[It’s slow getting back into the swing of writing. There are many obstacles that yield only slowly. Things are still settling here for me in Venezuela, and December’s presidential election in this country is probably going to be one of the most important electoral campaigns in world. There’s going to be a lot of intrigue here, likely some violence and many (more) covert US attempts to subvert Venezuela’s authentic, yet decidedly troubled, election process. Nevertheless, Venezuela remains a better democracy than the United States as far as presidential elections go.
As Eva Golinger so brilliantly documented in “The Chavez Code” (2005), using US intelligence documents, National Endowment For Democracy (NED) records and State Department cables obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, the US was all over the last election in 2002. It used millions of slush-fund dollars, illegal interference, and acted as an accessory to murder of street protestors in that one. There’s little doubt it will be even more ruthless in this one.
These will be exciting and challenging events to cover. Meanwhile, writing anything is difficult. My laptop is not online, and just getting files and stories from the internet saved to it is an impossible task for now.
What I thought would be helpful to our readers now is a quick and clear analysis showing why the recent airline terror plots in the UK were a ruse to mask fuel shortages stemming from Peak Oil. Meanwhile, as we had predicted, the US housing market is imploding, and the first signs of what will soon be recognized as collapse are becoming more evident every day.
And it also looks as though the intended civil war in Iraq that the US has been hellbent on creating since the 2003 invasion, is now well underway. To find out why, visit our free Archive section or search our website for Iraq + civil war.
I’m still with you, as my good friend Al Giordano would say, from somewhere in a country called América. – MCR]
BRITISH AIRLINE TERROR PLOT HOAX TO HIDE FUEL SHORTAGES, PROTECT MARKETS
Michael C. Ruppert
© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site without express written permission. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only.
August 28th 2006, 1:42PM [PST] - CARACAS – There are many places from which to start to utterly dismember the recent so called “unimaginable” terrorist plot to blow up ten airliners bound from the UK to the US over the Atlantic. But perhaps the easiest is to first debunk the theory about mixing binary chemicals onboard an airliner in flight. The Scotland Yard chief who made those comments was quite correct: It is “unimaginable”.
Making explosives out of Gatorade and hydrogen peroxide (or any other known combination of chemicals) just isn’t feasible. It requires a laboratory set up where only two of the key issues are temperature (ice is needed) and stability. This fact was superbly demonstrated in an August 17 article in Britain’s The Register. In that article, Thomas Green brilliantly deconstructs, from a scientific viewpoint, using chemistry professors and expert testimony, the notion that such a feat could be carried out aboard an aircraft in flight. Of course, the Brits, the US and CNN would ask you to understand why they can’t tell you how it would be done because they judiciously don’t want anyone trying this at home.
The truth is that no one can tell you how it can be done by someone posing as a passenger, because it can’t. And don’t tell that to those who have been (or will be) indicted in the plot because they’ve probably been led to believe that it can be done just as Richard Reid sat there foolishly trying to light his tennis shoe with a cigarette lighter. Funny how they’ve never banned tennis shoes since Richard Reid. Yet now all liquids except baby foods and prescription medicine have been nixed.
Crossing The Rubicon and a great many other books, articles and official records are full of accounts where willing, uneducated jihadist martyr “Muhammad X”, receiving instructions from one of his countrymen who’s been turned by the CIA or other intelligence service, is sent out on a mission intended to fulfill US, British or Israeli needs. In this case, the so-called “bigger than 9-11” plot was just what the doctor ordered as I’m about to demonstrate.
So why would the British and American governments go to such trouble to cause all this turmoil?
Despite hurricanes, high fuel prices and increased conservation, energy consumption in the United States remains strong, as does China and India, the bank said.
"Ultimately, we agree that the energy bull market will roll over once demand destruction really begins," it said. "We simply do not believe we have arrived at that point."
- Reuters News Service quoting Goldman Sachs Analysts, December 13, 2005
The reason why such long lead times are required is that the worldwide scale of oil consumption is enormous – a fact often lost in a world where oil abundance has been taken for granted for so long. If mitigation is too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will have to be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to extreme economic hardship. On the other hand, with timely mitigation,economic damage can be minimized.
- The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production, Robert L. Hirsch (SAIC), The Atlantic Council of the United States, October, 2005
Traders and analysts, however, warn that many may be overestimating consumer reaction to high prices. "There's a perception that this demand destruction is going to continue," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "But I think that people are being a little bit overly optimistic."
"This morning's IEA Monthly Oil Market Report counts as a significant blow against the 'demand destruction' thesis that has been the dominant theme driving oil and refined product prices lower over the past week," said Kevin Norrish, an analyst at Barclays Capital.
- The Associated Press, October 24, 2005 (After Katrina and Rita)
What is demand destruction? On a small scale it is exactly what happened after the 7-7-05 London subway attacks. Note the following from MarketWatch the day after the London bombings which were (coincidentally) the height of the summer travel season (but before Katrina and Rita).
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Crude futures recouped much of their losses Thursday as Hurricane Dennis stole the limelight from a reported climb in last week's U.S. refinery production and terrorist attacks in London....
But IFR's Evans pointed out that "one lesson from September 11 that bears repeating is that terrorist attacks against civilian targets like the ones in London ... are bearish for demand."
Many economists, trying obliquely to address Peak Oil issues had predicted that $50, $60, or $70 oil would slow demand. They were wrong.
On larger scale however, demand destruction, as recognized by Peak Oil analysts and groups as powerful as the Council on Foreign Relations is seen as the only way to deal with Peak Oil when supply cannot be increased. Demand must be destroyed in order to:
- Protect the markets,
- Maintain consumer confidence and hide truth of Peak Oil, and
- Keep some kind of order in the world economy and energy supply system.
One other fact needs considering, and this is perfectly in line with what experts like Matthew Simmons have been saying for years. Demand isn’t going to slow down until oil hits well over $100 a barrel. The facts are bearing this out.
A June 10th, 2005 story in EuroNews titled, “Airline Industry Blames Oil Prices for Projected Losses”, put the matter quite succinctly. More and more people were flying last year, and the more people flew, the more money the airlines lost. Although I don’t have the numbers, 2006 air travel has been certainly well above 2005.
Now consider that just about a week before this so-called mega plot, British Petroleum announced that one of its major pipelines from Prudhoe Bay had to be shut down due to corrosion, eliminating the equivalent of 8% of the US oil supply.
Amidst ever-stronger signs that Ken Deffeyes of Princeton was correct when he pegged Peak at Thanksgiving of last year, and with global demand growing past 85 million barrels per day (Mbpd), by some estimates then the removal of 8% of the US supply has had disastrous effects. Oil is a fungible. Any loss of any supply anywhere impacts global markets, not just the country of incident. And although press reports didn’t state categorically that all of the Prudhoe supply was to have been used solely in the US, it’s highly likely that British Petroleum (i.e. the British government) had to (was told to) step in to clean up the economic mess as well as the environmental one.
It’s hard to tell how many flights have been cancelled overall. The last count I heard was well over 800, and there are still knock-on cancellations. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of would-be travelers have decided not to fly in light of the ridiculous news security procedures. Hence, demand destruction that’s going to last for some time.
I couldn’t stop chuckling to myself on the day the so-called attacks were announced as CNN and the BBC were quick to tag every new announcement with the observation that “aside from the stocks of the airlines involved, the markets have been remarkably unaffected.”
That, after all, is what demand destruction is all about. Using Occam’s razor this explanation is far simpler than the cock and bull we’ve all been asked to swallow.
Personally I liked the observation of one analyst who asked if we wouldn’t all soon be asked to fly naked. “Would that be good or bad for business?”