After watching Chris Smith’s latest documentary, Collapse, there is no going back: once seen its nearly impossible to forget.
Despite its focus on the now commonplace concerns for modern society’s unsustainable growth, the film ignites the imagination in a way so few talking head documentaries ever achieve. At its core is Michael C Ruppert, CIA whistleblower and activist reporter, who, like a modern day Morpheus, pulls back the veil of reality to show in a stark light the underpinning make-believe that sustains our hope in a sustainable status quo. According to him, any perception of stability at present exists solely because those in power see no political advantage to alert the public of how dire the situation has become. Not even Obama can get you out of this one, he warns; this collapse runs deep and is inevitable, and it is happening right now. The effect is assaultive, in rapid-fire succession Ruppert unloads his thesis on the audience who are left to recoil as the gravity of the situation deepens. Lacking any familiarity with the issues of ‘peak oil’ prior to seeing this film, my alarm watching the movie was at an optimal high.
In lieu of the director’s previous work, the comedic turns of American Movie and The Yes Men, Collapse, at least tonally, was an unexpected shift towards gravely sober realities (though I suspect his fictional movie, The Pool, may have softened the transition for me had I seen it). Instead of an amusing case study in left-wing conspiracy theory, the film plays it straight, calmly reasoning the inevitable breakdown of society as we know it. In a deliberate attempt to convey a first person interrogation with its subject, the film lingers in endless takes of Ruppert smoking (a very real Cancer Man of X-Files lore) as he bunkers enigmatically in a meat locker to tell his tale. Smith, to his credit, attempts to flesh out the character in his questioning, and at times we witness a less abrasive, more vulnerable portrait, but by and large the film exists to promulgate his message.
Evident by at least one of the Q&A responses afterwards, there is a kneejerk reaction to write off everything Ruppert says as ‘batshit crazy’, as the ramblings of a paranoid, self-inflated whistleblower who has taken upon himself a messianic mission to show how the end times shall pass. His plea about ‘peak oil’ and claims of political cover-ups which surround them stoke the partisan fires and make those already entrenched in politics all the more aggressively opposed to what he has to say. Putting aside the gravity and far-reaching implications of his findings (which lets be clear: is the titular collapse of modern civilization), what separates Ruppert’s ideas from this punitive charge is that they, unlike the ravings of a lunatic, hinge upon a very persuasive piece of rhetoric that allies itself with fundamental laws of nature, using sourced numbers and elementary mathematics to illustrate an imbalance between spiking population growth and patterns of consumption with the limited and diminishing hydrocarbon resources required to sustain them. Its quite beautiful in its elegance, and as much as the factual ammunition of his argument warrants consideration, equally important is how succinct and crystalline his logic appears to be as edited together in Smith’s movie. To make a deserving comparison, Collapse combines the fact-check zeal of An Inconvenient Truth with the aesthetic aspirations of Fog of War.
The ‘collapse’ at stake in the film goes beyond politics to include the personal defeat Ruppert has experienced in the wake of his activism, the price of being a crusader for a cause no one wants to accept. These asides give a sense of the person at the center of this controversy, the lighter and more emotional aspects of his personality, but I fear too they give a safe out for people who are eager to find a fallible agent at work in his message. In matters of critical urgency, the merits of an idea should not be influenced by how you feel about the person stating it, nor how deeply it may conflict with your established sense of right and wrong, but rather how well it holds up under scrutiny. Collapse, though in part a character study, is more largely a persuasive argument that deserves exposure and healthy debate as perhaps the single most pressing issue any of us are going to face in our lifetimes.
For me, it is easily the scariest film of 2009 and the high mark of my festival experience thus far.
If you want to watch it onl1ne for free,...
Comment by d lewis — September 13, 2009
On the surface I didn’t see any sophistry to what he was saying, no clear indications of exaggeration or deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The bulk of his argument depends upon very basic, virtually irrefutable ideas of supply and demand, and how essential oil is for every facet of our lives. If there is a flaw in his argument it would have to be with the specific data he uses, the actual numbers, because the inferences he makes from them are to me foolproof. The issues with him and the government are incidental things that shouldn’t take people’s eyes off the ball, the peak oil position.
I agree, very high on my best of the year, for sure.
Comment by Mike Rot — September 13, 2009
Can’t wait to see the movie out here in Ore-uh-gun, there really is no character like Mike, he has a way of absorbing sobering facts, digesting them and then spitting them back at you in a way you can’t argue with. So glad to see a movie was made about him, and by such a pro.
Is Elmo in the movie? What a great dog. ;^)
Comment by Lisa Mann — September 13, 2009
His dog does make an appearance.
Comment by Mike Rot — September 14, 2009
Comment by rot — September 15, 2009
Comment by Toner — September 15, 2009
In case you haven’t seen it, the Youtube links below are two parts of a lecture given by Michael Ruppert in Seattle in January 2005.
You will see a more playful and very eloquent Ruppert in this video if your review of collapse is anything to go by.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy9JCDchk34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1xkYfjfsU&feature=related
Comment by OrwellianUK — September 15, 2009
Comment by Bill — September 15, 2009
I’d have to judge anything he says hopefully on its own merits, but its hard walking in on doomsaying from a truther.
Comment by Goon — September 15, 2009
As much as I love American Movie, I absolutely LOATHED The Yes Men. Absolute shit.
Comment by Goon — September 15, 2009
I suppose when you make dozens of arbitrary predictions of when, one will turn out to be right and you’ll be hailed as a Messiah. Works for the Watchtower society, works for kooks, cold reading psychics and politicians too.
Look, I’m glad you enjoyed it rot, but I wonder if you’re prematurely gobbling everything up hook line and sinker way too fast and are going to be inundating us with buzzwords and new word inventions of your own concoctions the same way you became Mr. Culture Remix Warrior after RiP.
Can I pass you a salt shaker so you might consume a few grains?
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
as for RIP, I will let you know when I stop believing in the virtues of a remix culture, Goon. Hasn’t happened yet.
I guarantee though when people start to get a chance to see Collapse it is going to get ugly, it already started in my audience, and apparently the other showing had similar outbursts. In the film Ruppert lists the three kinds of reactions to a catastrophic event, and I think those are the kinds of reactions that are going to happen watching this film… there is going to be a lot of hate for what he is saying by people, there will also be, I hope a lot of constructive discussion about what he is saying.
I would like nothing better than a reasonable argument refuting his position, as much as I like chaos, I would like to hear something positive about how society is going to sustain itself in the transition, its human nature to want to hear that things are going to be alright.
Chris Smith takes jabs at Ruppert in the film, trying to find holes in his theory and position, and while there is a segment on Iraq there is no mention of him believing that 9/11 was an inside job masterminded by Cheney. If that is true Goon, I really wonder why Chris left that out, because in the Q&A he was adamant he was not taking sides and would not defend everything he says. He does say the Bush administration was adamant to go to Iraq for oil though.
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
I don’t care if he raped his grandmother and set fire to the American flag, does his argument about peak oil hold up under scrutiny? Thats the great thing about reason, it can be impartial, we don’t need to get bogged down in our biases.
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
“I don’t care if he raped his grandmother and set fire to the American flag, does his argument about peak oil hold up under scrutiny?”
I don’t buy it when people say they ‘don’t care’, there comes a point where it matters to almost everyone whether the person they’re cheerleading holds up under scrutiny to things that aren’t even involved in the issue. When it comes time to bet your own integrity on someone else, things look a little different.
Let’s pretend you were an Edwards supporter in the last election. The scandal breaks about cheating on his wife… who has cancer. Do you still put in your donations to him in support of his ideas – or do you realize that hanging your hat on that guy was just handing over the election and even the debate to the other side, and making it look to other people that you are a bad judge of character?
This is why I keep jabbing at some of your ‘meritocracy’ ideas as being so naive – it stands in opposition to how people actually are and how they make decisions. I’m not condoning this method of weeding out bad people with good ideas, but there are also very good reasons it happens that depending on your priorities are completely reasonable and logical. In the end if you are trying to win people to your cause, and you don’t do that with a liability unless you have a rock solid PR machine behind you.
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
reason can be impartial, we can look at the evidence and enforce a rigid logic and parse the information accordingly. issues of slander can be dispensed with, personal biases put aside, and look at the matter of Peak Oil for what it is, a numbers game (the same people that rely on probabilities for weather forecasts without blinking, or trust unflinchingly the scientific and engineering feats that keep our modern world afloat have to accept we believe them because of the numbers, because of so-called facts). Do the numbers add up on the issue? That is the only question, not who Ruppert is and what agenda he may have.
afterwards, after the analysis has been done, each of us can do what we want with the findings, we can let our emotions take over, process them and react. It ought to be two different activities, but I do realize most people do not do this, they pre-judge and then argue towards that position, and this partisan bickering is a waste of time and energy.
as for Yes Men, I agree with everything you just said. It didn’t work on any level, I can’t believe Ebert wrote favorably of it.
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
So let’s say The World’s Smartest Pedophile runs for office against Stephen Harper during the next election – do you vote for the pedophile?
Do you ever vote strategically for a person you like who is more likely to win over someone you may agree with more?
Do you think politicians should never step down when faced with a personal scandal that distracts from their job? Or at least clouds their party from achieving their goals?
Just about every battle has its own unique circumstances. I don’t think its wise to say that we should never let the public’s emotional response dictate the (short term) debate. If there’s an outcry about your standard bearer, sometimes its in the better interest of the long term fight to send him packing, or to not rely as heavily on that persons character and all the distracting baggage it entails.
It’s never as simple as ‘best ideas win’. And if it was that simple and we did life in such a world, you can easily write a laundry list of sci-fi horrors about how we would treat each other that way not resemble a world any better than the one we live in.
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
I am NOT saying I am making my decisions solely on reason, I am saying if it is to be a tool at all you have to use it impartially, and then afterwards take what it concludes and integrate it into your whole value-system (if you don’t really respect reason at all, then sure bypass that step).
I am saying on critical issues, that could have reprecussions on our very ability to live, than I think it is a good thing to reserve your emotional biases until you have considered in a rational way the pros and cons of the issue. In your analogy, the Smartest Pedophile may have a well-thought out answer to a critical problem, but I guess what you are suggesting is should I ignore that answer because of what this person does after hours? The smartest pedophile has a cure for cancer but I should not listen to it because of a character flaw? Whether he is applying for office is a different category of importance (I personally don’t consider it a critical issue).
my point is we should be open to all opinions and see which hold up under scrutiny within the confines of the thought experiment. Some of the craziest opinions kick started revolutions in thought, it seems ridiculous to immediately dismiss an opinion solely on from whose mouth it was uttered. That is herd mentality, that is towing the line, lowest common denominator close-minded bullshit.
I never said ‘best ideas win’… political decisions are inevitably pragmatic decisions but in order to truly make a pragmatic decision you need to know the pros and cons in a demonstrable sense, you can’t just make things up like Obama is not American, or there are Death Trials, you need to process information in a controlled impartial environment of checks and balances, you need to withhold judgment, and really consider the ramifications of acts… and then after all that, in politics, you have the next step of what is the best strategy to make this work.
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
What makes sense and what is are hardly the same thing.
Comment by Henrik — September 16, 2009
Comment by Henrik — September 16, 2009
Yes
“In your analogy, the Smartest Pedophile may have a well-thought out answer to a critical problem, but I guess what you are suggesting is should I ignore that answer because of what this person does after hours?”
YWhat I’m saying is if you want to push that persons ideas through, it would make sense to make a clearer separation between the ideas and the person making them, so they don’t become so intertwined that the ideas are forever stained.
And yes, that means that if Mr. Pedophile is on a ballot that maybe it’s okay not to vote for him, that maybe attaching Mr. Pedophile to Reform X does more harm to the cause than good. Part of the war in any change is a PR War, and current events show pretty clearly that they will spend billions to preserve the status quo or cripple any reform forever, and they’ll even do it under the guise of ‘grassroots action’.
Of course this is all a very cynical game, but I think it’s highly realistic. I could just as easily make a devil’s advocate argument here, but I think ultimately there’s two roads – towards the bland Guy Whitey Corngood politician, or the Glenn Beck nutjob commentator.
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
two different questions that I think Goon you may be conflating in your hypothetical example:
Does Ruppert’s Peak Oil position legitimately describe an impending threat to modern society?
If so, what is the best way to correct this problem within the political system?
So much of politics lately has been a cult of celebrity that takes away from the concrete issues, and there is also a partisan strategy of making it less about the issues and more about the pragmatics… the case in point with healthcare in America, the debate has largely moved away from whether or not Americans ought to have universal healthcare (or something similar) but can they afford it. Pushing this as purely pragmatic, something you can leave on the agenda for a couple more years unresolved is, I believe, undermining what is truly at stake in the issue of healthcare, playing politics before addressing all the pros and cons in a controlled thought experiment about what universal healthcare could provide, before tallying up the cost. It is a bullying tactic, and it happens a lot in the Canadian government as well, born of this emphasis on party first, issues secondary. tow the party line irrespective of the inherent logic of a particular issue (like the environment and Alberta’s part in that).
I don’t follow the 9/11 Truth commission at all, but I respect the idea that you do not take anything for granted. Amongst the highly speculative content of this campaign there could be some legitimate questions to be answered… peripherally I always wondered why the footage of the plane hitting the pentagon was classified. Whether Cheney masterminded the whole plan would take a lot of evidence to convince me, but a certain complicity by inaction I do not outright refuse to believe.
Still my point with Ruppert and Peak OIl is that it is its own thing, it could be written down on a piece of paper anonymously, its power of influence is in its reasoning, it doesn’t matter who it came from, its logic makes it autonomous insofar as any of us respect logic. But I would still need to know where the numbers come from to make his case.
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
Proper credentials will keep most people from fact checking anything you say.
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
I see that, and agree… thats why I separated it as two different questions, you cannot refute the validity of an issue like Healthcare on whether or not it will cause vocal dissent. You need to first address inherently if it is worth fighting for.
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
that’s true, and sometimes thats valid, and sometimes it is a smokescreen, those who are part of debate should be able to get down to some productive consensus on what is deemed a reliable source depending on the circumstance. I would take U.N. statistics over a conservative think tank for example. statistics are tricky though, what you really want is the raw data, thats quantifiable, and Ruppert’s thesis rests upon just that. How much oil is left? How much oil was there before? Has it peaked? The rest of his argument is, in my opinion, incredibly solid.
Comment by rot — September 16, 2009
All you did for me was describe what makes politics both interesting and endlessly frustrating. In the end as much as I can be a worrywort and buy into doomsaying from time to time but I wish I had more perspective about how any other time in history looked at the world/future, how much of doomsaying is human nature pessimism and how much is truly ‘end of the world’ level challenges.
I mean, I was around 20 when Y2K hit and I was buying pretty heavily into that something was going to happen. My dad worked on the Y2K team at his power plant and they were pretty explicitly told that something was going to happen. I worried about that endlessly and it was presented in the media that SOMETHING was going to happen. Not that long ago you yourself were going pretty Chicken Little about the Large Hadron Collider and while I’m no expert on that it seems you got a little carried away. We were all supposed to get either SARS, Swine Flu, West Nile or something else and die. It’s always something. There’s a point where you grow a little numb to the doomsaying and for at least a number of these supposed threats you just wait and see.
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
Comment by Goon — September 16, 2009
Comment by Mike Rot — September 17, 2009
Who’s the idiot here? ‘Any’ risk?
“before you decide to do an experiment of that magnitude you need to balance what you potentially gain with what you potentially sacrifice”
What makes you believe this has not been done? Your conclusion is drastically different, but I have to say, I’d trust them over you rot.
Yelling at THC is the wrong activism. You are the Boogin’ Out of science Mike Rot.
Comment by Henrik — September 17, 2009
Ethics and holistic concerns fall through the cracks in a system designed to be efficient over being thorough. The great injustices in our world occur from compartmentalized endeavors all working in disregard of the wider perspective, all funded by interest groups and working to fulfill these short-sighted goals.
“What makes you believe this has not been done?” Because they openly admit 1) they are dealing with energy levels never before controlled in an experiment and are not entirely sure what will occur
2) mini-blackholes, while improbable, could occur and how that phenomenon would behave is also left to theoretical physics.
they are willing to gamble the lives of potentially everyone on theoretical science for knowledge that is not worth the risk. if you appreciate the foundation of science, what its theories hinge upon, you start to appreciate how much of it is guess work, is hoping on probability rather than concrete truth.
Comment by Mike Rot — September 17, 2009
What are you babbling about? Are you claiming to know more about the science than the scientists performing it are? Just because they’re getting paid, doesn’t mean they can’t think about things.
“Ethics and holistic concerns fall through the cracks in a system designed to be efficient over being thorough. The great injustices in our world occur from compartmentalized endeavors all working in disregard of the wider perspective, all funded by interest groups and working to fulfill these short-sighted goals.”
Well said Gandhi.
“they are willing to gamble the lives of potentially everyone on theoretical science for knowledge that is not worth the risk.”
Well, who are you to decide?
I’m afraid I just don’t see the logical path from dealing with energy levels never before controlled etc. to your conclusion of it not being worth it.
To be (maybe) constructive, let me ask you: Which risks are acceptable in science?
Comment by Henrik — September 17, 2009
“You are the Boogin’ Out of science Mike Rot.”
Quoted for truth.
Comment by Goon — September 17, 2009
Comment by Henrik — September 17, 2009
The bus is leaving at the south end of the building.
Be on it.
Comment by panda — September 17, 2009
http://stfuandgtfo.ytmnd.com/
Sincerely,
Idiot
Comment by Goon — September 17, 2009
The LHC having mechanical complications is some kind of validation of your anti-science superstition? How do you figure?
You Mr. Rot are a superstitious fool. You’re all talk and big words with no intelligence to back it up.
And now you’re backing some some 9/11 truther. I’m not at all surprised.
Comment by Rusty James — September 17, 2009
Had I amnesia I would call upon all three of you into a thought experiment, I would ask you to observe my position and stick rigorously to what it says and find in what ways it, within context, contradicts itself. We could do away with the fog of commonsense that has in the past allowed people to believe the world was flat, inequality to race was righteous, Newtonian physics defines the universe, and do away with empty name calling, the likes of which are more deserving of the Tea Party movement in America right now (waiting to be called a witch doctor).
But I don’t have amnesia, I know what happens when I take the bait, I explain myself and I am either ridiculed or told that I go on too much, because I dare be thorough when challenged to articulate my position in a way befitting public scrutiny.
but yeah, you’re right, I am a truther, I am anti-science, I am superstitious, I am an elite snob who still apparently loathes Inglourious Basterds, I am an Idealist (Ghandi), I am an academic. I am whatever boogie man you want me to be so as to prevent you from actually thinking, from actually having to adjust your position.
Comment by Mike Rot — September 18, 2009
I am interested in discussion. Not necessarily getting some lecture through academia, which you have linked to in the past and complained nobody had the ability to debate you – bear in mind, the academia has been by yourself, which might explain why other people didn’t find it as interesting as yourself.
To say that we are just rash, non-thinking namecallers because we talk bluntly and not through meaningless gibberish we look up in thesauruses is unfair, and you’re sounding like Andrew whenever his political debates all of a sudden gets old to him.
Plenty of questions left unanswered in this thread, and yet we’re the ones being blamed for not taking the debate seriously.
Comment by Henrik — September 18, 2009
So I am fine stating my opinion, you can have your opinion, if I am foolish enough to take a question from you seriously, and respond, it only gets us here.
a debate only works if both parties are willing to adhere to some impartial third party measure of right or wrong… what you call a ‘discussion’ is saying anything you want when you want without needing to have it scrutinized. fine. don’t be surprised then when I do not answer the questions, its kind of pointless.
Comment by Mike Rot — September 18, 2009
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/919/jesusme.jpg
Comment by Goon — September 18, 2009
Comment by rot — September 18, 2009
You are saying, if people are not willing to concede that in fact you are right and they are wrong, you have no interest in debating with their feeble minds. That’s fair enough, and I understand.
Comment by Henrik — September 18, 2009
Because Rot’s right. It’s not the debate that gets old, it’s the rehashing and shouting over one another that gets old. And with you Henrik it just turns into insults and name-calling. Your tiny world of ignorance/lack of perspective gets old really quickly.
Talking “bluntly” and just plain and simply being an asshole because you can’t think of anything else to say are two different things and frankly just gets annoying.
Comment by Andrew James — September 18, 2009
Maybe, however…
“I have far too many times in the past attempted halfway intelligent conversations with all three of you and really the fact is none of you are particularly interested in deliberating the relative truth of an argument…”
This kind of condescension is a million times more aggravating then a thousand random ad hominems. Rot, I don’t feel like you’ve ever conversed with me so much as wrote essays for yourself that generally fit whatever I was also talking about. I drew up that juvenile Photoshop because if I let loose what I was actually thinking after reading that, I would have broken the box again.
Comment by Goon — September 19, 2009
If being a Truther is believing in the argument posed by Michael C Ruppert, particularly in his book Crossing the Rubicon, than I proudly adopt the moniker. I am not willing to get into a debate with anyone over whether 9/11 was an inside job until I have confirmation any challenger has read in total his 600+ book of evidence. I would love nothing more than to have substantial proof against his argument, both about U.S. foreign policy and the peak oil crisis, and I have been seeking out counter-arguments online and frankly they have been nothing more than embarrassing ad hominem attacks.
I have also had a lot of time reading about the crisis posed in this documentary and I believe now more than ever that he is also right regarding it (although the pinpointing of the peak date as being 2007 is, while not yet disproved, something I hold off on believing just yet). I do have a book coming to me in the mail that is a noteworthy counter-argument to peak oil, called Sustainable Energy without the hot air, so I could still change my mind, but from all that I have been reading it is going to be hard to persuade me otherwise.
I realize most people won’t read his book, and so there is the option of hearing one of his talks on mp3, which hits a lot of the points but is less effective because you do not have the the compound effect of his cited facts. It is easy to feel the avalanche of his information beat you down in a lecture, and at least with a book you can take breathers, you can stop and look up his citations. Still, for the lazy, the lecture is better than nothing.
http://www.markswatson.com/rup.mp3
I would also recommend checking out the plethora of mp3 links at the root domain, under audio.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
Some of the ’software’ stuff in the book seems a bit over the top to be believable, ditto the ‘planes driven by brainwaves’ aside, seems a little jarring to put in there (even by way of minor aside).
I like the crazy amount of foot notes, but I wish Ruppert would have taken the approach of trying to re-evaluate his ‘From The Wilderness’ in the now writing and try to bring things together more than simply ‘reproducing post’ directly. As it stands now it is a difficult book to digest in a logical sense, it is more overwhelming.
Comment by Kurt — October 20, 2009
This is like when I get in arguments with Christians who refuse to talk about evolution until I’ve read their specific apologetic book of choice. Fair enough though, I wouldn’t even dignify the truther argument by wasting any more precious moments of my life on their absolute garbage. I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the truther movement.
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
yeah I would agree stylistically, though I think it starts off very clear and rhetorically persuasive, by the end he is taking wholesale articles he had already written and integrating them in… the result is that there is a lot of repetition of points, and when he is quoting reports, he tends to give you the full context (to cover his ass), and that can be more information than you might want, but he does italicize the key passages so if you wanted you could just read those, but he is assuming you want to be thorough in your investigation.
By software I am guessing you mean PROMIS. I remember looking it up and finding documentation about it, its not a secret as you would think. doing a quick search now, you can look at this WIRED article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw_pr.html
(I have not read this article in detail, this was just a quick sample)
I don’t remember anything about brainwaves, but he does talk about well-documented U.S. technology to use remote-controlled planes in wargame scenarios. To me though, this whole part of his argument isn’t really necessary, I mean he uses it because he can cite it and because there is skepticism about how these particular terrorists could fly the planes the way they did (doing an impossible turn around the Pentagon) but you could take that whole aspect out entirely, without undermining the rest of his argument.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
I kinda wished he did, it undermines (some) of my ability to take other things seriously if he felt the need to include that, otherwise I’m getting a MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS vibe. But I do like the way he sets a lot of the points in the book up, just other parts seems sloppy, random and probably worthy of revision.
The 9/11 Insider trading is probably the most convincing argument that I’ve hit in the book. It is also the most coherently written portion.
There is stuff beyond the PROMIS type software, although some of the claims he puts even on the PROMIS stuff seem more like science fiction than reality, the logistics and getting ‘usable data’ out of it seem boggling and highly error prone.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — October 20, 2009
oh god. PROMIS conspiracies are ancient. The name popped up all the time in my youthful days of pouring over conspiracy theory non fic.
I would immeadiately disregard any book that mentioned it. It’s probably one chapter away from Moon landing hoaxes and faces on Mars.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
not that I have seen the movie, but wasn’t it based on real events? Thats a genuine question because I don’t know, looking up wikipedia: “The book examines connections between paranormal military programs and psychological techniques being used for interrogation in the War on Terror. The book traces the evolution of these covert activities over the past three decades, and sees how they are alive today within U.S. Homeland Security and post-war Iraq.”
I agree though, the Insider Trading chapter blew my mind.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
Other things these people claimed were impossible:
melting steal
making a cell phone call on an airplane
They have a fuzzy understanding of the word “impossible” and an exaggerated idea of their own competence.
These holy grail texts that skeptics are horribly ignorant for not reading are invariably hyped up, repackaged same old news.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
I can’t now, but if you wish I can come back with Department of Justice records (I was a gov librarian) to say not only that it does exist, its not even a conspiracy. The conspiracy, as far as I can tell, is whether certain governments are using it covertly. That Wired article I linked to above goes into a lot of detail about this, its just a matter of providing the legal documents it references.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
For the record, I watched Loose Change and I watched the Popular Mechanic counter-argument and I agree with the skeptics on those points, in this book there is no talk of melting steel or missiles hitting the Pentagon.
This is why I say read the book before expecting a full-on debate from me, because its nice to have the same reference points to discuss from.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
I didn’t say it doesn’t exist, considering the ammount of babbling written about it I would hope it at least exists. What I’m saying is that it’s just age old fodder for conspiracy theory word salad.
There also really was a mysterious crash in Roswell NM and there really was an Area 51 but etc etc.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
So they threw out all the weakest claims that are obvious bunk. Inflate the importance of less sexy but impossible to disprove (or prove) insinuations about insider trading or whatever. And then out of equal parts padding for length and OCD behavior they weave in the standard CT boogey men like PROMIS, Project Paper Clip, MK ULTRA, The Trilateral commission. This also serves to insure that no credible person ever reads the book let alone bothers to debunk it = WIN!
This is the natural life cycle of this wuu-ey nonsense. I predict this guy’s next book will include an appearance by either: Alien Grays, Men In Black, Evil Lizard Men, El Chupacable or Ghosts.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Now is that Scout’s Honor?
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
What a laugh. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the truthers are absolute failures when it comes to this, they are the ones making the claim that ultimately boils down to ‘they’re part of the conspiracy!’ every time they are debunked. The amount of things one has to believe in order to have Cheney as this evil mastermind is astounding. Never walk into a Scientology building, because I fear you wouldn’t walk out.
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-11805.html
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
There exists a gov progrm called PROMIS that was developed whenever, I don’t 1980’s probably. After that, I would take everything with a serious grain of salt.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
No. You deserve them.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
I have pointed you to the evidence, 600+ pages… but you refuse to look at it because you already know what’s in it. Now in return I would love to see the evidence to the contrary, you know, if you are done with the name-calling hyperbole. seriously, you both seemed well-informed about this, all I ask is for is your sources. When I read them and can make up my own mind on their validity, I will gladly recant, because I have no vested interest in holding this belief.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
He may as well have written that Dick Cheney knocked down Building 7 by recombobulating the everything-bad-atronic 5000.
In my opinion.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
You’d have to believe Cheney has super powers and one of those Men In Black mind erasers to swallow the shit with him involved. The Darth Vader joke has gone too far. 9/11 truth may be nonpartisan, but it has certainly specifically become the cancer of the left. I don’t even give a shit if you just want to write me off as ad hominem, like I said, I just as soon write off any new Truther convert entirely and instead now just take pleasure in making fun of them. Anything else would be showing too much respect to this horseshit. And that’s what it is, horseshit.
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
neither of you will read the book, so be it. neither of you will educate me on what I should be reading, so be it.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
I know very little but so far I find Version 2.0 less credible. At least the first wave guys were talking about building materials and engineering and not discontinued regan era government contracts.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
that’s not entirely true. Many of the most outspoken truthers are right wingers. Don’t forget their raucus support for Ron Paul (who was not actually one of them but close enough I guess) Alex Jones who is a conservative christian end timer and the storm front I just linked to.
If Rot needs a debating partner he could probably go fish up Tom Baychuck.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
“Now I’m just supposed to forget all that and approach the second run with an open mind because this time they have TOTALLY WAY BETTER EVIDENCES OHMYGODZ!!”
Don’t you dare say Loose Change is bad until you watch the new special edition! then next years! and the year after that!
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
And it’s true I havent’ read the book. But I can’t read every book that some one I know tells me is THE BOOK that will finally enlighten me. I mean, I volunteered to do that once and I still haven’t made it through that damn Bible (oh, and now there’s a NEW testement! bullshit!). I flipped through his site, did the cursory googling, waded through storm front. I don’t see anything to distinguish him from a run of the mill crank.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
that’s true. But most of the left’s sacred cows are not associated with the movement. Mike Moore, Noam Chomsky, Denny Kucinich. The last celebrities I remember bringing it up were those conservative christian halfwits from the hills.
I wouldn’t discount the post-milenial bible prophecy NWO wing of the trutehrs.
I’ve always thought Mr. Rot’s politics were his own brand of left-wing authoritarianism. I seem to recall a post were he was endorsing state sponsored torture.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
absolutely. Only an ignoramous would dismiss the stragic value of oil. But the Truthers just don’t connect the dots convincingly.
They make up for it with a whole lot of dots though.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
keep throwing your mud around boys.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
Although Ruppert seems to be exposing the machinations of the Global Elite. He is actually playing right into their hands.
looks like the rabit hole goes deeper than we ever thought!
but I kid, I kid.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
I haven’t read it yet but plan to, you know, one of those crazy conspiracy theories about geostrategic imperatives that I am sure a country like America wouldn’t sully itself being involved in.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
well that’s all real. Jenny and Jim, with their awesome knowledge of numerology and the kaballah, are doing the work of angels.
STOP VACCINATIONS!! STOP VACCINATIONS!!
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Milhouse: You fool! Can’t you see it’s a massive government conspiracy? Or have they gotten to you too?
Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven’t you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? “The simplest explanation is probably the correct one.”
Bart: So what’s the simplest explanation?
Lisa: I don’t know. Maybe they’re all reverse vampires and they have to get home before dark.
Everyone: Aah! Reverse vampires! Reverse vampires!
(later)
Milhouse: OK, here’s what we’ve got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people…
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: …under the supervision of the reverse vampires…
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: …are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner! We’re through the looking glass, here, people…
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
are you with THEM! WHat d0 U NO??!?!?!
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
I’ll just open up my standup notebook to the truther section…
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
anyways, its been fun. hope to see you again on the next thread.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
This kangaroo court here is nothing more than the pair of you waving your dicks around getting hard doing it.
Ruppert’s book poses the argument as evidence in a court of law. I think, considering the shit you are referencing here, you would be quite surprised how detail-oriented his case actually is, what I was surprised about reading it was how accessible the information actually is he is citing, how much of it there is, how much of it is legally documented and credible, how it is not a shot in the dark, but fits within a complete map of American foreign policy since Post-WWII. As Kurt commented on above, the Insider Trading chapter alone is indisputable evidence of conspiracy, but that is like 1/500th of the points Ruppert is working from. He could have stopped there, on that one point, and at the very least the responsibility would be on the government to follow through in an investigation into it, but they did anything but. They had the means, they even had a department specifically set-up to oversee this very kind of activity, and they did nothing.
Or you could look at the lineage of the Kean Commission adjudicators, which, speaking of rigged games, my God, every single one of them wouldn’t pass as even a credible witness, let alone arbiters of truth on the matter, when you consider how each are tied to the Bush Administration.
no magic bullet needed.
but you would say connecting dots, two big dots, nothing else… but like I keep saying, the evidence in this book is exhaustive, if after the 456th corroborated fact you are still hoarsely calling out for arbitrary connecting of dots, then I guess there is no justice in kangaroo court.
Ruppert has never been sued for liable in any of the facts he published in his book, and he names names, its not like he is sugarcoats anything.
but whatever, hang me now and go back to your regularly scheduled program.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php
in it, The America government was planning on flying planes into buildings in order to create false pretenses for war.
silly declassified documents…
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
I’m not saying you have to believe snopes. I’m just saying that this guy’s not unearthing band new evidence. It’s the same old stuff repackaged. Like when they sell spagetti-O’s shaped like Ninja Turtes, but it’s still the same old garbage spagetti-O’s.
I didn’t read the snopes article so I don’t know what it says. I suspect it shows jiggering data by adjusting sample size to give the appearence of greater frequency or exagerate a neglibable pattern. Or one of the other thousand ways that data can be skewed in favor of a dishonest argument.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Diabolical!
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
I think your secret might be compromised.
I haven’t finished reading it. But it’s just as sensible to suggest that Al Queda got the idea from viewing that document while browsing on the internet. (i am not actually suggesting this)
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
anyways I want to quote this document for another reason, I want you to acknowledge that some of the things truthers are suggesting are not out of the realm of what has already been proven to be within the interests of national security. The bullshit I hear from so many skeptics leans heavily on this issue that a government would never do that to its people, nor assume it could pull it off.
Again, a declassified memorandum for the U.S. Security of Defense, considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that can be seen here: http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php
read on:
“1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies….
… a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires — napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
….
6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.
…
7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio
….
9. It Is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.
…
2. The need for positive action in the event that current covert efforts to foster an Internal Cuban rebellion are unsuccessful was indicated** by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 7 March 1962, as follows:
” – - – determination that a credible internal revolt is impossible of attainment during the next 9-10 months will require a decision by the United States to develop a Cuban “provocation” as justification for positive US military action.”
___________
but to get back to ‘evil’ Cheney, within the case, it is not a diabolical plan, it actually is a pragmatic plan, and it makes it understandable how someone like Cheney could sleep at night, and that has to do with the issue of motive, which is not so dissimilar from the Soviet threat to national security that caused this 1962 hypothetical provocation. again, you can either cherry pick or read the case in its entirety.
Comment by rot — October 20, 2009
“This kangaroo court here is nothing more than the pair of you waving your dicks around getting hard doing it. ”
Yeah, I’d say Rusty and I are more or less entertaining each other at your expense. I have a hard time believing Ruppert’s book would ever bring up anything about 9/11 that hasn’t been in Loose Change or the dozens of other shitty 2 hour long videos that plague the internet.
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
No need when the real thing’s already on fire.
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
But my argument was over whether or not 9/11 was such a scheme.
You presented this as a plan for 9/11 type incident. When in fact it’s a plan to fake a plane crash outside of US soil. This seems quite a bit more pragmatic and less morally objectionable than actually crashing 4 passenger planes into heavily populated American cities.
The scheme is hard to believe for reasons that go way beyond the immorality of. The plan is too complicated and unweildy by half. If they were charging Iraq with developing WMD’s why stage a low fi hijaking?
Everything about the plan seems far more consistent with low tech antiamerican terrorism than a clandestine foreign policy manuever by an advanced super power.
If I were Dick Cheney and I wanted to send a large invasion force to Iraq I wouldn’t do all that. I would just wait until Iraq committed some minor infraction and then blow the whole thing out of proportions.
And if you’re gonna stage some international incident you stage a USS COLE (like yer document describes) not a Hiroshima. What if you got caught? Not worth it.
I will agree that terrible things are done in the name of national security all the time. Now you agree that Operation Northwood is quite a bit different than 9/11.
Comment by Rusty James — October 20, 2009
OMG THEY KNEW
http://www.progarchives.com/progressive_rock_discography_covers/378/cover_5514131282008.jpg
http://new.assets.thequietus.com/images/articles/168/600px-TheCoupCoverLarge_Party_Music_1216210816_resize_460×400.jpg
Comment by Goon — October 20, 2009
of course I never said otherwise. I am noticing this trend with skeptics how they think if they can isolate a truther claim and make it as if the whole case depended on it then the whole thing falls like a house of cards. This is why I find the skeptics’ attacks laughable. I cannot speak for the truther movement, I have never read anything outside of this book, so I don’t know how much wargames are common knowledge, how much peak oil plays into the geostrategic imperatives of these other scenarios, what I have read however are bloated skeptical attacks that are as shrill as you guys, which say “A HA! this one piece of evidence is not corroborated, ergo sum, its all a pack of lies!!!!!!!”
I will take a sober, calculated presentation of a web of facts brought together in order to make a case of reasonable doubt, that asks you to be properly skeptical but not ignorantly bliss, that asks you to follow the reasoning behind the 500+ key points that link everything from the Northwood Operation to an FBI memo to make a coherent case. You can dispute it after the fact, but its just plain ignorance to cherry pick one or two points and say everything is falsified. also common sense is one of the stupidest default positions to fall into, and if there is a point to be made about bringing Northwood up it is to say, at the time the common sense of the country was their government wouldn’t even dream of doing something like that. Common sense is politicized, because we are in ingratiated within a culture that is politicized, to take common sense at face value, particular a common sense stance that a government would never do such a thing nor pull it off, is perhaps the very reason they could pull it off. But don’t take my word for it, or the word of that one argument, read the book.
and to answer your question Rusty (again requiring a fuller appreciation of the complete case) shooting down one civil plane of Americans would not give you the political cache to invade two countries as they would need to, hell 9/11 barely gave them the cache.
now you jump on this piece of the string to pull out, and repeat… and ultimately its not understood in isolation, anymore than a single piece of evidence can make sense outside of a built case in a courtroom, you have to hear the testimony, be privy to the entirety of the case, withhold judgment and then decide. So because of that, I am done. This is useless.
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
Actually Rot, you described the document as:
“The America government was planning on flying planes into buildings in order to create false pretenses for war.”
Not true.
@ I am noticing this trend with skeptics how they think if they can isolate a truther claim and make it as if the whole case depended on it then the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
All anyone can do is take the facts one at a time and judge each individual one on its own merrits. I’m noticing a trend that Truthers and CT’s in general get so swept up in the grand narrative they forget to ask if the individual parts make sense or fit together.
@ “shooting down one civil plane of Americans would not give you the political cache to invade two countries as they would need to”
Well Rot, apparently the authors of Operation Northwoods disagree. What are you basing this claim on exactly?
Comment by Rusty James — October 21, 2009
“Sorry, I might have been wrong, I don’t think they talk about crashing planes into buildings, its actually worse.”
and then some context:
“anyways I want to quote this document for another reason, I want you to acknowledge that some of the things truthers are suggesting are not out of the realm of what has already been proven to be within the interests of national security.”
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
that’s not how the legal system works, each piece of evidence is used within a larger context, two sides, and the jury or judge take in these contexts and make an educated decision on their overall value. As far as I am aware, the skeptic case is the 9/11 Commission (which I plan to read in full), and the truther case (that I acknowledge) is in Crossing the Rubicon. Read both and then decide. I am open to the possibility that having read the Commission I could be persuaded otherwise (although it has a big hurdle to get over considering the bias of the judges in this case).
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
Seriously though, I find it excruciatingly hard to believe that retards like Dick Cheney and George Bush could do 9/11 and fool everyone. Didn’t Dick Cheney shoot his own friend in the face? Some mastermind.
Comment by Henrik — October 21, 2009
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
When a truther loses one dot they draw another one. Check the Loose Change remakes over and over. Some dots are too important to them and they’ll just stick their finger in their ears over long after debunking (WTC7, melted steel, etc)
Cheney shot his own friend in the face because he KNEW TOO MUCH, isn’t it obvious?
Comment by Goon — October 21, 2009
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/cheney_shooting_scientific_proof.htm
Comment by Goon — October 21, 2009
BUT I KNOW BETTER: Obama must be planning a massive death camp! Or is readying a quick cleanup and coverup a coming attack? Know how I know? Operation Northwood! Open your eyes!
Comment by Goon — October 21, 2009
That’s a load of bullshit, the alternative to thinking truthers are retarded is not “The government is telling the complete truth”. Also that report unlike the crap you’re reading doesn’t waste its time to debunk all the garbage you’ve recently been fed. You’d be better off taking a look at the Popular Mechanics debunking and then going through debunking911.com for all the marginal stuff that shouldn’t really matter that MATTERS SO MUCH BC OMG they have to tie thousands upon thousands of people together to be in on this thing.
Man its weird to see someone just becoming a truther 8 years after 9/11. it’s like when people in north america convert to christianity on the power of its story, as if you can live to a full adult life without hearing the story of Jesus. but it happens. odd.
Comment by Goon — October 21, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — October 21, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — October 21, 2009
There ought to be at the very least justification for discrediting, for example, an official FBI Memo by a whistleblower that made Time Magazine Person of the Year, which states in no uncertain terms her efforts to prevent 9/11 were obstructed by those newly appointed above her (a connection that is corroborated to other such obstructions happening in Arizona). If that is not included in the commission report, isn’t that suspicious? That is one of a number of cases where government officials are on record as saying they were prevented from doing their job in the lead-up to 9/11. If none of that testimony is even considered by the commission, what does that tell you?
The FBI are batshit crazy too?
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
there shouldn’t be anything to hide in a court of law. I understand you like to play up your self-important idea of what is awesomely true in the universe, but I would kind of prefer the case be made where there are restrictions to… oh… bias, inflated egos, mob rules, where reasonable doubt has a place to be addressed and is not silenced by empty rhetoric. And I mean that on both sides, its a way to cut away the bullshit and see it for what it is.
your universe appears more wild west and kangaroo courts than anything resembling impartial inquiry.
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
this melting steel popular mechanics default position.
do you want to hazard to guess, seeing as you haven’t read the book, and I have read the book and seen Loose Change, that maybe, just maybe, I have more of an understanding on how distinct Ruppert’s case is from Loose Change, and the straw army you keep setting before me might be put to better use elsewhere?
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
Rot, I have moved past the ridicule stage, this is becoming sad. You think beaurocratic obstruction is evidence that Dick Cheney masterminded 9/11 ?
YOu think that a massive conspiracy is the best explaination for beaurocratic incompetence? Your theory explains stuff that already has a perfectly valid, and far easier to believe, explaination.
And agent Coleen Rowley goes out of her way to avoid being lumped with the truther nonsense. She sounds like an honest person trying to fix the system. Sensationalists like yourself diminish her message.
“I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring. The term “cover up” would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here.”
Comment by Rusty James — October 21, 2009
what are you babling about, you awful, awful man?
Comment by Rusty James — October 21, 2009
Then I dont see why they would be obstructing Agent Rowly who was warning against foreign terrorists operating on US soil. She sounds like the perfect pawn in their master scheme. SHES ONE OF THEM TOO!!!!!!!!1
Her work sounds completely at odds with the truther lunatics who are simply picking and choosing their facts a la carte.
Comment by Rusty James — October 21, 2009
“when you have reasonable doubt, you have the right to trial, the right to trial allows for a case to be given in full. If you whitewash a report to omit every instance of on-record facts about line of command foreknowledge of events, you remove from the official record the possibility of reasonable doubt, thus removing the right to trial, thus making it easier to sleep at night.”
anything having to do with whether Cheney is the mastermind comes AT THE END of this often revered mode of adjudicating. Let the channels flow properly and we can let the law decide who, if anybody, is culpable of obstruction.
Comment by rot — October 21, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — October 21, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 21, 2009
In pursuit of LOLz I highly recommend Mr. Ruppert’s A TIMELINE SURROUNDING SEPTEMBER 11TH which I guess outlines his case that the CIA orchestrated 911.
It reads like a random list of factoids stung together by a paranoid schizophrenic.
My personal favorite item:
Sept. 10, 2001 – the FBI was notified of a fifth grader from a Dallas suburb who told his teacher, “Tomorrow, World War III will begin.”
Riveting! I’m not at all surprised Mr. Sloan is a fan given his own propensity for word salad.
Maybe next time you’ll place Rot.
Comment by Rusty James — October 21, 2009
I don’t think it’s disrespectful to desire all facts to be on the table, and see-through government officials that can be accountable for their actions. It seems to me rot is saying, that that is the only way to determine wether or not the truthers are really nutcases.
That being said, it does seem like quite a sensational tree to bark up. I mean, you associate yourself with some pretty ridiculous people taking on this case.
Comment by Henrik — October 21, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 21, 2009
its a benign fascism you fellas hold up with your ignorance, your lack of curiosity, your stonewalling of governmental accountability. I can’t think of a single instance where I would give someone in power the benefit of the doubt so much so that I would look the other way as they openly disrespect the channels of justice. Ah but to get to the point where you can be curious about whether the Commission was a rigged game or not, you actually have to get outside of your skull, put down your pitchfork, quiet your tirades, and listen impartially.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
Actually, the 9/11 timeline in the book underscores a curious policy change (in mid 2001) on scrambling fighter jets to deal with ‘off course commercial passenger flights’ and it is a fascinating piece of puzzle-ry. Ditto on the stock market stuff. A lot of the other bits are more difficult to believe as they are presented a lot more slip-shod, very much likely because most of the ‘facts’ are not in the public domain and have been walked/trod-on by various parties more likely trying to save their careers, more than any diabolical planning.
Enough careerists get in one place and a lot of the big problems are glossed over, because it will make or break someone who deals with them head-on and fails. I see this in the corporate world -A LOT-.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — October 22, 2009
Accepted.
Like I said though, it is a pretty sensationalist tree to bark up, especially if you start doing it right after watching a movie about a guy who thinks it’s conspiracy. I can see why people would think your seemingly honest desire to obtain all the facts, would a be a faux-intellectual shroud to cover up your own conviction of a conspiracy.
In this particular case, I am on the side of not caring much, calling americans evil, and making fun of them.
Comment by Henrik — October 22, 2009
absolutely agree.
This is why I keep lambasting the weak straw man argument of Darth Cheney, which, in context of the case made by Ruppert is not that, there is an underlying, one could possibly say pragmatic ethics in context of why a rogue group in the government could conceive of obstructing response to or outright masterminding of something like 9/11. There is enough probable cause to at least do a thorough investigation, that is my position. I have said since the very first comment that I am open to the skeptic side, but there needs to be a proper forum for both… but apparently that is a slippery slope to fanaticism, and believing in UFO’s.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
“If being a Truther is believing in the argument posed by Michael C Ruppert, particularly in his book Crossing the Rubicon, than I proudly adopt the moniker. I am not willing to get into a debate with anyone over whether 9/11 was an inside job until I have confirmation any challenger has read in total his 600+ book of evidence. I would love nothing more than to have substantial proof against his argument, both about U.S. foreign policy and the peak oil crisis, and I have been seeking out counter-arguments online and frankly they have been nothing more than embarrassing ad hominem attacks.”
embarrassing ad hominem attacks… hmmmm
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
“If being a Truther is believing in the argument posed by Michael C Ruppert, particularly in his book Crossing the Rubicon, than I proudly adopt the moniker.”
-Mike Rot from a few days ago.
Now yer trying to spin it like Goon and I have been arguing against investigating 9/11.
Comment by Rusty James — October 22, 2009
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
7 – all used by me
searched uses of the phrase ‘right to trial’
6 – all used by me
I agree, Rusty, you and Goon haven’t been arguing against investigating 9/11 because in order to get to that point of discussing it like that you would have to get over your hyperbolic biases and talk about this as potential legal case.
so who again is the awful man, the one that defends the right to fair trial, for evidence to be heard in their entirety and not be obstructed or whitewashed, or the one who yells over any discussion of such jurisprudence?
I suspect you are both opposed to the Patriot Act which I find ironic considering how willfully you both seem to be disinterested in the right to a fair trial when it comes to something you have come to a conclusion of in your own mind.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — October 22, 2009
I prefer this article, from yesterday, from the Guardian talking about the International Energy Agency press release where they kind of soften it (call it a ’supply crunch’). Crunch sounds cozier than collapse. But it still says the same thing, and I emphasize, this is a pretty fucking important agency, to call them doomers is to be an idiot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/19/oil-prices-rise-supply-warning-report
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
Talk about goal post moving. We’ve been making fun of you not about peak oil or holes in a 9/11 report, but because you had to dive headfirst into EVERYTHING Ruppert in order to accept the actual relevant part.
Quoted Again
“If being a Truther is believing in the argument posed by Michael C Ruppert, particularly in his book Crossing the Rubicon, than I proudly adopt the moniker.”
Early on you insisted that you refuse to debate 9/11 being an inside job until everyone reads your new favowit bookywook. Since you say you identify as a truther we are specifically blatantly poking fun at the Dick Cheney mastermind part of things because you refuse to discuss it.
If you came here and said you joined Scientology, but refused to discuss Xenu until we reached OT 3, then we’d just as assuredly make fun of space planes and thetans and billion year contracts.
But I guess all of this shows what we already know – you don’t have much of a sense of humor, and think that proving peak oil is real also proves things you refuse to discuss.
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
do you believe in the right to fair trial, and if evidence exists that proves obstruction to such an end, it should be legally pursued?
Outside of a straw man, what kind of truth movement can you be referring to that does not take as part of its premise that 9/11 was improperly investigated?
you both say neither of you are against investigating 9/11, which is a baffling statement to me considering the stonewalling you continually do, both in jest and hyperbole (you are not against investigating 9/11 you are just for ridiculing the movement that exists to do it, ah I see). So the only part of the truth movement you are opposed to is the Cheney as Darth Vader part? But aside from that you are okay with an investigation going on, if, perhaps, it was under a different name, perhaps the accountability inquiry?
Once you accept that there is a right of inquiry, right of a fair trial where the evidence can be cross-referenced in its entirety, right for judgment to be withheld in the court of law, than the relative truth of the case may be made… not on 911DEBUNKED.com but where it was supposed to occur, the federally appointed commission, which if reasonable doubt as to its impartiality can be made, ought to be held accountable.
aren’t we due for another scientology joke, a hyperbolic statement, and ritual berating in the absence of anything concrete to say on the matter? I believe so.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
“If being a Truther is believing in the argument posed by Michael C Ruppert, particularly in his book Crossing the Rubicon, than I proudly adopt the moniker.”
The word ‘if’ is conditional, and when put in this sentence it means only within a particular context is something true.
So I am a ‘truther’ insofar as Ruppert’s 600+ page book is equivalent. Neither of you have read the book, but I am still told I am all about melting steel and Darth Vader Cheney (as much as saying you know the entirety of Shakespeare’s works because you’ve heard the ‘To Be or Not To Be’ soliloquy). maybe you should read books rather than burn them
I don’t even know what a truther movement consists of to be honest, outside of a notion that the government is obstructing justice, and seeing as neither of you know this book, we can just cross out that conditional phrase… this book is about an accountability inquiry into 9/11.
is accountability okay to pursue?
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
So we’re agreed, this whole argument started because you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, and will dive in headfirst without thinking.
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
following from the ‘if’ sentence, aren’t you the idiot trying to tar me as something I am not? I covered my ass, you just failed to read it like an intelligent human being.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
in Goon’s mind its
ROT = TRUTHER (LIZARDS, SCIENTOLOGY, MELTING METAL etc.)
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
IF MIXED RACE = CULTURAL ASPECTS NOT KNOWN OUTSIDE OF CONSERVATIVE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
OBAMA = MIXED RACE (UPPITY, WITCH DOCTOR, GANGSTA)
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
I highly doubt I need to read that book to argue about whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. But I guess you needed 600 pages of Ruppert blowing smoke up your ass about unrelated incidents and JFK to set up a connect-the-dots pattern where its all feasible, just like every other conspiracy theory and cult out there. And that’s what 9/11 truthers are, a cult. A Cult of Stupid. It’s history fanfic.
As for all the petulent asides, you’ve treated me like a child long enough that I might as well play the part. Once the grammar rodeo comes to town, its time to shit your pants and let teacher change them since he loves thinking he’s the only adult so much.
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
DID READ BOOK = BOOK IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
lol
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
How soon before you watch a video like this and take it at face value as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcLpet0ouNA
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
again, Goon, pick a mirror up. I know youtube is your library, but I for one am interested in more than mere appearance of things.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine
Confessions of an Economic Hitman (I originally linked to a fascinating hour long discussion with the author)
The Grand Chessboard
I also follow NYT economist, Paul Krugman, who has also been insightful regarding the Bush Administration and Peak Oil.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
its that kind of head up your ass resistance to any kind of data and analysis that should be called taking things at face value.
Comment by rot — October 22, 2009
There is some funny stuff in this thread, but I would have to say that rot is trying to do something substantial, and is being ridiculed without reason by somebody who has not intentions of being substantial. Which seems a bit much to be honest with you, since he is being pretty reasonable and making some sense.
I can understand why this happened though. rot, you should know better than to hold a book you read over peoples heads, especially over Goons head.
Comment by Henrik — October 22, 2009
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9642/footnotes.jpg
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
“Is that video a hoax Goon?
The general word seems to be that she has a psychogenic disorder of some kind and that actual dystonia is different. But its still sort of new and not entirely conclusive. What I do know though is even if the flu shot was absolutely cleared of any causality that Anti-Vax movement would still claim there was a causation. They’ve already stuck their dick out there.
Comment by Goon — October 22, 2009
Comment by Henrik — October 22, 2009
Pingback by Cherry Coloured» Blog Archive » collapse — October 30, 2009
Comment by Mr. Woo — November 1, 2009
“See “Collapse” and die. Or die anyway, apparently. I was speechless after this film. Well, I am anyway, but this was worse.”
and
“Above all else, see “Collapse.” Above all else.”
Looking forward to his review whenever he writes it.
Comment by rot — December 4, 2009
Argh.
(The Speechless comment from Ebert = priceless)
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — December 4, 2009
Comment by rot — December 4, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — December 4, 2009
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
Comment by rot — December 4, 2009
But seriously, I won’t see this anytime soon, and mostly because of you.
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3823/collapseposter.jpg
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
Henrik actually said it best here: “There is some funny stuff in this thread, but I would have to say that rot is trying to do something substantial, and is being ridiculed without reason by somebody who has not intentions of being substantial.”
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — December 4, 2009
Whenever I see anything for this movie, I think of this thread first and it bogs down everything, over hype, over sell. I would cloud and distract from watching the movie now, so I’m not even going to subject myself to it until I can walk in trying to watch it on its own terms rather than trying to filter everything through whatever rot has said.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
If you cannot cope with hype, maybe, I don’t know, stop reading this thread.
I will say from my own experience, Let The Right One In had to be hyped over and over and over before I decided to go see it and I was thankful that it was, otherwise I would have never gone.
Comment by rot — December 4, 2009
Comment by rot — December 4, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — December 4, 2009
You brought that on yourself
“…being coloured by the 9/11 debate”
its not about the 9/11 stuff, and I’ve known all along its not part of the movie. it’s all the endless ’shaken to the bone, the sky is falling’ stuff and popping in every other day like you’re part of the street team. its coming on used car salesman thick to advertise what you’re also saying is a shitty experience that has seemingly diverted you off course from talking about anything else.
I have enough problems garnering up the energy to go sit through the bleakness of the Road. Even if I completely believed in everything Ruppert, I wouldn’t want my life to resemble your twitter page. It’s turned me off.
Call it ostrich in the ground, I dont give a fuck, hyping through fearmongering doesn’t work for me.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
but if i’m supposedly supposed to see this as an urgent primer for peak oil and how we’re doomed, i’m passing. there’s a very long detailed thread on somethingawful i have bookmarked if i want to engage in that. to bring it back to the 9/11 thing, i DO distrust that guy as a primary source of information. so in that sense yes the 9/11 debate has colored it, and i’m fine with that.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — December 4, 2009
That’s sort of the mentality that is encouraged by conspiracy mongering or doomsday saying.
Go out, be a prophet! You are called upon to save others!
Comment by Rusty James — December 4, 2009
I like Michael Moore’s issues movies. All of them, with their own particular flaws. I think they’re well made, and if a person can put their own politics aside can recognize how they pass as entertainment. And I can take Moore with a grain of salt.
And I guess ditto Alex Gibney, despite much less of the blatant polemnics.
If you stripped aside everything that made those movies unique, it would be another shitty Robert Greenwald documentary that requires you to believe in everything Robert Greenwald believes in order to enjoy it.
I have seen way more people pushing it on me like its Greenwald. I’ve seen two Smith movies, and the one that had political issues/overtones is just awful, one of my least favorite documentaries of the decade. When I hear so little about the craft of the film and all about this one guy and what he has to say, I start trusting Roland Emmerich’s version of the future with my 12 dollars more.
I mean, when so many reviews start off like
“How you feel about Chris Smith’s latest documentary will depend entirely on how you feel about Michael Ruppert, a reporter who spends 82 minutes seething over the world’s preventable problems.”
and only the negative reviews seem to be talking much about the filmmaking… I get more and more worried its not just a Greenwald movie, but the ultimate Greenwald movie.
if you’re that dedicated the preaching the word of Collapse, try to find a couple other angles I guess?
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
When you see what anti-vaxxers and truthers have done to youtube for example, the whole idea of the web as a ‘meritocracy’ goes right out the window. It doesnt matter that ever factcheck.org member has seen and touched Obama’s birth certificate on their own, youtube hasn’t, therefore the door is open for Palin to say, as she now has, that the birther complaints are valid.
The web is as much an idiocracy as a meritocracy, if not more. a better pooling of intelligence than the average neighborhood, but the dumbasses on your block can’t enable each others bullshit the way the web can/has.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
I’m very conflicted when I prefer to be around people who are very opinionated, but also kind of despise activists, be they teabaggers, hippies, the Randies doing their yearly march for capitalism… I’m happy even ones I dont agree with are out there, but if you’ve ever been directly in the hive with them its more often than not a pit of obnoxiousness. it has clearly fueled like 95% Mike Judge’s comedy.
Sometimes its hard to get upset at the status quo when so much of the fringe has no idea what they’re doing or how to reach out to people. Whether its Code Pink or whoever was organizing the donations coming into the Ron Paul campaign, Cindy Sheehan… ugh. All these guys make Layton’s NDP look like political masterminds.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
to get to Andrew’s obsessive point, which I think I have already responded to before, but to say it again:
I genuinely care about the issues brought up in the film, I think, by the variety of reviews written on the film, the subject matter is largely unknown by people, the film itself outside of my twitter feed and this blog is not that well known (well now that Ebert has said something about that, the situation is a bit different). This is just the kind of film that lives or dies by word of mouth, and so I participate in that.
but its absolutely true that for the last couple months my attention has been drawn away from most other things than researching the state of the economy, the resource scarcity, climate change. I like to think my priorities are in the right about this, and I am no longer researching the issue that much, now its about making practical changes.
I link to articles on the issue, I emphasize when and where the film is playing because I genuinely care about the issues the film brings up. Also I see it as an archive of links that someone after seeing the film can go back to, to see if what Ruppert is saying jives with headline news. I am not REALLY talking about the film that much, you do not hear me obsess over camera angles, and catch-phrases, and dissecting it scene by scene… with the exception of mentioning that it is about Peak Oil I could hardly be criticized for spoiling the contents of the film…
If my announcements of when it is playing, and my links to stories about IEA whistleblowers spoils your interest in the film, than really, I say good riddance. I am appealing to the people that are not so preoccupied with the messenger (seriously there is something endemic in these parts over people that care more about how something is said than the content of what is said – Victorian Ethics on Steroids).
I am appealing to people that come across this blog in search of this particular film, or follow me on twitter because Peak Oil is a common term used. I am working my corner of the universe. Marina mentioned Collapse on the Cinecast so I responded to her in that thread, John asked for films to see and I mentioned it may be on tv in his neighborhood, I am like the vampire, I am only come in when invited. This thread is about Collapse, go figure what I post about here.
Comment by rot — December 4, 2009
I dont have a Twitter account so I dont know how often checking in counts as ‘following’. If following is checking once in a blue moon and scrolling through a page trying to find something, then I guess?
Once in a while you’re posting on Jay’s or Marina’s or someone elses and I click and scroll through your page, and its pretty easy to see right away if you can get your eyes off the monkey typewriter that it’s mostly a Collapse news feed these days.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
I have rot on facebook, and I find him much less intrusive and abrasive than many other politically active ‘friends’. Seriously, who cares? He writes about a film he liked. HOW DARE HE!
It’s not like he is standing outside the theater offering to pay for your ticket. These a public forums, they aren’t directed towards you Goon.
Comment by Henrik — December 4, 2009
Choosing to see a movie is often based on your impression of whether or not its worth your time and money. When the impression changes from it being the kind of movie I want to see to a movie I might not want to see, why should I plop down money to see it anyways?
I’m not skipping it because rot liked it, I’m skipping it because everything rot has been pushing about it makes me think its something I don’t want to see. There’s a difference. If I skipped movies solely based on what he thought, I probably wouldn’t have run to his aid on Away We Go.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
you on TWBB:
“I think masterpiece-hype ruins these films for me on first viewing in the moment, The Departed was the same.”
And I actually agree with that quote. In this specific case I’m trying to confront my reaction to hype by postponing seeing it. The idea/hope is that given some time I can dull any current prejudices against it.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
Does rots opinion equal hype for you? I guess it could.
Comment by Henrik — December 4, 2009
brief timeline:
- Initial hype for movie – its good! Hooray.
- Then learned: oh the guy is a truther… hmmm. but if its a character piece, whatever
- oh my rot has bought into this guy hard
- oh my is this movie actually a character piece if so many of these reviews talk about it being scary, etc? do i want to see this anymore? do i want to watch a movie about this guy?
- I’m sick about hearing about this guy, from lots of places, but since i see rot around often, he’s the avatar of Collapse hypers. geez does rot talk about other things anymore? i can’t remember the last time we argued or agreed about anything else…
- I’m just going to pass for now rather than let my current feelings about the hype affect me. After all, I was never THAT eager to see it.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
This happens to me too. I was initially confused about what I thought about Inglourious Basterds. I knew I didnt hate it but I knew on initial viewing I wasn’t in love with it. I was initially quite disappointed with Star Trek, but I can see it now on the level it was trying to go on, rather than on what I wanted from it in advance.
I was actually quite glad to see you flip flop on TWBB, it was unexpected because I hadn’t known you to be a rewatcher of anything you didnt like immediately.
Comment by Goon — December 4, 2009
Comment by Henrik — December 4, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — December 5, 2009
Comment by Goon — December 5, 2009
this is a valid observation. I don’t write much in general lately, and maybe that will change… I will say your original argument that twitter could draw attention away from post writing for some is, at least for me, true. But this has more to do with the fact that I am more interested in parsing news than movies, and twitter can be a great aggregate feed for finding and sharing relevant information on the internet.
I think once I have my shit in order and feel more self-sustainable I will get back to the old ways.
That said, I haven’t seen much in these last two months that has really been worth writing about… except maybe Fantastic Mr Fox.
Comment by rot — December 5, 2009
I definitely look forward to you getting back on track posting about some other stuff on R3.
Comment by Goon — December 5, 2009
Before you or Henrik say “Then why skip Collapse” – simple: tickets ain’t free, and its still supposed to be a piece of art I’d rather go into without distractions.
Comment by Goon — December 5, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — December 5, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — December 6, 2009
I loved how the movie’s trailer gives away the plot well into the third act but still somehow doesn’t tell you about the movie at all. Everything that matters isn’t even hinted at. It’s a suprising film
Comment by Rusty James — December 6, 2009
I’m too lazy to read all the comments in the thread as it would take longer than watching the actual movie. I think he is a very compelling speaker and that he knows his stuff.
I do think that he is missing one set of people on his Titanic analogy and that is the group who fully know its coming but are just too complacent to do anything about it. I see this as being a lot of us and I believe that I fit in there.
I’ve often said that Democracy is just a stage just as every, Socialism, Anarchism, Monarchy, etc are all just stages. Democracy will eventually collapse whether by the Peak Oil problem or something else. I really don’t see Democracy as being the be all and end all of everything. It just seems like it is because we don’t know what is next.
I also think that he does miss the concept that maybe the earth is meant to support right around 1 billion people and that the collapse he is predicting won’t actually mean the end of humanity it will just mean that we end up back around 1 billion.
Comment by John Allison — December 23, 2009
I think you are right John about complacency, I think we have had decades of complacency, of sitting in front of the tv, wearing away any survival instincts that even if most of us feel fairly confident the tide is turning there isn’t the will to do anything.
at some point the world could support 1 billion people, but not with an abrupt shortage in oil, there has to be a die off in that scenario just because of the domino effect that has on agriculture and globalization. Also John you are relatively safe in Saskatoon, there is land to grow things… think of people in New York or Los Angeles.
Comment by rot — December 24, 2009
pyramid scheme + housing bubble + impending commercial bubble + oil depletion = fucked up beyond all recognition.
Merry Christmas
Comment by Mike Rot — December 24, 2009
Comment by John Allison — December 24, 2009
“If Saudi Arabia is now drilling off-shore, their oil fields must be deleted.”
- rough quotes, but basically that’s what Ruppert said. I haven’t done the research Rot has, but we’re just going to take that as sacred because this guy says so? There could be lots of reasons why S.A. is drilling off-shore. I’m not saying the guy is wrong, I’m just saying it’s important to question some things.
Comment by Andrew James — December 26, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — December 26, 2009
I agree. If they have the money to, why not invest it in exploration. It’s kind of a leap connecting those dots, I mean it would be like saying Coke is in trouble with their main product because they experiment with new flavors.
Comment by Goon — December 26, 2009
Well, aren’t you a good little Glenn Beck!
I’m just yanking your chain, but I recommend the 13th episode of this season of South Park for some good asking questions related humour.
Comment by Henrik — December 26, 2009
Comment by Goon — December 26, 2009
He is hilarious though. When he puts his own pair of eyes on a separate screen next to himself, that was genius.
Comment by Henrik — December 26, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-D_S7WOnjg
Comment by Goon — December 26, 2009
“Michael Ruppert transcends opinion about himself”
So true, at least about the movie. While I thought he’d be more intense and gripping as a character, there was something about him that made me forget about all the things I’ve known about him, something that wipes the slate clean and lets him just vent without that baggage for an hour and a half. I don’t think he’s wildly charismatic, but maybe “disarming” would be a good word.
Comment by Goon — December 26, 2009
I think if anything, Ruppert is edited in a way that underplays the evidence, and granted it was made prior to information that has come out in this last half of the year.
But there is A LOT to say about S.A., Smith chose to make it a soundbyte and continue with his ‘character study’.
Ruppert mentions midway that he is done debating the topic, and while that is a remark pertaining to him in that he is ‘retiring’, it is also a valid statement for the peak oil movement in general. When the IEA is saying unless something miraculous and undiscovered occurs we will most likely be arriving at Peak Oil in ten years, you got to kind of acknowledge how much of a non-controversial statement it is to say, for example, Saudi Arabia is near peak and offshore drilling, a more expensive enterprise, is indicative of them trying to compensate for depletion.
There are endless announcements of ‘elephant fields’ and very little amounts of them. Investors like to hear this good news, and that is why there is a whole lexicon of terms that boosts the impression of what is there (Ruppert mentions it in the film, with types of reserves). Things to remember: its not a matter of how much oil is in the ground, it is how much retrievable oil there is, how expensive it is to get, and how high the cost of oil has to be in order to get it. The price of oil has to go up to make these ventures profitable, for the price of oil to go up, the economy needs to be able to sustain it, but what happen last time oil hit triple digits?
Any Peak Oil skeptic that talks only of oil in the ground and nowhere addresses flow rates, decline curves and EROEI (Energy return on Energy Invested) is not to be trusted.
when they say ‘potential’ oil reserves its virtually meaningless. I can give you a long list of ‘potential elephant fields’ that ended up being nothing, hell in Saudi Arabia alone there are several such hyped potentials that came to nothing.
This is a pretty awesome overview of the Peak Oil argument:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969
Also the NPR article doesn’t really prove anything, Brazil IS NOT Saudi Arabia, there is offshore drilling in lots of places that have already peaked, the issue with Saudi Arabia doing it is they have ‘potential’ reserves that would suggest there is enough to last for a long long time, why then offshore drill, pay that expense now (of all times!) if you didn’t absolutely need it? Brazil NEEDS that oil offshore to warrant the expense. Saudi Arabia is supposed to be sitting high on the hog, with the non-existent depletion rates for decades (!), if anything they should be using that capital on desalination for fresh water which they so desperately need.
Comment by rot — December 26, 2009
I loved Collapse when I saw it at TIFF because it was something I wasn’t expecting and it made me scared when I saw it, but even in my review I said I need to research more, and it wasn’t until I actually did the research that I got really scared, really concerned, and really promoted this film. The film is not the important thing, it hits some of main points, for me it is the research (just look at the Peak Oil wiki page and follow the reports of the many people involved). There really isn’t a debate to be had, not now anyways, other than how soon it will come, and even then the spectrum is very short.
but of course you can do a google search and find a blowhard who says Peak Oil doesn’t exist, but like I said in the last comment, read through and see if he or she ever mentions what Peak Oil is actually about, not oil in the ground but flow rates, depletion curves and EROEI. and then find out who the person works for. In the several months I have been researching I have not come across a single credible source opposed to Peak Oil, and if you find one, I would love to hear it.
Comment by rot — December 26, 2009
find no oil, result: anarchy, billions dead, no civilization
or
find oil, result: melted icecaps, environmental disaster, billions dead, little civilization.
I mean is it really a surprise to anybody that we won’t live more than a couple more centuries? The universe was never meant for humans, at least not this part of it.
So debating controversies seems pretty redundant, in my opinion, I guess Ruppert is the same, but he enjoys being in the know for some reason. I guess he wants to survive.
Comment by Henrik — December 26, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — January 2, 2010
Comment by Henrik — January 2, 2010
the problem he referred to with no combination of technology can replace completely hydrocarbon energy is not hyperbole, there HAVE BEEN great minds working on the problem, lots and lots of alternative ideas and none of them, even in combination add up… even discounting the issue of money, the issue of net energy is usually the biggest problem… cheap oil is an anomaly, it took millions of years to create, there is no adequate substitute.
The thorium article I linked on Facebook is a positive possibility for crisis aversion with regards to electricity, although the money to do it and the time frame we’ve got, and lack of political will are all factors working against it as a solution, but it MIGHT be the answer to a lot of problems… it is NOT an answer to the issue of hydrocarbon energy, its essential role as a cheap fuel in this immediate predicament.
we can dream about future scenarios not yet conceived, rest our hope and the salvation of our species on the hubristic belief that man will always prevail, irrespective of the scientific laws he may need to transgress to do so (perpetual growth with finite resources)… or you can call it as you see it. Ruppert is calling it as he sees it, and what he saying is not at all out of step with the many scientists looking at the issue.
IF we had a hundred years and the political will and the money to do so I believe man could solve almost any problem too… but that is not the present situation, we are sleepwalking into collapse, the money is not there, the political will is lagging behind and the time, by even the IEA standards is within ten years. Unless you got a Delorean handy Andrew, there is simply not enough time to make a clean paradigm shift, and the paradigm must shift eventually (no science can change that basic law).
Comment by rot — January 2, 2010
What about the other x-number of article links that have a lot to say about how theoretically improbable it is that our scenario will improve?
Human ingenuity didn’t fix the problems in Cuba and North Korea, they too had to suffer through a transition and last I checked did not create a super fuel source to replace oil. human ingenuity, at least born of the capitalist model, relies on funding to keep it going, but the capitalist model being what it is and resulting in trillions of dollars in debt (that is frankly going to lead to insolvency) may not have much to supply ingenuity, and so the potential may never be achieved. As Ruppert said, you can’t keep modelling the future prospects on the past because they are different, the Great Depression had enough buffer to get out, enough resources to tap, debt to use… this crisis is a different beast… time, money, will are in short supply.
Comment by rot — January 2, 2010
Comment by Henrik — January 2, 2010
Comment by rot — January 2, 2010
European Commision Warns: Eight Countries Charging Off A Sovereign Debt Cliff In 2010
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-europe-veering-towards-bankrputcy-2009-12
Comment by rot — January 2, 2010
http://seekingalpha.com/article/180572-choice-quotes-from-the-peak-oil-decade
Like I have time and again, there isn’t really even anything much to debate about Peak Oil, aside from a narrow spectrum of when it will happen.
Comment by rot — January 2, 2010
Let me just say, I thoroughly enjoy your crusade now after having seen the movie. It’s fun stuff, it’s kind of exciting to think that a major revolution might be forced upon mankind. I am glad I can enjoy it from one of the best-insured places on earth, and I am curious as to what might happen.
Comment by Henrik — January 2, 2010
Comment by Henrik — January 2, 2010
Its from the site Peak Oil Debunked (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/07/307-confessions-of-ex-doomer.html), the post is called Confessions of an Ex-Doomer, and here are some of the challenges:
“1) First, doomers tacitly assume that anything short of our current
energy consumption level would be catastrophic”
my response: you are disregarding how the present economy paradigm works. A sharp enough crash (i.e. the moment global Peak Oil is known, all that imagined money we had to do things ceases to exist) and it won’t matter… I think the greater threat is a run on the banks, and systematic failure to the way society functions. It is a holistic ecosystem we got here, you remove something, like ethanol production, and that is directly going to affect the GDP, the value of currency, the cost of alternatives.
“2) The second flaw is in assuming that because we use oil to do something
now, we have no other way to do it. In particular, doomers argue that
none of the alternatives will work because they all require oil to
implement. he final problem with the argument is that if things
really do start to get as bad as LATOC would have you believe,
building energy infrastructure will have much higher priority that
most of our present transportation uses. In an all-out emergency,
rationing could be implemented giving first priority to food
production, energy infrastructure, and long-distance transportation of
goods, especially food.”
My response: I think some aspect of this will probably happen, on a local level, they won’t just continue food production by the globalized model, and in stopping that, the economy suffers, and the dominoes fall. Its not so easy to go back to pre-globalized society with a society that has expanded, population that has grown based on it. How big the dieoff will be I don’t know but there almost certainly has to be one, it is axiomatic by virtue of a rationing scenario, those already living day by day or in areas dependent on long-distance travel will suffer most. Also this is not going to be a couple year drag, this, if really an all-out emergency, will take decades to change… decades of rationing will in turn change the way the whole operates, and you are also ignoring the very real likelihood of resource wars taking place, which will, I suspect waste a lot of energy in the process.
“3) The third flaw in the argument is a bit more subtle. It is the
assumption that the energy required to switch to alternatives must
come on top of what we are using energy for now, rather than instead
of some of it. For example, Savinar argues that we won’t have the
energy to power a crash program of building efficient cars. This
ignores the fact that we are already building cars, millions of them
every year. The energy used to build them is already counted; the
energy needed to build efficient cars doesn’t just add to the total.
It takes roughly the same energy to build an efficient car as an
inefficient one.”
My response: again, you need an economy in place to make it worthwhile for the car-makers to show up and do their jobs. what about garbage workers? Are they going to go to work without a financial incentive above and beyond other, less stinky jobs? If there is no faith in the fiat currency, and there is not enough precious metals to make tangible wealth without hyper inflation, than how do you make these efficient cars… its not merely a matter of energy supply, but a matter of a system being in place to make all facets of it to operate. There are enough people disaffected with the way the world works now just itching for an excuse to walk away, and frankly, the agrarian alternative could very well suit a lot of people, enough to overturn the necessary degree of stability of the economic system to make it function.
“4) Doomers argue that there is no energy source we can switch to that can
take oil’s place in modern civilization. That might or might not be
true, but it’s beside the point. No single energy source has to,
provided we can put enough of the others together.”
my response: I highly recommend reading David MacKay’s Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, he actually has it online for free here: http://www.withouthotair.com/. He is an oxford physicist and he crunches the numbers as most optimistically as possible, focusing on Great Britain (but the same format can be applied to anywhere) and disregarding the real-world costs of implementations, and even in a fantasy world of having all the will time and money to do a transfer off of hydrocarbon energy, there is still a shortage to maintain present day usage (no growth, no economy). There is a comparison graph here to hammer the point home: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml
Also what is a doomer? Is being a doomer to say the federal reserve can and likely will shortly become insolvent? Is that the same thing as saying the end of the world is nigh? No, its based, frankly on a mathematical probability (I mentioned it above with regards to my roommate) that the thermodynamic principle will intercede in the way this paradigm works. its based on a basic understanding that the economic system we got is a ponzi scheme ready to implode the second there is a run on the bank… and peak oil can and likely will be the catalyst to light the fuse. Its not going to matter what, hypothetically, we could do with less oil, its not just shaving 5% off and everything else works just the same… its abandoning hope of growth, its market crashes, its insolvency, its government breakdown, its resource wars, its… collapse. we may be eating dirt or living happily an agrarian transition phase, I would suspect either is a doomer prospect, and yet, what evidence do you have to the contrary considering the conditions, that this is not the probable end scenario
if peak oil is true
if the global economies are drowning in debt
if sustainable alternatives in optimal conditions cannot allow for growth
if a paradigm overhaul takes decades to shift infrastructure
if money only has value with the prospect of growth
what other conclusion do you come up with?
Comment by rot — January 3, 2010
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120966523
Just to be a completest, the present CEO of the oil company that is drilling that oil is now publicly forecasting Peak Oil to begin this year.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6169#more
This company, Petrobas, according to wikipedia, has the 4th largest oil reserve in the world. So what’s his angle? Why would he say this is happening, risk an oil price spike during a world recession, unless it was from his perspective, a certainty?
Comment by rot — February 4, 2010