally think Peak Oil is real, as was peak gold and peak any other nonrenewable resource for that matter. The CIA recently announced that the wars of this century will be over clean water. Consider that by most accounts the wars of the last century have indeed been over oil resources. So what the CIA is saying is that soon we will no longer be invading countries for their oil. Why? Because soon there will be no oil.

Question is when.

Two scenarios arise.

1) The slow burn. T1 is an unstable time with peaks and crevices; but it lasts for, oh, say a good 12 years. T2 is the pinch; steadily rising prices with no relief.

2) The collapse. We've actually been in T1 for, oh, say a dozen years and we actually are now entering into T2. See above.

Now keep in mind that by most accounts it will take 30 years to retool the economy so that our food doesn't essentially come from hydrocarbons.

Frankly we don't have 30 years.

Frankly we probably don't have five.

My advice: buy yourself a book or two on survivalism and start growing tomatoes. These skills definitely won't hurt and if I'm wrong, so be it; at worst you are eating home-grown tomatoes on your sandwiches.

My prediction: Peak Oil comes home this year or next (07 or 08) in the form of a collapse. Let's face it, we're occupying the lands housing the world's last massive oil reserves. Coincidence? You have to ask yourself "why Iraq?" If you think it was greed alone that put us in Iraq you are wrong. T1 certainly does stand to be incredibly profitable for the Seven Sisters. But it was necessity that put us there. Check it: what has been released from Cheney's closed door energy formation meetings? Oh, just the maps of the oil reserves of Asia. That's all. And I guess that is what they were talking about in those meetings. And what a coincidence that days after he held those meetings, Cheney was put in charge of America's war games.

Anyway, no scam. The world is running out of oil. That's being taught in collegiate classes and it isn't being taught as a debatable topic. No controvery amongst the scientific community on that. In fact, if you were taking a McKinney exam and you wrote "Peak Oil is a scam to enrich the Arabs," well friend, you fail.

Here's a couple of links:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.shtml#oil

http://www.oilempire.us/

It's odd that this ended up in the "Alternative Theories" forum. Sorta sad. Shows the extent and effects of the infowars being conducted against us, that a subject taught as fact in a collegiate classroom is seen by the public at large as an "alternative theory." Imagine if algebra was seen as an "alternative theory." Anyway, mankind gets what he deserves in a lot of ways. That's how I see it. If Peak Oil is seen as a joke or a scam then perhaps we as a species deserve extinction because we choose to live in a fairytale world, as opposed to reality. blahblah1.gif

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Jan 13 2007, 05:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Jan 13 2007, 05:22 PM
Post #7


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Jan 13 2007, 06:42 PM)
Check my math but ultimately, when you eat a quarter pound burger you are really eating 800 pounds of grain. In other words it takes 32,000 pounds of grain (ie corn meal) to get one pound of beef.

32 pounds of grain per pound of beef, according to this source 16 according to this source. Sixteen sounds closer to me, certainly closer than 32,000. (or 3200- which is 800x4) You did say to check your math...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Jan 13 2007, 05:51 PM
Post #8


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



Thanx. When I google it I'm coming across a variety of numbers, such as: "beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced."

Point remains. Meat is expensive in more ways than those measured in dollars. No doubt I modified my post above. Thanx for the gut check.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Jan 13 2007, 06:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Jan 13 2007, 06:23 PM
Post #9


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Jan 13 2007, 09:51 PM)
Point remains. Meat is expensive in more ways than those measured in dollars.

Absolutely. No disagreement from this end. I seem to recall reading somewhere that without subsidies and leather sales etc. a hamber would probably cost around $15 per pound. That's probably not even taking into consideration factors like the pollution. Eating lower on the food chain is one of most effective ways we can help the planet and get out of the NWO cycle IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 14 2007, 08:24 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



the Peak Oil thing went into "alternate" i think because it generated a lot of
animosity on the old LC forum.

GH: pretty good breakdown.

The M. King Hubbert "Hubbert's Curve" was Shell geologist King Hubbert predicting the eventual peak, plateau, and decline of US oil production on the North AMerican continent alone.

In the 50s, based on rate of current finds, extraction, etc, he predicted a peak around 1970. He was accurate to within 12 months.

If Hubbert is WRONG somehow, and oil is infinitely renewable, well, it aint exactly bubbling up in those old depleted fields of Pennsylvania, (Illinois, and Ohio.

THat's where oil was first extracted.

Hubbert's curve, extrapolated to the Planet, predicts a peak between November 2005 (according to Defeyes) and 2010. As you put it, there is a "T1" period of high/low alternating oil prices, after which a crash/cliff of T2, irreversible decline in supply.

That would push oil prices well above $100 -- as high as $380/bbl.
$380/bbl is about $19 per gallon gasoline. the slope of that curve is hard to predict. the severity of the supply shortage, and /or economic, food, etc crises, is beyond my ability to describe or predict.

now the bad news -- the effect of 'peak oil' on the military:

Our military machine isnt seizing the last low hanging fruit of oil for our US domestic consumption -- it's in order to keep the military machine alive. it aint for you and me..

how did Japan lose its bid for hegemony in pacific and asia?

their access to oil was cut off. after that, it was a slow, irreversible defeat and shrinkage of empire.

how was Germany defeated in N. Africa in WW2? Their unbeatable afrikakorps was destroyed when their oil supply was cut off. no fuel == no resupply = tanks dont move, no fresh men and ammo, etc.

what was Germany seeking in Russia/Stalingrad? oil reserves in Baku, azerbeijian.

they lost. Germany has no oil, they were making gasoline synthetically, out of coal (fischer tropf gasification) -- and after the US bombed their synth-gas plants, and Russians defeated germany at stalingrad, they could eventually not fly sorties, move armies, etc.

lesson: armies that run on petroleum products have an absolute need for petroleum.

forward bases that can protect supply, and pro-actively dissuade attacks on oil fields will ensure the US military a supply of fuel. you cant fly an F-18 on biodiesel. you cant run a tank on solar. as to the effect on DOMESTIC supply, and QOL, you can thus see that an even greater pressure than might be predicted is in effect.

military will get its oil first. the home front 2nd.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 14 2007, 09:25 PM
Post #11


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (JackD @ Jan 15 2007, 12:24 AM)
<s>
now the bad news -- the effect of 'peak oil' on the military:

Our military machine isnt seizing the last low hanging fruit of oil for our US domestic consumption -- it's in order to keep the military machine alive. it aint for you and me..
<s>

This is precisely why I say that Peak Oil "justifies" 9/11. From a strictly national security angle, IF Peak Oil is a reality, then creating a false-flag operation to put our military in control of the Middle East makes perfect "sense" from THEIR (MIC) point of view.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 14 2007, 09:57 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



painter --- i tend to agree -- worldwide depletion, and the military's unquenchable-will-die-without-fossil-fuels structure places war for energy resources at the top of the Pentagon's agenda -- as well as a slew of other institutions that wish to seize control of energy in order to control nations, populations, people, etc.

I do not agree with all of Mike Ruppert's peak-oil ravings, BUT, i do agree that it is one of the motives for 9/11.

the second? control of afghan heroin. sounds crazy, sure, but as webster tarpley says, there's a reason why patsies have particular ethnic identities.

Afghanistan has the opium (worth $180billion to 3 trillion in markets considering 'pop') and a Unocal nat'l gas transit route.

SO: your main patsy has to be in Afghanistan. first re-open the opium fields, replant, and get the heroin trade back up and running.
bingo: pop-up jackinthebox villain Bin Laden is the "mastermind" MUST BE IN AFGHANISTAN. (it wouldnt work if binladen is in, say, the Sudan... or qatar)

now look at today's heroin supply: by 2002, it was back up to pre-Taliban levels. staying constant, DESPITE 5 YEARS OF US INTERVENTION IN AFGHANISTAN.

ok, i made my point.

now, oil.

Secondary patsies-- the hijackers -- a mixed bag of gulf-area origins, but with Saudi visas. what does saudi a. have? oil.

BINGO: you have massive leverage over Saudi Arabia (who roll over for us, diplomatically, no invasion req'd)

AND --- 9/11 also gives you an open card to play in terms of "atta-like fanatical muslims who hate us" even if none were iraqi, you justify it with 'fight them over there, so we dont have to fight them over here'

the ETHNIC identiies of the patsies MUST link to a PLACE WITH RESOURCES YOU WANT

THUS: you only find alqauda patsies where there is a resourece like nat'l gas, gold, heroin or oil (or pipeline routes carrying above) --

so you work backwards to get a partial timeline:

1998: PNAC formed - military complex, neocons, oilmen - hegemony and oil realities on the table
2000: PNAC says "we need to have permanent presence in Gulf, transcends Hussein removal, but, we need a NEW PEARL HARBOR to do it"
2000: Taliban destroyes 95% of opium crop (costs $2+ trillion to world economy)
Jan 2001: Bush installed in WhiteHOuse, thanks to James Baker (and others)
April 2001: Cheney's energy policy group meets to decide how to deal with post-PeakOil world, maps out remaining oil fields, reserves
May, June 2001: counter terror exercises/simulations control given to VP's office - meaning Libby, Cheney, and 'shootdown' authorization transfered to SecDef, quietly
Sept 2001: 9/11 happens

2001-2004:
within next 3 years, the US has a pretext for PERMANENT forward bases in Central Asia and Iraq; China, others checkmated, US access to crude assured, and Israel wins huge gains as well (israel has NO OIL and little fresh water)


Israel and Peak Oil, aka Peak Israoil

currently: ever-dwindingly supply of oil means who owns it, writes the rules.
new pipeline across turkey means of all countries, ISRAEL is poised to be an international broker of oil from the Caspian, selling it to europe, china (from Eilat and Haifa) -- and if the 1948 pipelines across syria are ever re-opened, Israel will own Iraq oil all the way to Basra.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Jan 15 2007, 04:25 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



You can't really argue against something that is as obvious as the arse end of a large male dog. They believe peak oil is a threat, and they're not gonna stand back and be dictated to in the future.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 15 2007, 05:41 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



and after my peak-ish oil writings, i'll add:

Non-fossil-fuel and zero-point energies ARE OUT THERE.

why would the PTB suppress alt.energies, not develop them?

Leverage. Control. you need to have a limiting resource. money, food, water, air, energy, what have you -- it's a lever.

This post has been edited by JackD: Jan 15 2007, 05:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Jan 15 2007, 08:49 PM
Post #15


..with liberty and justice for all.


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,152
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Orlando, FL
Member No.: 65



Interesting discussion guys, I learn quite a bit.... I think. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Jan 19 2007, 09:33 AM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



I found this interesting video concerning the petrodollar. This is all a pretty steep learning curve for me.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid...4&q=petrodollar
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Feb 4 2007, 07:10 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



Does anyone remember those studies that were carried out around the early 80's?
The most important one was commissioned by the US-government: The idea was that they would proof to the whole world (scientifically!) just how vastly superior the western system (and western civilisation) really are.
As it turned out, there were several other studies carried out at the same time- all with a slightly different approach, independant from each other- but with the same aim: To create a prediction for the next few decades.
They took all kinds of data- from age-structure to healthcare-system, and from industrial output to pollution (not to mention the usage of raw materials), and then used a computer-program to create a virtual model of that society, capable of taking projected future developements into account and produce an image of the future as accurate as possible.
Mr. Reagan was not thrilled with the actual result he got:
All of these studies (even though they had attempted to look at this from different angles) had come to exactly the same conclusion-
Namely that western civilisation would unceremoniously collapse within fifty years.
And so, the results were wiped off the table back then- because they had not been "scientific" enough, not "thorough" enough- in other words: not "palatable" enough. blink.gif
Since then, a quarter of a century has passed; it turns out that the environmental problems predicted back then were not far off the mark. Were these studies really *that* inaccurate? dunno.gif
I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.
But you can safely assume that there would be no responsible government which could afford to ever simply ignore results like that completely- no matter how much they dislike those results, simply because of the consequences one's nation or society would be facing should the results turn out to be accurate after all...
Even if they would never openly admit that.
(The study in question was carried out by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was called "The Limits to Growth"- Source: Phillipps' World Atlas, 1985)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Feb 5 2007, 12:23 AM
Post #18


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



Firstly, when I think MIT I think Noam Chomsky, who is indubitably a government agent. I've confronted him personally and have been assured only that it is of the utmost importance to both the gatekeepers on both the Right and Left that the Truth Movement never become politically relevant, thus it is amongst the safest topics to discuss.

Moving on, my personal research concludes that Ghawar is closed. It is exhausted, folks. The jig is up, in other words.

In most instances I would post at least a link. In this one, I suggest you do the research yourself foremost for the reason that it is imperative that we all understand the extent of the illusions surrounding Peak Oil and why. Anyway, I reiterate, this topic isn't an alternative theory. I've fought for a long time now on the "save the whales" front. That's not an alternative theory either. Both belong at the forefront of civic minded discussion. Anybody who argues otherwise is lost.

Sorry, but that's how it is in my book. I'm drying out a seaturtle skull on my doorstep. It breaks my heart and its a sign of the times.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Feb 5 2007, 08:07 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



Well- i may have postet this in the wrong thread; after going through some of the others in the forum, i discovered some places were this may have fitted in better.
My apologies.
What i was trying to get at was that usually, the whole concept of the 911 attacks is confined to the Bush-administration; but if the attacks were indeed false-flag-operations, their planners must have used certain structures in place long before the actual event (namely a means to excert control over the media).
Therefore, it stands to reason that there exsists a motive that goes beyond Bush and the present era, and beyond the mere concept of some corrupt figures out to line their own pockets (...and i would suggest there are easier and equally profitable ways to line their pockets then mass-murder).
The motive may be a reaction by certain people to the results of those studies i mentioned: They may simply interpret that situation as a matter of ensuring what they see as "civilisation", by securing the last resources for the exclusive use of the US- or what they see as the US.
(PS: How do i post a link? ...I hate to admit it, but i'm as computer-literate as a five-year-old, and some of them are better at this then me... pilotfly.gif )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 5 2007, 08:57 PM
Post #20


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Devilsadvocate @ Feb 5 2007, 04:07 PM)
(PS: How do i post a link? ...I hate to admit it, but i'm as computer-literate as a five-year-old, and some of them are better at this then me... pilotfly.gif )

Just copy and paste from your browser's address field. The text is made into a hyperlink automatically by the server scripts that runs the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2019 - 06:45 PM