JAFO: First off, imagine you are in the CIA and a guy comes to you and tell you: "Hey, i got this swell plan to help us build a pipelines in afghanistan and help us put more cocain onto the streets of america to create an american world-government (as far as i know, that is what he believes the motive was), all we got to do is kill about 3000 americans and start two very expensive wars in the middle east [question: are the wars really making america stronger?]. If anyone figure it out, we will be shot. we got to buy of people in numerous countries who really hate our guts, and rely that hundreds of men and woman in different agencies keep their mouths shut and for once not fuck up. Are you in our out?".
For a person to accept that offer, you got to be a really mean, evil, psychopatic son of a bitch. And you know that the hundreds of other people you have never known who got to be in on this have to be equally evil, mean and psychopatic. Well, psychopats are usually out to save their own ass, and all it takes is one who think: "Fuck this, if i tape this, and i go to the NY Times with a recording of my superior telling me this, i will be the hero, get a promotion, and i will run no risk of getting shot at a military tribunal if this is ever figured out". FUTHERMORE i have assumed that most people in the intelligence buisness is willing to kill americans without blinking - actually i think there are very few who will do that. I think the average CIA man is a pretty patriotic dude who really think he is in the job to save american lives, and think the wast conspiracy with cocain and one world government does not exist (so do i).
Besides this - i havent read his book, but i saw some videos of him on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiDX6UQl2no . Its a detail, but i think he presented it wrong: try to read up on why it took so long time to get interceptor planes in the air and compare it to the way Rupert tell the story. I dont think the official explanation is inplausible.
As for the way he represents sources: http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Solomon1.html . Generally i think he should present both sides of the issue when he makes such a serious allegation.
As for oil production: Well i know diddly squat about oil as well. i have seen various graphs, and i have heard various horror stories about oil. I have also seen other graphs, and heard it is not such a serious problem. So how can i deside? Well, i would assume that to assess oil one would have to take into account two great factors: The total amount of oil avaliable at a given oil price (to take into account that more oil is avaliable at higher prices) and how good and estimate that is of the TRUE quantity of avaliable oil at a given price. Historical figures might come in handy there.
Secondly its a question of how the world will adapt to less oil - ie how it will affect oil consumption. Thats very much a question for an economist - the disaster people all seem to assume civilization will collapse uniformly, but the western world can (i think) much easier live with 1/3 of the oil we require now than for example india; i mean, we might have to walk to work or take puplic transportation, and it might mean we dont have fertelizer to grow enough corn to raise cattle, but the indian guy suddenly have no gas to go to the market and no fertelizer to grow corn which is a much greater problem. Personally, when it comes to these questions and how it will go down, i will prefer to listen to people with phds to form my oppinion.
If you ask me - stop the idiotic programs that create biofuel from horribly inefficient crops and take a long hard look at windmill/photovoltic technology before desiding thats the future. Invest those money in turning algea and switchgrass into biofuel, nuclear and battery technology.
BTS: We agree on something, yah! :-)
