TIFF 09 Review: Collapse

Collapse Chris Smith

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.





273 comments

  1. I saw the film. Easily the best film of 2009.

  2. I know in my theater it started something of a commotion, because during the Q&A there was some bickering back and forth between questioners… one calling Ruppert a moron of no worth and another who claimed to be in the energy sector who defends everything Ruppert said regarding that issue.

    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.

  3. Lisa Mann

    Mike shouldn't be smoking. Now that's bat-shit crazy, smoking those cancer sticks.

    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. ;^)

  4. for a second I thought you were talking about me, Lisa :) From around these parts it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to ask what I have been smoking.

    His dog does make an appearance.

  5. Noticed Mike Ruppert and company have linked to this and bringing quite a crowd. Please leave a comment, promote yourself, correct me, update us on whats going on now. As is pretty clear from the review I suspect I was quite moved by your message. been looking to download the U.S. Military survival manual online for free for quite some time, always delaying it :)

  6. I agree with Lisa that Mike Ruppert shouldn't be smoking cigarettes, the most exploitative capitalist charade EVER…..but I love him anyway. Kepp up the great work!

  7. OrwellianUK

    Hi Mike

    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&fe

  8. Mike's message is irrefutable,the only question is WHEN? this collapse will happen. Collapse defined as a forced decline to a much less complex order. Oil,Coal and Gas are nonrenewable one off energy resources. This is truly perhaps the most dramatic slow moving event in Human history.Mike legitimately dramatizes to the maximum this event, I like this approach and think it's 100% valid, but many people think it's the wrong approach 'cause it scares people and people don't like people who scare them,They prefer concentrating on how will we make the transition? and we must organize locally etc. etc. This is 100% a valid approach as well. Mike is only reflecting our dramatizing civilization, look at all those Hollywood films! His observation that man is currently "petroleum man" a separate species almost to man before and after I find very apposite! Cassandra was alarmist about the end at Pompeii but she was right! The other side of the collapse peak oil debate is Richard heinberg who concentrates on how do we make the transition without the drama.But his book "The Party's Over" is far more terrifying than anything Mike has said!

  9. My only previous knowledge of Ruppert comes from his 9/11 truther conspiracy theories about Dick Cheney masterminding the towers falling.

    I'd have to judge anything he says hopefully on its own merits, but its hard walking in on doomsaying from a truther.

  10. The only other thing preventing me from rushing out to Collapse:

    As much as I love American Movie, I absolutely LOATHED The Yes Men. Absolute shit.

  11. "the only question is WHEN? this collapse will happen."

    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?

  12. I admit entirely that the peak oil issue is completely new to me and I have not done my research on it. What I can defend in the film is the logic of his argument, how he draws his conclusions, the only thing that could be wrong is the raw data he is using. It is an ironclad argument otherwise but in the end it comes down to how much oil is there.

    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.

  13. Also as I said in the review, "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."

    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.

  14. I bought The Yes Men at the EX as part of the 6 for $20 deal and I got to agree with you Goon, it was really bad. Collapse is most like Fog of War, if you dig on it, you would probably dig on this.

  15. I do dig on Fog of War, which to me is pretty equal on his 'lessons' and on revealing who that person is.

    "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.

  16. I'd like to hear you expand on the Yes Men since you and I are the minority opinion on it, and even among the minority opinion we may be the minority. Many of the negative reviews were just in opposition to their politics/biased, whereas I just thought the film was clumsy as hell, boring at setting things up, and failed at every one of its payoffs. And beyond that doesnt really even work as an examination of who these people are. It's one of the ultimate "When are the gonna get to the fireworks factory?" frustrating movies for me.

  17. @Goon let me put it this way, I can care on my own time what I think about a person, I can think Edwards is a bad person, or Bush is a nazi, but to let these emotional responses influence the decision-making on critical issues, like Healthcare, like the environment, like the ethical justifications for war, serves no purpose other than to perpetuate my own base emotions, and we see this in the outcry against Obama right now over healthcare, people thinking with their gut, and while critical thinking about the pros and cons about the issue are sidelined by people injecting all sorts of personal qualms with the president, with the party, with the notions of good vs. evil, and this is why I say draw a line.

    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.

  18. "to let these emotional responses influence the decision-making on critical issues…"

    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.

  19. alright, I will say one more thing on this thread and probably stop because if we cannot agree on the very foundation of what we are talking about, then I know where this is going.

    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.

  20. In my opinion, rot is right, and Goon is right.

    What makes sense and what is are hardly the same thing.

  21. things*

  22. "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."

    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.

  23. But like I said, each case has its own unique elements. My default appraisal of most of these issues is through the US and its guantlet. Up here I think as a politician you can get away with more eccentricities in some areas and less in others.

  24. just to clarify and bring this back to Collapse:

    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.

  25. One mini point: if everybody really listened to ideas on their own merits, we wouldn't throw around credentials as often as we do. Everyone uses an appeal to authority sometimes. Most of the time they help an argument, even if sometimes times they're a blatant smokescreen or outright lie.

    Proper credentials will keep most people from fact checking anything you say.

  26. " Part of the war in any change is a PR War"

    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.

  27. "Everyone uses an appeal to authority sometimes"

    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.

  28. I don't really have anything to argue against in your last post and probably wouldnt go on about anything regarding Collapse until I saw it.

    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.

  29. Somewhere out there is not or never was concerned about any of the issues we have listed, but is convinced the world is going to end in 2 and a half years because the Mayan Calander Company went out of production.

  30. *Someone

  31. The Large Hadron Collider has been delayed still from countless errors in judgment… makes me even more confident in this hubris of science. With it I am not saying the world is definitely going to end, what I am saying (and this fits actually with our discussion here) is before you decide to do an experiment of that magnitude you need to balance what you potentially gain with what you potentially sacrifice, you need to put science in context of what it really is rather than get caught up in fallacious, untenable beliefs in scientific realism, overstepping the bounds of the formal logic that gives science its prowess. They seem to think any risk of doomsday is acceptable for the expansion of scientific knowledge, that to me is idiotic.

  32. "They seem to think any risk of doomsday is acceptable for the expansion of scientific knowledge, that to me is idiotic."

    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.

  33. right, I forgot that scientists are autonomous free-thinkers who have time and the authority to consider equitably all ramifications of their experiments and have total control over what becomes of their findings. Its not like they are part of a bigger system that has agendas of their own.

    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.

  34. "right, I forgot that scientists are autonomous free-thinkers who have time and the authority to consider equitably all ramifications of their experiments and have total control over what becomes of their findings."

    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?

  35. I'm just gonna sit back and let Henrik yell at you, because back when I did my reading up on the Hadron Collider, the people you were citing were more likely the outsider kooks and the explanations for its safety made complete sense, talking about the collisions that exist in our atmosphere at all times, the gravity of black holes if one were created, etc – when I read all of these things it sounded like extreme ignorance was clouding you into unwarranted fear.

    "You are the Boogin’ Out of science Mike Rot."

    Quoted for truth.

  36. I am not yelling, I am talking.

  37. Attention all idiots named Goon:

    The bus is leaving at the south end of the building.

    Be on it.

  38. Dear ad hominem lurker,

    http://stfuandgtfo.ytmnd.com/

    Sincerely,

    Idiot

  39. Rusty James

    @ The Large Hadron Collider has been delayed still from countless errors in judgment… makes me even more confident in this hubris of science.

    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.

  40. I love the subtlety of Goon, Henrik and Rusty, it makes it so easy to have a thoughtful discussion with them. 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, about controlling and refining the argument and seeing how it holds up under logical scrutiny, about withholding judgment and allowing the impartial application of reason to dictate what holds water and what doesn't.

    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.

  41. Are you now claiming to be some sort of victim here? It's not like you are subtle in your attacks on the scientists working on LHC.

    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.

  42. Like I have said before, with you Henrik, I am not in any rush to "debate" with you… not because of anything particular to this thread, but because in the past I have made the effort and we might as well be speaking different languages. The way a debate would usually work is you have common ground for analysis, you resign your opinion to what reason dictates. Not once, and I mean this emphatically Henrik, not once have you shown me any indication even remotely that you are willing to withhold opinion long enough to be analytical. Its not that we disagree somewhere down the line of the "debate", there is no debate, there can never be a debate, there is shouting over each other, because there is nothing you are willing to resign your opinion to.

    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.

  43. Which theater at TIFF to they hand the crosses out at?

    http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/919/jesusme.jp

  44. "Its not that we disagree somewhere down the line of the “debate”, there is no debate, there can never be a debate, there is shouting over each other, because there is nothing you are willing to resign your opinion to."

    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.

  45. "…you’re sounding like Andrew whenever his political debates all of a sudden gets old to him."

    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.

  46. "It’s not the debate that gets old, it’s the rehashing and shouting over one another that gets old."

    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.

  47. so some time has passed, I have been reading a lot, doing some online research, and I would like to change my stance:

    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.

  48. The sky is falling

  49. I'm halfway through Ruppert's book, and it is EXHAUSTING to read. It starts to simply become a low audio HUM. I know this is not really good for me, but I cannot really stop reading it either.

    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.

  50. "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."

    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.

  51. @Kurt

    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
    (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.

  52. Kurt Halfyard

    @Rot " 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"

    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.

  53. @ By software I am guessing you mean PROMIS.

    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.

  54. "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."

    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.

  55. @ there is skepticism about how these particular terrorists could fly the planes the way they did (doing an impossible turn around the Pentagon)

    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.

  56. Just curious, Rusty… what is the conspiracy about PROMIS and what evidence do you have to say that it doesn't exist? I genuinely want to see the case against it.

    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.

  57. Unlike how I am being portrayed, if only by association with the label Truther, I am actually sincerely interested in seeing the evidence against conspiracy… the great skeptic argument. The stuff I have found so far is laughable, it doesn't go much further than these gut responses I am hearing here, i.e. moon landings, intelligent design comparisons.

    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.

  58. @ 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

    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.

  59. @ 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.

    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.

  60. so let me get this right for the record, Rusty, there exists a program that can "integrate innumerable databases without requiring any reprogramming" (WIRED) making it an indispensable tools for tracking people and their online activities and no intelligence agencies are using this technology? And this is true after the PATRIOT ACT was enacted in your country?

    Now is that Scout's Honor?

  61. "the evidence against conspiracy"

    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.

  62. spare me the ad hominem attacks Rusty, and show me the evidence for the defense, assuming of course you don't want to look at the evidence of the prosecution, I at least am interested in hearing the other side.

  63. you know what, you're right. I've been a fool. I googled his name and the evidence is overwhelming
    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php

  64. @ Rusty, there exists a program that can “integrate innumerable databases without requiring any reprogramming”

    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.

  65. @ spare me the ad hominem attacks Rusty

    No. You deserve them.

  66. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

    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.

  67. I just want to point out I never claimed to have read or heard of the book. I was only trying to warn you that if it's got (as Kurt says) long rambling chapters about PROMIS then that's probably a bad sign.

    He may as well have written that Dick Cheney knocked down Building 7 by recombobulating the everything-bad-atronic 5000.

    In my opinion.

  68. I guess the fact that I havent read Dianetics or the Secret means I can't point out what is self evident, that's its ridiculous bullshit.

    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.

  69. look, whatever, this bores me, if I wanted to read this I would go to back to the skeptic forums.

    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.

  70. And I sincerely apologize for my cynical indifference. But I put in my time with the first round of this nonsense. I learned the arguments did the research. 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!!

    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.

  71. @ but it has certainly specifically become the cancer of the left.

    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.

  72. You're the one who showed up deciding to tell everyone you know believe something retarded, and that you wont pay any attention to us unless we also read your Official Something Retarded Guide. if that sounds mean and dismissive, it's because one good turn deserves another.

    "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!

  73. Most outspoken doesn't necessarily mean most numerous. So much of the 9/11 truth is rooted in the hate of the Bush administration to the point people believe they're capable of anything they want to imagine. Just as now Obama apparently has a murder list longer than Clintons, blew that insane person in a limo, is a Muslim, isn't american, and wants to kill your grandma.

  74. What I would recommend Rot, and this is serious but will sound sarcastic or useless, is to calibrate your bullshit detector. The truthers have all the tell tale markings of a fringe, disempowered would be revolutionaries yearning to play soldier on the weekends.

    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.

  75. I'm not even dismissing peak oil. Fuck, I mean I'm flatly pretty ignorant about a lot of issues around peak oil. But the second you wrap that up in 9/11 truth is the second I stop listening to you and find someone else. Ruppert would be just as well off in my eyes blaming peak oil on thetans, reptilians or the number 4.

  76. @ Most outspoken doesn’t necessarily mean most numerous. So much of the 9/11 truth is rooted in the hate of the Bush administration

    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.

  77. @ I’m not even dismissing peak oil.

    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.

  78. I am finding this kangaroo court hilarious by the way.

    keep throwing your mud around boys.

  79. Well Goon, looks like another horse successfully flogged beyond recognition. Praise Xenu! Another glorious row three thread!

  80. Horses flogged, Kangaroo courts. All we need is a dancing bear and a mothman and we open our own zoo.

  81. Now if we can just coax Jenny McCarthy into joining this thread, we can really have some fun.

  82. How about reading The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski, he was United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.

    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.

  83. @ if we can just coax Jenny McCarthy into joining this thread, we can really have some fun.

    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!!

  84. Bart: OK, it's not painfully clear the adults are definitely paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.

    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…

  85. Rot, the threads moved on. If you have something to say about how vaccinations are POISONi!!!!!!ng our children then I'd like to hear it.

  86. Goon, how did you get your hands on a chapter from Ruppert's latest opus!!!

    are you with THEM! WHat d0 U NO??!?!?!

  87. Well we're at 90 posts. I think we can carry this puppy to 150 on pure ridicule.

    I'll just open up my standup notebook to the truther section…

  88. Ockham's Razor, so you mean, America is Good, and other countries are Evil? I must have missed that day's medication.

  89. The alternative of "Dick Cheney couldn't have masterminded 9/11" is apparently America Good Not America Bad.

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=9

  90. I love how the truthers are connecting dots at random, yet the skeptics get free reign to do the same thing "how could Loose Change guy be alive if he exposed something" ergo sum, no conspiracy.

    anyways, its been fun. hope to see you again on the next thread.

  91. It's the difference between making jokes and being one.

  92. seems like a rigged game.

  93. Another conspiracy!

  94. In a legal case the truth of the matter is never known, but given the constraints of a fair trial each side is allowed to give their case as to the truth. Evidence is usually not ad hominem attacks and cartoon captions but legal documents, fixed timelines, credible witnesses, probable cause, intent and motive, and a jury when provided with all the facts is able to make an informed decision on the matter. Its not what colour underwear was Cheney wearing in the control room, or were their reptiles involved, its what in lieu of the evidence appears true.

    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.

  95. by the way, here is another conspiracy:

    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…

  96. insider trading! At last the truth has surfaced! Skeptics will have to take stock of this brand evidence!

    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.

  97. Darth Chaney's evil plan for world domination was a rejected plan declassified in 1962.

    Diabolical!

  98. I didn't know facts had expiry dates…

  99. want a match for your straw man Rusty?

  100. Rot, if you were plotting a perfect murder would you publish your plan 30 years prior? If you were plotting such a crime would you use a plan that you found by googling "diabolical plan to get away with murder"?

    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)

  101. Sorry, I might have been wrong, I don't think they talk about crashing planes into buildings, its actually worse. but for the sake of making it easier for people to read this declassified document, I will highlight some key parts. First, in anticipation of some pretty lame attacks, let me say this, like all pieces of evidence in Ruppert's case this does not exist in isolation, it finds its persuasive strength by the compound effect of the case. But fine, here is one of many answers to your question of why: first, this document was declassified prior to Bush Administration meddling with the democratic rights to this information, so it existed irrespective of their wish for it to (even if it is an empire, it grew out of a democracy and needs to work at times within that complication), and more importantly they don't need to answer to this 'evidence', clearly, considering the rigged state of the commission that came thereafter, they write history, they write laws, and with the passing of the Patriot Act in particular, it hardly matters what people know anymore. But again, to get to that realization, you actually need to do the leg work to connect the dots and consider the case as a whole.

    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.

  102. TLDR

    "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.

  103. "want a match for your straw man Rusty?"

    No need when the real thing's already on fire.

  104. Rot, if the debate where over whether or not gov agents and beaurocrats ever plot dastardly schemes than you would've have just won.

    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.

  105. Operation Northwood is quite a bit different than 9/11.

    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.

  106. @ "of course I never said otherwise."

    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?

  107. perhaps you should read on:

    "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."

  108. "All anyone can do is take the facts one at a time and judge each individual one on its own merrits"

    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).

  109. The french were right! The americans are evil villains willing to slaughter their own in the service of capitalism.

    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.

  110. glad to have you as a skeptic Henrik

  111. "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."

    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?

  112. That was actually a joke, but never underestimate a truther:
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/cheney_shooti

  113. FEMA bought a whole shitload of burial vaults recently. Some say that it's to be prepared for body transportation in case of another massive natural disaster, and because of the regulations of body storage.

    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!

  114. "As far as I am aware, the skeptic case is the 9/11 Commission (which I plan to read in full)"

    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.

  115. I'm a bit confused Goon, explain to me how a federally appointed commission to get to the answers of what happened on 9/11 is not the official opposition to a truther movement? If you are suggesting they are naturally going to whitewash, or if they are not going to take into evidence any testimonials or physical evidence that suggest culpability along the line of command, isn't that, by nature, a conspiracy?

    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?

  116. and I will look into what Popular Mechanics has to say about the validity of this FBI memo, I mean of course they are the experts on that I suspect.

  117. 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.

  118. If you have any respect for the legal system in place, you ought to be angry that it was obstructed in this report (or at least curious if it was). Or should we make gut responses the ruling system of both our countries? That guy is black, yeah he did it. I don't like the way that guy talks, using them foreign words and all, he's guilty. Despite the testimonies to the contrary, I know this guy well enough, he's good.

    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.

  119. and by the way, I am guessing your source material for the 'truther' movement is Loose Change and a couple other youtube videoes? So far these are the only sources you have mentioned.

    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?

  120. @ n 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

    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."

  121. @ That guy is black, yeah he did it. I don’t like the way that guy talks, using them foreign words and all, he’s guilty. Despite the testimonies to the contrary, I know this guy well enough, he’s good.

    what are you babling about, you awful, awful man?

  122. And if in fact Ruppert is alleging that 9/11 was some gov orchestrated and planned manuever like Northwoods. Perpetrated not by Saudis but by remote control planes…

    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.

  123. because you are slow:

    "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.

  124. 30 year old conspiracies about PROMIS, unrelated FBI memos and documents about Operation Northwoods from the internet are not going to be admissible in court, Rot. So it's sort of a pointless crusade you've signed up for.

  125. I'm going to have to abandon this thread before I lose any remaining respect I have for rot. It's tanking harder than Rosie O'Donnell in cement shoes.

  126. Rot's posts have stopped being wrong and graduated to incoherent.

    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.

  127. Now now guys, don't you think he has a valid point of saying that all the evidence should be available so that people would have a chance to make up their mind? Saying that the government didn't disclose everything, isn't the same as saying Cheney is a sith lord capable of pulling strings around the galaxy, or world as the case may be.

    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.

  128. If you keep posting the thread will never end because rot always has to have the last word.

  129. what's interesting, Henrik, is they won't and have not acknowledged that fact once in this entire thread, despite me repeating myself on the point. I am sure in a case they personally care about, then they will again pride themselves in the greatness of the legal system, and let nothing go unaccountable, but this feeling is arbitrary to their whims, and in their heads I imagine they think they are just, that they know right from wrong, hell they may even claim to be patriotic. But whenever it suits them. When it doesn't, fuck the law, or allowing the proper channels to flow, they trump it. Its a manner of ignorance that never ceases to astound me. And I owe you an apology Henrik, because at the very least you can make that impartial distinction in your head. granted its the distinction a fifth grader ought to be able to make, but apparently there are exceptions.

    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.

  130. Kurt Halfyard

    Having read Ruppert's book (well, at this point, 4/5ths of it) I'm willing to write off 9/11 as equal parts bureaucratic incompetence, vested interest, and capitalizing on tragedy.

    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-.

  131. "And I owe you an apology Henrik"

    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.

  132. "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-."

    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.

  133. and just to remind everyone what was said a hundred comments ago, this is what I, an awful, awful man said and have stuck to throughout:

    "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

  134. Rusty James

    ^^^^^^^ Total goal post moving.

    "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.

  135. you've got to be kidding me? to be honest you haven't really been arguing anything with me, you have been perpetuating your own biases about the truther movement, I guess I can understand how you would think I have never brought up the issue of fair trial and placing evidence in context of a case… no, never did I talk about that… in fact the time I requoted the passage to you "because you were slow", even that had nothing to do with my position about investigating 9/11.

  136. searched uses of the word 'legal' in this thread:

    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.

  137. Kurt Halfyard

    Wall Street Journal's MARKET WATCH on the coming financial collapse: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-soul-is

  138. Did I send you that link, Kurt? See, while it is coming from the Wall Street Journal, I suspect naysayers will read that article with great skepticism, because it is blunt.

    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/oi

  139. "Now yer trying to spin it like Goon and I have been arguing against investigating 9/11."

    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.

  140. some questions:

    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.

  141. also, I would have thought this was blatantly obvious, but apparently I need to teach you a bit of grammar:

    “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?

  142. "I don’t even know what a truther movement consists of to be honest"

    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.

  143. says the person challenging me about a book he has never read.

    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.

  144. IF TRUTHER = BOOK YOU'VE NOT READ

    in Goon's mind its

    ROT = TRUTHER (LIZARDS, SCIENTOLOGY, MELTING METAL etc.)

  145. this is fun:

    IF MIXED RACE = CULTURAL ASPECTS NOT KNOWN OUTSIDE OF CONSERVATIVE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

    OBAMA = MIXED RACE (UPPITY, WITCH DOCTOR, GANGSTA)

  146. "says the person challenging me about a book he has never read."

    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.

  147. At this point I just keep posting to test rot's ongoing commitment to have the last word about everything.

  148. DIDNT READ BOOK = NOT KNOWING ABOUT BOOK

    DID READ BOOK = BOOK IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

    lol

  149. wrong.

  150. although Rusty was right about hitting 150+ comments.

  151. another Last Word contest post.

    How soon before you watch a video like this and take it at face value as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcLpet0ouNA

  152. sorry remind me how reading a 600+ page book of intensely footnoted citations, and then intermittently following those footnotes to their original source and reading them for myself, and then commenting on here repeatedly asking for counter-arguments for me to consult… what part of that is taking it at face value?

    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.

  153. BEEP!

  154. I will add, on top of possessing an ability to parse information and analyze it on my own, aspects of what Ruppert writes about are corroborated in other books I have also read,

    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.

  155. I should add both Krugman and Ruppert are on record as calling this house bubble before it was common knowledge… and at the time they too were called hysterical. One of my favorite youtube clips is Bill O'Reilly calling Krugman a doomer about his prophecies about the future state of the economy, I believe it was in 2005 or 2006.

    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.

  156. Is that video a hoax Goon?

    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.

  157. Demanding people read a book in order to talk about 9/11 being an inside job is unreasonable, especially since if it's so influential, I've probably come across it already in one video or another. But the Truther stuff undermines rot and he knows it.

    "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.

  158. Sucks for her musclehead boyfriend, who bought a cheerleader and got a basket case.

  159. The collapse already happened; it was called World War I. Everything else is aftermath. Michael Ruppert reminds me of the Bob Dylan lyric, "Praise be to Nero's Neptune, the Titanic sails at dawn. Everybody's shouting, 'which side are you on?'."

  160. tweets from Ebert:

    "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.

  161. Kurt Halfyard

    I wish the darn thing would open around here. Or pop up as a torrent or something. I"ve been searching for weeks to no avail.

    Argh.

    (The Speechless comment from Ebert = priceless)

  162. I know, the Movies on Demand thing only works on the West Coast I believe. But its out in less than a week now in Toronto. Ruppert is showing up at a lot of the West Coast premieres, I doubt he will make it here though.

  163. Kurt Halfyard

    Isn't he based out of Oregon these days. Makes sense He'd show up to West Coast stuff…

  164. -1 Collapse viewer. I'm just sick of it being the only thing out of rot's mouth anymore.

  165. not terribly tragic, I doubt you would have liked it.

  166. I don't know. I have liked 50% of Chris Smith movies I have seen (American Movies is completely awesome, Yes Men is complete shit). And I love Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room.

    But seriously, I won't see this anytime soon, and mostly because of you.

    http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3823/collapsep

  167. Kurt Halfyard

    Goon – that is a pretty shitty attitude. just sayin'

    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."

  168. have you never been over-sold something?

    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.

  169. In other words, the thread has colored my opinion too much in advance, it's not (at least only) out of spite, and I don't care about the movie enough to power through it.

  170. Like I said, I don't care. My interest in promoting this film has been because it is potentially the little film that could (this is not a Sundance darling with lots of money behind it, it is all word of mouth to get this off the ground), and more importantly, I think the message in the film warrants attention, and apparently so does Ebert (who I rarely agree with).

    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.

  171. But I do see your point Goon, I don't think YOU could go into this film without it being coloured by the 9/11 debate, and that guy behind you in the theater calling Ruppert a faggot, even though 9/11 and homosexuality are never brought up in this film.

  172. Kurt Halfyard

    If Goon cannot cope with hype ;) -> Three Words: Kung Fu Panda.

  173. "Three Words: Kung Fu Panda."

    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.

  174. look, Jay has sold this movie differently, just as a character study of the guy. I'd watch that movie eventually, but I dont see any urgency to catch up with that.

    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.

    • I kind of see what Goon's saying. I still want to see the movie, but Rot's Twitter page and Facebook are almost 100% Collapse for the past 2 months. It does feel a bit like used car salesman stuff. I'm not turned off really, but it feels a bit obsessive.

  175. @ It does feel a bit like used car salesman stuff. I’m not turned off really, but it feels a bit obsessive.

    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!

  176. another analogy pushing me away that can mostly separate yourself from it.

    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?

  177. "That’s sort of the mentality that is encouraged by conspiracy mongering or doomsday saying."

    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.

  178. "You are called upon to save others!"

    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.

  179. wait, Goon, you are now following me on Twitter?

    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.

  180. "wait, Goon, you are now following me on Twitter? "

    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.

  181. This has gotten ridiculous. I would expect better from you Goon, you've now gone from "I don't dislike God, it's his fanclub I hate" to "The fanclub is running the show and has taken over what they are cheering in my head". What a profound switch of focus from the substantial to the meaningless, if you don't like rot that's fine, but don't punish Collapse.

    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.

  182. "What a profound switch of focus… don't punish Collapse"

    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.

  183. You’re also not much of one to complain about someone reacting negatively to hype.

    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.

  184. I made that comment in retrospect, trying to figure out why these films felt so different on a second viewing. I didn't make the statement in advance, in some lame war about what's to be taken seriously and what's to be mocked.

    Does rots opinion equal hype for you? I guess it could.

  185. It's not entirely simple but not all that complex either.

    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.

  186. "I made that comment in retrospect, trying to figure out why these films felt so different on a second viewing. "

    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.

  187. With TWBB, I always found it quite entertaining. I watched the ending on youtube a couple of times and liked it. I just didn't find the movie deep or poignant, which I suppose I still don't, but now it doesn't bother me that I don't, I'm content to enjoy it for what it is.

  188. I kinda hope I flip flop on TWBB one day.

  189. my next flip flop challenge will be WTWTA, but I'm waiting for DVD

  190. "geez does rot talk about other things anymore? i can’t remember the last time we argued or agreed about anything else"

    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.

  191. Despite all of the conflicts over the time we've both been on Row Three, I don't really want you to think I don't value your contributions to the site. There's a lot of times I find it hard to put up with some of the things you put out there, and can't stop myself from reacting as honestly and crassly as I do. But like I said, I value people with strong opinions and feel better off confronted by them than not. It'd be probably really weird and awkward if we ever met but maybe also a challenge.

    I definitely look forward to you getting back on track posting about some other stuff on R3.

  192. "I value people with strong opinions and feel better off confronted by them than not."

    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.

  193. speaking of other stuff. Just got back from Brothers, it's quite good.

    • I'm debating between a 3 and a 3.5 stars. I was thoroughly engrossed, but it has its weaknesses. Takes some time to chew on. Full review should be up tomorrow. Gylenhaal and Maguire are great in it though.

  194. I thought it was a great example of a mediocre screenplay elevated by the director and cast. Sheridan is really good at certain things. Those taliban scenes are great and that's the type of casting that hollywood productions usually have problems with. But this film nailed it.

    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

  195. I finally got the chance to watch Collapse and it is pretty compelling. I don't really think they cover anything that isn't really already known by most people or perhaps I'm just a cynic and I see that things will eventually collapse. Who knows he may be right and it might be right around the corner or it may be another 50 to 100 years as new technologies advance.

    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.

  196. When the International Energy Agency now says within ten years, and they have been for the longest time the optimist in the debate, than I think you can stop believing in the miracle scenario of 50 to 100 years.

    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.

    • Yeah, I do think Big Cities will be hit the hardest as people react but I also think that being in -40 weather with only wood to burn for heat will really suck. Especially since we've pretty much cut down the majority of the trees to make room for farms.

      • "We've scoured the earth and found all of the oil there is to be had."
        "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.

  197. I watched a Frontline program on Bernie Madoff, I never knew how complicit the American government was on his pyramid scheme. Alarm bells were made in 2001 by many people and the SEC never did due diligence, perhaps afraid of what they would find. Madoff was found out only because of the economy collapse and people trying to get their money out to pay off other things, the run on the bank. I know Ruppert makes the same point in the film, but its true, the whole system is a pyramid scheme, like attracts like.

    pyramid scheme + housing bubble + impending commercial bubble + oil depletion = fucked up beyond all recognition.

    Merry Christmas

  198. " There could be lots of reasons why S.A. is drilling off-shore."

    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.

  199. "I’m just saying it’s important to question some things."

    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.

  200. Glenn Beck is a far worse insult than John Campea. Good thing you were just chainyankin. :D

  201. Yeah Glenn Beck is pretty much public enemy no.1 on behalf of humanity.

    He is hilarious though. When he puts his own pair of eyes on a separate screen next to himself, that was genius.

  202. Did you ever see the "OLIGARHY" mistake? lol

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-D_S7WOnjg

  203. There's a line Ebert wrote about Collapse I wanted to point out to rot as one that I agree with and probably what made me like it overall, unlike Marina who otherwise had a similar "I already knew this" reaction

    "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.

  204. Hey I entirely agree if by questioning you mean doing the legwork to find out yourself. A great source on Saudi Arabia's oil reserves is Twilight in the Desert, in it Simmons pieces together information about the fields from engineer reports that were used at conferences, and is insanely thorough and well acknowledged.

    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.

  205. I honestly expected more personal attacks towards Ruppert, there was one in the TIFF screening and I think he at times comes off pretty smug (the whole I don't do debates statement for example).

    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.

  206. It's either:

    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.

  207. Author's facebook notification this morning reminded me of another thing Ruppert said. Something about how no amount of technology or human ingenuity would be able to solve this "crisis." What!? How's that for doom and gloom? Not to mention pretty short sighted and closed minded. I just think that human deviousness, if you will, can always find a way.

  208. I think Ruppert feels this way as well, but to think that we can out-think it to the level of saving the entire civilization seems pretty optimistic. I think Ruppert would agree that human ingenuity will prevail to save the species in a world without oil, and keep a population healthily going around 1 bio. people worldwide.

  209. agree with Henrik, in fact at the end of the film he says quite emphatically "you have to believe, not hope, not pray, there is a way out of this and you are going to find it" and also brings up the American spirit of solving problems…

    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).

  210. I do love Andrew that out of the many, many article links I have made and to the long discussions here and recommendations of further reading on the subject you have focused on two points to discount Ruppert on, one may say cherry-picking your argument.

    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.

  211. But, like Ruppert says, the only graph worth looking at is population. Billions have to die in order to regain the ability for the planet to sustain us.

  212. on the Delorean remark, my former roommate is a Phd Physicist working on a time-travel experiment presently, he saw Collapse and he agrees with it, although he is more optimistic about the possibilities of nuclear than Ruppert. Still, he was telling me about this persuasive economic modelling idea of linking civilization growth with thermodynamic potential (as Ruppert does) and apparently in the scientific community this idea is well-received (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36888)

  213. perhaps I should get back to posting links:

    European Commision Warns: Eight Countries Charging Off A Sovereign Debt Cliff In 2010

    http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-europe-vee

  214. Oh and here are some choice quotes from Peak Oil deniers, side by side with the actual numbers they were disputing. as the one commenter say "I give CERA credit for consistency. Every one of their predications was wrong in the last decade."

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/180572-choice-quo

    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.

  215. And what the consequences will be rot.

    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.

  216. And by best-insured, I mean it's not anything rock-solid, I mean we have just indebted ourselves by like 230 billion DKR for 2010.

  217. I have come across one somewhat persuasive counter-argument, not so much against Peak Oil, but against how dire it will be. It is well written and if you didn't know some of the details it would be an open and shut case for those on the fence I imagine.

    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/

    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?

  218. Awhile back Andrew linked a article talking about all this oil in Brazil that is going to hold off Peak Oil…

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor

    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?

  219. Collapse now available on itunes. Since writing this review none of Ruppert's points in the film have been refuted, if anything the evidence that he is right has been piling up.

  220. So when will the world actually Collapse? Christ, it's been like a year since this movie even came out! I'm beginning to lose faith.

  221. I think you have some time to wait. Ruppert would say it is happening right now, and its a bit of semantics but I would say the actual tipping point event, with regards to both sovereign debt and peak oil is more realistically within the next 2-5 years. Ruppert is one of many people calling this and the consensus view is 2-5 years.

    Its hard to guess how exactly this will play out because the price of oil is integral to knowing the speed of peak. predictions are oil will go up to $95/bl by year end, which seems pretty likely, that would slow demand, probably also damage economic recovery.

  222. I was under the impression it would be an actual COLLAPSE, not a slow decline of oil usage. We'll probably end up with car-free sundays and less busses like back in the 70s. LAME

  223. there will inevitably be a breaking point where the price of oil is so high because of lack of supply and no one will be able to afford it, and that is the point of actual collapse of industrialized nations.

    Saudi Arabia recently made a statement that they plan to diversify what they produce, no longer relying so heavily on oil, but oddly enough, want to focus on green energy… and that would be sensible enough, but they stated quite emphatically WHY they are doing this… because they see Peak Demand of oil on the horizon. That is utter bullshit, and very easy bullshit to refute particularly as time goes on, because if there actually is going to be a significant decrease in the demand of oil than its axiomatic that the price of oil must drop as well, basic supply and demand. The price of oil has since the beginning of the 2008 Bank Crises been steadily going up (going up even during a long and painful recession).

  224. "there will inevitably be a breaking point where the price of oil is so high because of lack of supply and no one will be able to afford it, and that is the point of actual collapse of industrialized nations. "

    So when is this point?????? The god damn naysayers are winning me over with their less sensationalistic views on Peak Oil.

  225. like I already said, best guesses are 2-5 years. There are so many factors involved that it would be ridiculous to pinpoint an exact date, its not just a matter of supply being used up at a fixed rate, the rate fluctuates with economic and political factors. It just so happens the economic and political factors at present are horrible, so if anything probably sooner rather than later. There is a scenario where sovereign debt incurs its own global double-dip recession that would be catastrophic before any real concern of oil could come about, in which case things could be dragged even longer.

    Put it this way if markets are a go, if things ever get back to normal, that victory will only accelerate the oil problem. So long as we stay in a recession, the speed of a peak oil collapse slows.

    Ruppert calls this time the bumpy plateau, and whether it is accurate or not, watching the price oil every day I have noticed that it will rally for a bit, until it gets to about $82/bl and then the market falls backwards and the price drops in accordance, but then the market builds back again and oil goes to that same point of $82, and the whole sequence replays itself. We are at $82 now, the market is bullish, I am expecting a drop very soon again, if this pattern is to be maintained.

    The summer before the crash oil was at a record $147/bl. This graph will give you an idea how remarkable that kind of jump is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_mont

  226. "as we stay in a recession, the speed of a peak oil collapse slows. "

    Well, won't we just stay in recession then? Since nobody can supposedly afford the oil. I would think that's what the Saudis are referring to when they talk about peaking demand. Things will just slow more and more down, without people rampaging the streets or scavenging for food :(.

  227. No then you have sovereign default on debt, lest we forget the US dropped a sizable stimulus package into the market in the hopes on making good on the return. If there is no return, their debt is already unmanageable, than they default, states are not paid, civil workers are not paid, planes stop flying, mail stops being delivered… if the US goes down, so does China who owns a lot of their debt, and then all the dominoes go. To be honest I see the more immediate threat being sovereign debt, because it is happening right now, with Greece, with Spain, with the UK, and the US is not far behind. Its kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If you recover, you accelerate Peak Oil, if you stagnate, sovereign debt defaults.

  228. also there is only so long that people unemployed and off of welfare will sit idly by before violence itself disrupts the normal way of things. You are getting small instances of this with the guy flying a plane into the IRS building, the Pentagon shooting. Greece, which is ahead of us in this regard, is now resorting to bombings and street violence.

  229. you can now pre-order this doc on Amazon here: http://bit.ly/bKY6Bv It is to include a 2010 interview with Ruppert catching up on whats happened and where we are heading.

    Its also the 3 highest documentary download on iTunes, and KinoSmith will be issuing a Canadian DVD end of June to look out for.

    I also have a couple of very important documents to add to this thread that happened within the last month, to hammer home how much this is NOT just a fringe theory.

    US Dept of Energy admits that 'a chance exists that we may experience a decline' of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 'if the investment is not there'… and goes on to make a semantic argument that an undulating plateau could occur (which is part of Peak Oil theory, not distinct) http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/85699-quacks-

    and just yesterday I heard of a 2010 US Dept of Defense study http://bit.ly/cDzGkv that corroborates this same concern: ""By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD" (pg.29)

    …10 million barrels per day is the equivalent of losing Saudi Arabia, in 5 years.

    I cannot stress enough how big a fucking deal that is. The DoE Hirsch report says it takes a minimum of a decade to change over an energy infrastructure, and thats not accounting for the economic and political limitations involved (assuming a miraculous Manhattan Project-like will to do so). Even if we had the miraculous technology today (which we don't), the implementation will not be fast enough IF these conditions pan out.

    -US Dept of Defense

    -US Dept of Energy

    -UK Peak Oil Task Force (w/ Virgin Group CEO Richard Branson)

    -UN International Energy Agency (IEA)

    -The vast number of scientists involved in the Peak Oil movement

    -CEO of Petrobas, company with 4th largest oil reserves in the world

    The most any of these groups give us is ten years before repercussions are felt, but the consensus view is more accurately within the next five years. This means the end of globalization, the end of nations, the end of plentiful and cheap food. Its not just a question of transportation fuel, its a vast array of products, fertilizers, tires, plastics, equipment and fuel to build alternative energies, irreversibly gone.

  230. ROT I suggest you actual read some geophysical and engineering journals because Peak oil is a fringe theory in these circles. I like how you cherry pick quotes out of reports (and the actual reports), you do understand the difference between low probability worst case scenarios and high probability expected case scenarios?. While it maybe true that current conventional fields may be peaking, new discoveries are on the rise over the last 3 years because of the massive increases in oil prices are driving geophysical exploration (Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, Angola, India, Egypt, Libya, Philippines). Also unconventional sources are being ramped up; Alberta oil sands, shale oil/gas, methane hydrates, deep sea offshore, Venezuelan oil sands all offer significant buffers to combat shortfalls of conventional hydrocarbon production. You also fail to mention coal, there are extraordinary reserves (100+ years), known reserves are so large that there is very little economic incentive to even explore for coal. Coal can be converter to oil via the Fischer–Tropsch, Karrick, or Bergius processes, 70 years ago Nazi Germany was able to ramp up synthetic oil production in less than a decade to where it would supply 25% of Germany's war time oil demand. Does Ruppert also tackle the fact that efficiency of the extraction of hydrocarbons goes up every year, did peak oil believers take into account the effects of fracture drilling or horizontal drilling in the 1980s? How about syn-gas production via nuclear + coal? I could go on and on. The reality is that environmental constraints will most likely curtail oil use via either direct regulations or some form of carbon taxes. I will give you two things: continued increases in oil prices (due to a move to unconventional and hard to get at resources) and a possible shortfall between production and supply do to lack of investments in infrastructure (not because of the peaking of hydrocarbons).

  231. Looking at your earlier post did you even read David MacKay's book or are you just cherry picking quotes? If you had actually read the book you would realize the book is about a transition to a low carbon economy not about a short fall of energy from the peaking of hydrocarbons. The point Mackay is trying to make is that solar, tidal, and wind alone will not be enough for a transition to a low carbon economy that nuclear and possibly ccs would have to be included. In fact Mackay gives 5 scenarios on how to achieve this goal via energy wedges.

  232. 'on the Delorean remark, my former roommate is a Phd Physicist working on a time-travel experiment presently'

    Maybe I am wasting my time giving you rational arguments, if you are spewing bull shit such as this… If your friend is a Phd student please post his name and university so I can pull up his Msc thesis or search for some of his publications in physics journals.

  233. finally. alright Rob, let's talk. Can only speak briefly right now but will return.

    On MacKay, here is exactly what I said, show me exactly where

    I said anything but a 'short fall of energy':

    "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/

    As for my Physicist friend, found out a month ago that his group made an error in judgment late in the game and what they hoped would happen didn't happen… them's the breaks of theoretical science.

    "While it maybe true that current conventional fields may be peaking, new discoveries are on the rise over the last 3 years because of the massive increases in oil prices are driving geophysical exploration (Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, Angola, India, Egypt, Libya, Philippines)."

    Do you mind giving me some sources and numbers. There are elephant fields declared by overly optimistic oil companies and business columns all the time because there is a vested interest in perpetuating this belief. Seeing as I have wrote a lot already in this thread, I am just going to repost so you can challenge directly what I said:

    " 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."

    Clearly with your mention of unconventional oil like the Alberta Oil sands you are completely ignoring the geological reality of flow rates, that no matter how much you 'ramp up' these they count for a fraction of a fraction of what would be needed were Saudi Arabia to go from the next step of horizontal drilling to the further desperate means of keeping Ghawar flow rates sufficient.

    will get to the rest latter today

  234. also about MacKay's five viable plans, he prefaces "I’ll present a few plans that I believe are technically feasible for the UK

    by 2050"… Outside of cornucopian theorists (including the fringe abiotic oil sect), virtually none of the established authorities on world oil supply give us that much time before depletion. also unless I am missing something these sustainable energy stop-gaps do not provide for the economic model we have at present of perpetual growth to accommodate the growth of population. And of course, more importantly he is talking only of UK, NOT the Unted States, big difference.

  235. also Rob, if you could help me out, do you have handy the IEA's World Outlook graph on the projected World Oil Supply broken down by type, been so long ago I can't seem to find it. Unless IEA is deemed cherry-picking, a political body that has no visible reason for fudging numbers on the bleak side, the sizable gap they project between conventional and non-conventional on the one side and yet discovered is pretty significant.

  236. sorry, IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 I believe is the source. if you can't find it I will look for it and find it for you.

  237. in the meantime how about the EIA graph, pg 8 of this
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/S… (graph shows that the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011).

    to quote directly from the Le Monde article (http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/03/25/washington-considers-a-decline-of-world-oil-production-as-of-2011/)

    "The graph labels as “unidentified” the additional supply projects needed to fill in a gap that is expected to grow after 2011 between rising demand and decline of known sources of supply that the DoE supposes will start that year. The declining production foreseen by the DoE concerns the total of existing sources of liquid fuels plus the new production projects that are supposed to come on-stream before 2012.

    The DoE predicts that the decline of identified sources of supply will be steady and sharp : – 2 percent a year, from 87 million barrels per day (Mbpd) in 2011 to just 80 Mbpd in 2015. At that time, the world demand for oil and other liquid fuels should have climbed up to 90 Mbpd, according to the presentation document.

    “Unidentified” additional liquid fuels projects would therefore have to fill in a 10 Mbpd gap between supplies and demand within less than 5 years. 10 Mbpd is almost the equivalent of the oil production of Saudi Arabia, world top producer with 10.8 Mbpd."

    Gamedog:

    "Considering a 5 year lead time on new projects, there's no leap of imagination required to realise there's no new supply coming on line to fill said gap, otherwise it would not be "unidentified"."

    70% of geologists at the Petroleum Geology Conference last year consider Peak Oil a concern… quite a fringe.
    http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/peak-oil-is-still-

  238. Kurt Halfyard

    "account the effects of fracture drilling "

    @ Rob, you have to see the new documentary, GASLAND, and the effects of fracture drilling in America. Ouch, that is scary stuff!

  239. 'As for my Physicist friend, found out a month ago that his group made an error in judgment late in the game and what they hoped would happen didn’t happen… them’s the breaks of theoretical science. '

    Right so about his name and school so I can see his Msc thesis or publications…

    "70% of geologists at the Petroleum Geology Conference last year consider Peak Oil a concern… quite a fringe."

    You forgot to mention that the question is poorly framed, they asked is 'Peak Oil a concern', they did not ask if 'is Peak Oil of concern in the next xx years'. One also has to ask are these research geologist or even geologists, because to be a member of the London Geological Society one does not need a Phd or Msc or even a Bsc in Geology (hint the people speaking during that conference where research geologists and they were saying that peak oil is of no concern in the next 50 years…). How about coming back when you have vote with the USGS or DOE (or similar society/research group with actual Phds/Msc in the fields of geology or oil production) if peak oil is of concern in the next xx years.

    "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."

    EROEI of the Oil Sands is on average 9 (varies project to project depends on the method of extraction SAGD vs strip mining). Coal to fuel via Fisher Trope has an EROEI of 5, with such massive reserves of coal in world this method could easily supply oil demand albeit with increasing carbon emissions. As for flow rates oil sands is predicted by the IEA to be above 6Mbpd (5.4Mbpd by DOE) by 2030, these are using linear growth models (they do not take into account increased efficiency of extraction, SAGD has changed the oil sands incredibly in the last 10 years). Coal to Fuel, no one has predicted the flow rates, but one could image if Nazi Germany was able to ramp up production to where synthetic oil was 25% of it war time oil needs I think it is laughable that the US could not do the same or better today (especially considering all the research done in the 70s on coal to fuels). There is no question that future sources will have lower EROEIs initially (efficiency increases EROEI over time), but the ratio are not prohibitive to growth.

    "in the meantime how about the EIA graph, pg 8 of this
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/S… (graph shows that the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011)."

    How about try reading the actual report and not some power point presentation http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/liquid_fuels…. Note in the report OPEC nations are expected to increase conventional production by 2030 as is Brazil, Russia, North Africa, and Asia Minor.

    "Do you mind giving me some sources and numbers. There are elephant fields declared by overly optimistic oil companies and business columns all the time because there is a vested interest in perpetuating this belief. Seeing as I have wrote a lot already in this thread, I am just going to repost so you can challenge directly what I said:"

    Unfortunately raw data about the size of fields is not release since such is proprietary data costing 10-100s millions of dollar to acquire. Generally the best the public can do is look at actual production and extrapolate from there. Gulf of Mexico production is about 400 Kbpd right now and is expected in less than a few years to jump to 650 Kbpd. The proof is that we seeing a massive deployment/re-deployment of offshore rigs in the gulf Mexico, a renewed interest in exploration, and the increase of actual production. There is no economic incentive for these companies to be spending billions developing and exploring these areas if they where perpetuating lies/exaggerations.

    "to quote directly from the Le Monde article (http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/03/25/washington-considers-a-decline-of-world-oil-production-as-of-2011/) "

    Again try reading the entire report http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/liquid_fuels…. The power point slides have no context to them, there is a trans-script to the sideshow but it does not directly talk about the sideshow.

    "Outside of cornucopian theorists (including the fringe abiotic oil sect), virtually none of the established authorities on world oil supply give us that much time before depletion. also unless I am missing something these sustainable energy stop-gaps do not provide for the economic model we have at present of perpetual growth to accommodate the growth of population. "

    Population growth slow with increase in GDP and energy use. Economic growth can occur with decrease in energy usage, efficiency improvement provide growth will decreasing consumption as does a move away from primary industries.

    "And of course, more importantly he is talking only of UK, NOT the Unted States, big difference."

    It is a big difference since the US has much greater solar (2-3 time the solar isolation) and wind resources. Meaning that wind and solar can take larger roles in the energy mix. Also the US has much greater opportunities at energy efficiency gains than the UK (Joules conserved per dollar).

    "technically feasible for the UK by 2050″

    He means that energy production would be in a steady state by then aka sustainable (he defines sustainable as 1000+yrs of fuel + low carbon emissions). Intermediate years in his plan would see a decrease in consumption of hydro carbons as nuclear, alternatives, and conservation/efficiency gains come online.

  240. Rob said: "I will give you two things: continued increases in oil prices (due to a move to unconventional and hard to get at resources) and a possible shortfall between production and supply do to lack of investments in infrastructure (not because of the peaking of hydrocarbons)."

    well there seems to be two camps (outside of the cornucopians) Peak Oil and Peak Demand… Colin Campbell, as you may know has gone over to the side of demand which, by the way, does not recant anything held prior, its just of the two impending crises, Demand will probably outpace Supply, but not by much. Not even CERA was anticipating Peak Demand until late last year, its no fault of the Peak Oil movement that they didn't call it, and again, it doesn't negate the actual numbers and growing consensus about the actual supply issue, its sort of two sides of the same coin. If there is too much demand WHILE world supply is stagnating the two raise the price to a point in which it no longer becomes feasible to buy it. Without a viable alternative to hydrocarbon fuel our economic paradigm will collapse.

    You mentioned coal, which aside from the environmental concerns (which would be catastrophic if ramped up to magically maintain our energy needs as they are now) serves for trains but not planes or cars. It could be transfered into electricity and we could have electric cars but that infrastructure to implement would take at least a decade according to the DoE Hirsch Report, and this is where actual supply concerns are important, because the numbers show we very likely do not have ten years, nor the political will now to do anything so costly.

    The Dept of Energy, The Dept of Defense are both using these same numbers, they are political entities that have no visible interest in disrupting the economic status quo with paranoid delusions, they have for a long time denied any problem, with the EIA and the IEA and all of them have gradually adjusted their predictions to the same narrow span, 2011-15, I think the IEA said 2020. Look at the time frame these significant authoritative bodies on the issue are giving and ask yourself can we change over in time without collapsing our economic paradigm? How long does it take to make nuclear reactors? How long does it take to create an entire infrastructure for coal to oil conversion, and also what are the EROI numbers for biofuel, from the conversion process to refining to distribution? Something tells me it is not even close to conventional oil or even unconventional oil. They are being used for US air force at present, they will serve these smaller scale purposes, but as a replacement for Saudi Arabia, I highly doubt it.

    But I am entirely willing to hear the other side, but like I said, you need to talk about flow rates and EROI to be convincing.

  241. "How about try reading the actual report and not some power point presentation http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/liquid_fuels…. Note in the report OPEC nations are expected to increase conventional production by 2030 as is Brazil, Russia, North Africa, and Asia Minor."

    what exactly is your point, are you saying that the graph misrepresents the Worlds Liquid Fuel Supply by 2030? Reading through the report I find that it is hitting these same numbers just in expanded form, that actual quantitative numbers are the same. As certain areas increase, others decrease and the result is an overall depletion. also you are linking to a different source (the IEO not the AEO), this is where I see the numbers sourced for the graph as indicated in the ppt: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/issues.pdf

    "but one could imagine if Nazi Germany was able to ramp up production to where synthetic oil was 25% of it war time oil needs I think it is laughable that the US could not do the same or better today"

    You don't see any distinction between wartime some 70 years less population growth/energy needs and GLOBAL needs now and projected to perpetually grow in the future? That is a sad anecdote, I am sorry. I would rather stick with the numbers, and I like that you provide EROI for the unconventional fuel types, can you source them for me? Also this statement: " There is no question that future sources will have lower EROEIs initially (efficiency increases EROEI over time), but the ratio are not prohibitive to growth."

    On the Oil Drum, David Murphy tried to calculate what the minimum EROI that a sustainable society must have, and he pegs it at 3:1. http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6356
    Also here, someone else at Oil Drum compiles some of the held markers of EROI for energy resources by type (maybe you have an opinion on them):
    <a href="http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:NuhMZV90n5QJ :www.theoildrum.com/node/3810+eroi+of+oil&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=safari” target=”_blank”>http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:NuhMZV90n5QJ…” target=”_blank”>:www.theoildrum.com/node/3810+eroi+of+oil&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=safari

    "The proof is that we seeing a massive deployment/re-deployment of offshore rigs in the gulf Mexico, a renewed interest in exploration, and the increase of actual production. There is no economic incentive for these companies to be spending billions developing and exploring these areas if they where perpetuating lies/exaggerations."

    The adjustments by the IEA and EIA, and acknowledgements by the DOE and DOD are very recent, when did these massive deployments of rigs occur? They chose to do so with such price volatility? There could be short term gain to be made, and in that particular area… it wouldn't be the first time that corporations have ignored the bigger picture in their want of short term gain (just look at Wall Street 2008).

    "Again try reading the entire report http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/liquid_fuels…. The power point slides have no context to them, there is a trans-script to the sideshow but it does not directly talk about the sideshow."

    Again, wrong report. The actual report (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/issues.pdf ) appears to expand upon the numbers that are sourced in the graph (apologies if I don't read the entire report top to bottom, this is a hobby, not my full-time job. That it is sourced in Le Monde, by Glen Sweetnam of EIA, made me foolish enough to think it was a legitimate compression of the expanded data; when there is reason for me to be skeptical I will finely comb over it, how about you first read the right report.)

    "Population growth slow with increase in GDP and energy use. Economic growth can occur with decrease in energy usage, efficiency improvement provide growth will decreasing consumption as does a move away from primary industries."

    This I absolutely need a source for. The exponential function of a 2% decline a year of liquid fuels is significant enough to disrupt the economic paradigm we have right now, I have never heard it put otherwise, so this does intrigue me. Improvements in efficiency have traditionally led to greater energy usage, i.e. larger homes, but illustrate a world where less energy is used, or less hydrocarbon energy is used, 2% depletion per year exponentially, and there will be business as usual.

    "It is a big difference since the US has much greater solar (2-3 time the solar isolation) and wind resources"

    Yes but that energy would be used closer to where it is generated, the EROI would get worse the farther you had to transport it. So coasts and the deserts may benefit, and of course you have to build all of these things using oil, and that is pretty big feat to be started immediately, how does that factor with the numbers of the EIA graph? Wind and solar are great but hardly going to compensate for hydrocarbon which has an incredible EROI (including transportation cost).

  242. oh and I am emailing you my friend's name, find it baffling your interest in him. He was published in Nature if that means anything to you.

  243. To make this simpler, there are two points of contention we need to emphasize rather than jump all around as we have been:

    1. Do you agree with the conclusions of the EIA graph, and that with the exception of a significant unidentified investment/discovery increase, there will be a peak liquid fuel supply by 2011? You seem to want to accept some of what they say, increases in particular locations, but not accept the world data.

    2. Can alternative energy sources feasibly (according to known economic and time constraints) fill this gap in a manner such that our economic paradigm, the globalization of food production, the outsourcing of industries, will sustain itself through the transition?

    I am saying unequivocally, the end of global food production is the beginning of a die-off like we have never seen before. Population growth has spiked because of the yields oil has allowed us, if you have even a year gap where industrial agriculture is at a standstill due to fuel shortage, it will not matter how many wind farms you create or want to create. If you have a counterargument for this, evidence that the population we have, and the political edifice we have, can survive a transition to low EROI, conserved energy paradigm, and not fall into starvation and anarchy, I would love very much to hear it. I mean that, I am looking for that kind of intelligible, sourced optimism.

  244. Sorry, Rob, made a mistake, I did link to the AEO2009 which the graph sources but I haven't yet found where it breaks down the numbers like that. The Le Monde article stresses that the DoE roundtable the presentation and transcript come from have been largely unseen, hence the importance of the story. Perhaps the graph is a readjustment?

    here is the transcript. http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/s

    will read tonight.

    If Glen Sweetnum does indeed head the publication of DoEs annual International Energy Outlook, and he is using the graph and saying what he is saying in Le Monde, this is a very significant story, breaking last month.

  245. Ross Perot

    Good news, everyone. Peak oil was a hoax. Whew.

  246. Might want to tell that to the EIA http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/06/eia_h

    or the

    The U.S. Military predicting a global shortage of potentially 10mbpd by 2016
    http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/J

    There is a parallel between Peak Oil and Oil Spill: estimates of how much oil there is follow a pattern of slow admission, the powers that be trying against blunt reality to deny anything is wrong. With the Oil Spill the estimates advance upwards (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/16/a-history-of-incorrect-oil-spill-estimates.html) with the IEA and the EIA on oil supply (as seen in the graph to the first link) the estimates are perpetually downgraded, year after year, to get closer with reality. The closer you are to the brink the less convincing the lie is, we even see a terminology change to the most staunch Cornucopians like CERA, no longer fighting against Peak Oil, but accepting Peak Demand, the end result being the same.

    You can gussy it up all you want but Peak Oil is as real as the gusher in the Gulf.

  247. Kurt Halfyard

    A little bit of recent Ruppert on American Morning TV: http://weblogs.wpix.com/news/local/morningnews/bl

  248. After denying its prospect for decades, now it is official: Peak Oil began in 2006 according to IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 http://reut.rs/bGmFCz

    They can say this because of the smokescreen that there is nothing to worry about, the tar sands and natural gas will somehow fuel all our vehicles, and the oil companies and the lobbyists in the governments will gracefully back out and let green revolution take over. uh huh. It is basic mathematics, the most basic of logic, it is incredible the lengths people will go to deny the obvious.

  249. and Huffington breaking down the history of the lie, from Doomsayers to reality: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/peak

  250. IMF now warning of Peak Oil, at what point do we collectively remove our heads from the sand? http://tinyurl.com/3dtqrgg

  251. Watch this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNz3qS5WAo

    At the very least watch the first 6 minutes, establishes the situation pretty clearly, having the head of IEA say in no uncertain terms that peak oil has happened. It is not a conspiracy if the highest international authority on the matter is conceding it (after decades of denial).

    The spike in oil prices are not due to speculation… just last month Saudi Arabia boasted it was going to ramp up production to make up for loss of oil from Japan and Libya AND THEY FAILED.

  252. Henrik, you were asking when… I would say now.

    Volatility has not been this high since Lehmann Bros in 2008. Two epic plunges in the DOW. Ben Bernanke will likely call for QE3 today which might slow the pain, but seeing as QE1 and QE2 did nothing, the market might finally catch on that this is a massive ponzi scheme.

    Incidentally, Michael Ruppert predicted in April that the final blow was going to happen in July or early August.

    • My buddy emailed this to me this morning in a panic. Good thing my parents own a fully paid-off farm. I will live there and make vegetables and hunt wild turkey… and probably drink a lot of Wild Turkey as well.

  253. Michael Ruppert is dead, killed himself after his last show

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605429/9-11-conspiracy-theorist-investigative-journalist-Michael-Ruppert-commits-suicide.html

    Have mixed feelings about the guy but without him I may not have found Terrence McKenna, or fully appreciated the fragility of the modern economic paradigm.

    • Kurt Halfyard

      This is shocking and not shocking at the same time. It’s too bad that the guy was that hard on himself and the world.

      • Weird, I listened to the show he did right before he killed himself and it did not sound like a guy about to blow his head off. He mentioned going through a dark spell, but throughout the show he is referring to future events (this show he did in Seattle he is very enthusiastic about, saying mainstream media finally paying attention), also he played this song about dying (which he had played before) but afterwards there was no emotion to him, he seemed low key, normal. I’m guessing it was a spontaneous thing, spur of the moment.

  254. Kurt Halfyard

    Recorded 2 months ago for VICE magazine (Rowthree makes a cameo in this video, via Mike’s poster pull quote)

    • mine was the most succinct.

      I’m interested to know what the Seattle project was he had just come back from, he was very secretive about it on the show, but also very excited about it. Maybe it fell through and that was the last straw for him. Listening to the last couple episodes, he is in love, he has this big project happening, it is a pretty abrupt end, at least from the public end of things.

  255. In the second to last podcast that Ruppert recorded he played a part of my favorite lecture that Terence McKenna gave. It was through Ruppert that I was introduced to Colin Campbell and his theories about Peak Oil, and it was through Ruppert that I first encountered Terence Mckenna. I have been obsessed with Terence McKenna the better part of the year so far, having read most of his books and listened to a lot of his talks.

    Anyways, if anyone is curious, listen in 18 minutes into this podcast to hear McKenna decimate the dominator culture with rhetorical aplomb. If there is a gateway to psychedelics, this is it:

    http://lifeboathour.podbean.com/2014/04/06/lifeboat-hour-040614/

    Oh and try and ignore the spacey music added by someone else after the fact.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Cherry Coloured» Blog Archive » collapse - [...] is definitely one of the must-see documentaries of the year. (It’s getting stellar reviews.) GO SEE THIS FILM when …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine + = 16

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>