FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Uncovered: The Rat's Nest of 9/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 54
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
Considering this, is it possible that this 'ruling class' created the religious doctrine we have today as a tool of social control, and managed to pass on the operational knowledge of this social manipulation only to the offspring of this social class? This would ensure a multi generational relationship with the religious institutions that pretend to hold authority over them, but in actuality, the church is administering the elitist policies to the general public in the form of 'salvation' and 'philanthropy', while allowing the ruling class to remain invisible behind the veil of 'religious freedom' and 'holy sanctity'.
I would agree that this is what has been happening.Im not saying that the Elite believe at all in the Bible or the nonsense that is pushed on the masses,I just wonder if these people could all function together so well with nothing but pure greed holding them together.Are they a bunch of illuminati luciferians or just a bunch of psychos sticking together to fullfill their sick fantasies,or a little of both?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 348

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its all related. They are pulling all the stops now. They kind of have too really. Peak Oil = limitation the end is near = a life of less choice and 911 = fear = security = limitation = stay home and be protected. The bible says these are the end times when really these are the change times. It does not matter if the Elite believe in all this religious nonsense. They dont have to believe we do. Belief creates reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Jerry Fletcher"
Why would Ruppert be 'exposing' 911 and pushing Peak Oil?

Who would benefit from the whole crowd (left, right, mainstream, alternative) thinking that we're running outta oil?
Please read these three articles by Dave McGowan. You'll be glad you did.


I should have said I'm 95% believing that Peak Oil is a hoax, and a poison pill, ESPECIALLY because I KNOW it's not germane to 9-11, any more than Peak Bananas was germane to overthrowing Arbenz.

I"ve read McGowan's stuff before. I wavered.

I understand Quo Bono. I was taking the position that just because Ruppert's PO Agenda happens to serve the interests of higher fuel prices, doesn't de facto prove his position is in fact purely in service to Big Oil, nor does the Oil bastards' greed in fact prove that PO is a hoax. It certainly proves it could be.

I also took the viewpoint that even assuming "deep abiotic oil" IS being created, surely that could be happening more slowly than it's being drained. We use a lot. McGowan didn't convince me of that at the time.

I was moving from belief towards doubt towards rejection.

Since then I've seen more convincing evidence that PO is totally fake, even setting aside the question of "deep abiotic oil" (which apparently the Russians ARE pumping).

Now I'm seeing
a) Chavez has enough for 100 years, albeit more processing needed
b) Viallis said the Falklands have even more. (I know, Vialis ..)
c) One of Fintan's guests said there's boatloads of it in Africa.
d) Bush was blocking Iraq from pumping too much, contradicting Ruppert's claim that there's not a barrel to spare.

e) The new *Fox News* promo on a car which runs on water, HHO. I haven't looked into that, but he spoke to Congress. I don't know if it's really energy-creative as he says, then it would almost be a perpetual motion machine. Or maybe you'd plug in electric to split the water, and cut out the MTBE's anyhow.

f) More alternative forms of energy made more viable. A solar shopping mall in Australia.

g) That predictweather guy who suggested that Enron funded the "green" groups to promote Global Warming. For some tax subsidy scheme.

h) CIA Dir Woolsey is in that "Who Killed the Electric Car?" docu

So, I may make some useful preparations, buy Solar Panels if they come down like PCs, but I'm not freaking out about the global blackout of 2012. More like the blackout of Freedom being partly obscured by the paranoia. Change the conversation. So now I'm at 99.5% against Peak Oil.

Can I please keep my 0.5% for now without you all debunking me to death? Laughing
Back to top

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kawazu wrote:
illuminati luciferians or just a bunch of psychos sticking together to fullfill their sick fantasies

I'd say both, in a sense.

I'd also agree with this blog that "illuminati luciferians" obscures more than it reveals.

illuminati? - a bunch of bloodline fucks who network and give each other cushy positions with fat paychecks via taxes and corruption

luciferians? - ruthless, murdering, cunning, dishonest, amoral, greedy, control freak, sociopaths

By those definitions, yes.

sick fantasies? - Power and prestige, social values which are not too bizarre, can become a sickness, and they are illusory. It can be like a heroin fix, always needing a bigger dose of "winning". How high can they jack their own egos?
Back to top
Jerry Fletcher

Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ormond wrote:
Jerry, what can you say about this matter than some have said petroleum is created by a mineral process under the crust? Is that a fantasy or is it worth looking into?

Ormond -
Sorry bout the response time - life continues to interfere with my posting schedule...

To introduce my reply, I quote Dave -

Dave McGowan wrote:

"Hey, everybody ... uhhh ... you know how we always talked about oil being a fossil fuel? And ... uhmm ... you know how the entire profit structure of our little industry here is built upon the presumption that oil is a non-renewable, and therefore very valuable, resource*? And remember all those times we talked about shortages so that we could gouge you at the pumps? Well ... guess what, America? You've been Punk'd!"

From: nwsltr52

We sure have been. First, before even discussing where the oil comes from, ask yourself who is claiming we're running out in the first place? Very little research is required to figure out that oil supplies are not dwindling, it is oil production that is slowing, causing the 'shortage'. Those who claim we're 'running out' apparently know cause their hands control the spigot.


From James Bernstein's "Oil Giants Taking Heat," Newsday, March 31, 2004:

Worried about a downward slide in oil prices later this year, OPEC is expected today to announce a cut in production, which will likely result in higher pump prices. But consumer groups are charging that big oil companies are largely responsible for the current upward spiral in gasoline costs, saying they have deliberately withheld supplies and reduced storage capacity.


But in the United States, consumer groups say the blame for higher pump prices lies not so much with OPEC as with the huge oil companies. Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization, is preparing to release a report later this week charging that the oil industry deliberately consolidated in the 1990s so that it could withhold supplies and reduce storage capacity.


The Consumer Federation of America said in a recent report that in the past 15 years, more than 70 refineries in the United States were closed. Additionally, its report said, the nation's storage facilities were reduced by nearly 15 percent. Mark Cooper, the organization's research director, said an updated report is expected soon.

"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate refinery capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of decisions made by the oil companies to tighten the market."
[more: http://www.nynewsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzoil313730511mar31,0,4111615.story]

From "Mergers, Manipulation and Mirages: How Oil Companies Keep Gasoline Prices High, and Why the Energy Bill Doesn't Help" (March 2004), the Public Citizen report referenced in the Newsday article:

The United States has allowed multiple large, vertically integrated oil companies to merge over the last five years, placing control of the market in too few hands. The result: uncompetitive domestic gasoline markets. Large oil companies can more easily control domestic gasoline prices by exploiting their ever-greater market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough to rake in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their dependence on oil ...

The largest five companies operating in the United States (ExxonMobil, Chevron Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell) now control:

• 14.2% of global oil production (nearly as much as the entire Middle East members of the OPEC cartel).
• 48% of domestic oil production (which is significant given the fact that the U.S. is the 3rd largest oil producer in the world).
• 50.3% of domestic refinery capacity.
• 61.8% of the retail gas market.
• These same five companies also control 21.3% of domestic natural gas production.
It is therefore little wonder why these top companies enjoyed after-tax profits of $60 billion in 2003 alone.

These figures are in stark contrast to just a decade ago, when the top five oil companies controlled only:

• 7.7% of global crude oil production.
• 33.7% of domestic crude production
• 33.4% of domestic refinery capacity.
• 27% of the retail market.
• In addition, in 1993, the top five U.S. companies controlled only 12.7% of domestic natural gas production.
The major difference between 1993 and 2003 is that the largest oil companies have merged with one another, creating just a handful of oil monopolies that control significant chunks of the American oil and gas markets. Armed with significant market share, companies can more easily pursue uncompetitive activities that result in price-gouging ...

Gasoline prices are rising because of uncompetitive actions by this handful of new mega-companies, not because of environmental regulations ...

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices -- all as a "profit-maximizing strategy." These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been investigated by the U.S. government.

From: nwsltr59

The only thing peaking seems to be the confusion regarding how much oil really is available...


Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say Officials
Tim Kennedy, Arab News

 US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan addresses a conference on US-Saudi energy relations in Washington on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON, 29 April 2004 — Officials from Saudi Arabia’s oil industry and the international petroleum organizations shocked a gathering of foreign policy experts in Washington yesterday with an announcement that the Kingdom’s previous estimate of 261 billion barrels of recoverable petroleum has now more than tripled, to 1.2 trillion barrels.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia’s key oil and finance ministers assured the audience — which included US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — that the Kingdom has the capability to quickly double its oil output and sustain such a production surge for as long as 50 years.

“During times of turmoil, when the world has needed more crude oil, Saudi Arabia has worked without fanfare to promote stability in world markets,” Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi told the 300 attendees at a conference on US-Saudi energy relations co-sponsored by the US-Saudi Arabian Business Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“We have made a commitment to use our spare oil export capacity — even when it is stressful to our economic stability — in order to create a ‘cushion’ that maintains a balance in the global market,” he said.

“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves,” the minister said.

Naimi said Saudi Arabia is committed to sustaining the average price of $25 per barrel set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. He said prices should never increase to more than $28 or drop under $22.

“This is a fair price to consumers and producers. But, really, Saudi Arabia and OPEC has limited control on world markets,” said Al-Naimi.

“Prices are driven by other factors: Instability in key oil producing countries; industry struggles to produce specialized gasoline; and the resulting strains on refineries to meet local demand.”

“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,” Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12-15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”

From: Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say Officials

So, whether or not oil is a 'renewable resource', it's obvious somebody's tinkering with our 'supply and demand' perceptions. Apparently, manipulating the perception of scarcity to increase value is common in other 'fossil fuel' industries as well -


* There is a close parallel here with the diamond industry. It is a relatively open secret that the diamond market is an artificial one, created by an illusion of scarcity actively cultivated by DeBeers, which has monopolized the diamond industry for generations. As Ernest Oppenheimer of DeBeers said, nearly a century ago, "Common sense tells us that the only way to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce -- that is, reduce production." And that is exactly what the company has done for decades now.

There are reportedly nearly one billion diamonds produced every year, and that is only a fraction of what could be produced. Diamonds are not, conventional wisdom to the contrary, a scarce resource, and they are therefore not intrinsically valuable. Without the market manipulation, experts estimate that the true value of diamonds would be roughly $30 per carat.

Interestingly enough, Soviet researchers have noted that diamonds are the result of the same processes that create petroleum: "Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon." (Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, 1968)

So what we appear to have here are two resources, both of which are created in abundance by natural geothermal processes, and both of which are marketed as scarce and valuable commodities, creating two industries awash in obscene profits.

From: nwsltr52

What? Diamonds and oil created by similar natural abiotic forces? Apparently this 'discovery' isn't new at all - this has been understood for 50 - 100 years. Shame nobody notified the Rockefeller Foundation before they donated all those 'educational materials' to my elementary school telling me "filler up!" meant getting a tank full of old T-Rex juice.


In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude:

The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment.

He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."

Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at some point in the relatively near future we will see the last working pump on the last functioning oil well screech and rattle, and that will be that. The end of the Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap energy, the world will rapidly become a much darker and dangerous place.

From: Fletcher Prouty Commentary - June

Yes, I know Col. Prouty is ex-CIA, and a 'whistleblower' - two strikes against the man by our 'more skeptical than thou' attitude here at The Next Level, so in an effort to maintain my own standards, here's the abstract of the actual study referenced:

The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum

J. F. Kenney ,  , Vladimir A. Kutcherov ¶, Nikolai A. Bendeliani ||, and Vladimir A. Alekseev ||

Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Parkway, Floor 5, Houston, TX 77060; Russian Academy of Sciences, Joint Institute of Earth Physics, Bolshaya Gruzinskaya 10, 123810 Moscow, Russia; ¶Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Leninski Prospect 65, 117917 Moscow, Russia; and ||Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for High Pressure Physics, 142092 Troitsk, Moscow Region, Russia

Communicated by Howard Reiss, University of California, Los Angeles, CA and approved June 24, 2002 (received for review April 3, 2002)

The spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons that comprise natural petroleum have been analyzed by chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized. For the theoretical analysis of this phenomenon, a general, first-principles equation of state has been developed by extending scaled particle theory and by using the technique of the factored partition function of the simplified perturbed hard-chain theory. The chemical potentials and the respective thermodynamic Affinity have been calculated for typical components of the H–C system over a range of pressures between 1 and 100 kbar (1 kbar = 100 MPa) and at temperatures consistent with those of the depths of the Earth at such pressures. The theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than 30 kbar, excepting only the lightest, methane. The pressure of 30 kbar corresponds to depths of 100 km. For experimental verification of the predictions of the theoretical analysis, a special high-pressure apparatus has been designed that permits investigations at pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1,500°C and also allows rapid cooling while maintaining high pressures. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple-distilled water.

From: The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen-carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum -- Kenney et al. 99 (17): 10976 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Please feel free to investigate the science behind the study itself, as it involves mathematical symbols that make me dizzy - but I think my point is clear - Peak Oil is simply another example of perception management, and is a crisis that has been carefully constructed by those who sell the stuff.

Dilbert wrote:
Can I please keep my 0.5% for now without you all debunking me to death?

Yes, in fact, it's probably a good idea to hang on to that .5% regardless - as soon as we stop questioning entirely we're screwed.

But 0.6%, and we're comin after ya! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:53 pm    Post subject: Consortium News Reply with quote

I was looking up some stuff on the Iranian Rev (the relations btw Iran and the US, how the Shah was overthrown, how the crisis was managed, Brzezinski's role) and there was links to Robert Parry's articles on Wiki.

Parry had some GOOD stuff on that, the October Surprise conspiracy. He dug into the filebox (below the tampon dispenser, in the Ladies room, at the back of the parking garage) and found a lot of incriminating memos and other info that would completely discredit the entire Republican reign of Reagan-Bush, and their "image".

He also found Democrat collusion to bury the facts, and media collusion to keep quiet, for various reasons. It was interesting, in 'partisan' terms, and in showing up more treason and how the game is played: power, intimidation, yelling, blackmail, etc.

It even involved BCCI, a lot of details.

Basically, the 'evidence' exonerated Bush and Colby, supporting the idea it was a myth or rumor, just so long as the committee picked only certain evidence, and ignored chunks. One guy even suggested a 'trap door' statement, about "evidence that may have been overlooked, stray questions, yada yada" as a cover story, should it ever emerge that they lied.

But Parry's homepage "Consortium News" stuff is SO half-inch deep. Yuck.
Back to top

Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:55 pm    Post subject: Greetings Reply with quote

Hello All,

This is my first posting, and therefore I will avoid diving directly into a specific discussion.

I came across this site from an Air America Radio BB (mikemalloy.com).

My feeling is that uncovering the truth behind the 9/11 attacks has become singly the most important issue for the entire globe.

While that sounds dramatic, I feel that this country's administration is using those events as a justification for dismantling the U.S. Constitution, consolidating absolute power in the hands of one person, and justifying wholesale war on any country based on the "knowledge" of terrorist activities by the president. Because of the overwhelming military superiority held by this nation, all others find themselves at the mercy of the U.S. leadership.

9/11 has gone beyond being a tragic national occurrence to becoming an excuse for violating the globally accepted principles of diplomacy and mutual cooperation.

Understanding the entirety of the event is a monumental task, although enormous quantities of research already exist.

As more people become interested in discovering the truth, the truth will be very difficult to conceal.

I personally feel that the U.S. Government is purposefully avoiding the discovery of the truth.

Without U.S. government cooperation, this is going to be an uphill battle.

Good Luck

The Dogs of War don't negotiate
The Dogs of War don't capitulate
They will take and you will give
You must die so that they will live
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Greetings Reply with quote

Hi Eugene

EugeneAxeman wrote:

As more people become interested in discovering the truth, the truth will be very difficult to conceal.

I feel and hope that too, but then again 'feeling' is for people who are too lazy to do research, and hope is for people who consciously or unconsciously refrain from making any changes in their life...Wink But I concur fully, it is gettin harder to keep the truth hidden... The battle against disinfo is also of an uphill character, so finding out what is good information is crucial.

Welcome aboard...

Carful with that Axe, Eugene! Wink


"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: ex CIA Reply with quote

I have to say, I think I mentioned once before:
I DO know one retired ex-Intelligence person and I do not believe that they're fake.

I'm just gonna post a couple personal things sent to me. This one is about Iran.

Even though we may be manipulating/controlling Iran on some level, I would not put it past the neocons to launch an insane war of the worlds there, to appease Israel, and to 'force' the full weight of the US mil behind the endeavor --- once you start, you can't stop.

i just learned, this came from here:

Our children need to be told the truth. Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among “the damned,” since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned…… damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior’s order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one’s soul.

On the other hand, noncompliance will lead to that of being court-martialed.

However, regardless of the chaotic rigors of battle, regardless how terribly difficult it might be to figure out what one ought (or ought not) do, the lowest man on the totem pole, the grunt, rather than his superiors at the top, will be the one held responsible, the individual most likely to spend time in prison, and in some cases, the one most likely to be put to death for having killed an innocent victim.

Of course, along with the fact that most recruits will never receive any educational benefits, that their training in the military is for the most part irrelevant to jobs in the civilian sector, that their military recruiter was always a salesman and never a friend, that he was nothing more than “an advanced grunt” trying desperately, and far too often dishonestly, to meet a quota set for him by a military needing more bodies to be placed on the battlefield, the military recruit needs to understand that he is “an expendable,” that his life has little or no value whatsoever for those at the top, that he is nothing more than mere cannon fodder, a redundant grunt filling a slot on the “front lines” of battle enriching the military-industrial complex, a conglomeration of the transnationally rich, felons whose prosperity depends upon the promise of more wars to come!

Just yesterday I discovered that a new bill, HR 4752, The Universal National Service Act of 2006 (a fancy name for a bill that would bring back “the draft”), has been introduced to The House of Representatives.

Because the United States government (meaning the Bush-Cheney administration) is on the verge of militarily invading Iran, a conflict that might well lead to all out war in the Middle East, the United States Congress is not taking any chances.

Such a bill “on the table,” and ready to be passed (enacted) when necessary, will authorize the United States government to once again initiate a military draft for each and every man and woman aged 18 to 42. Although most of the people I have discussed this matter with have told me that there is no way our government would reinstitute the draft since such would no doubt represent political suicide. And they are right.

However, there is one thing that trumps the need to avoid political self-immolation, and that is the need to have an adequate supply of soldiers on the ground to fight the next war, the “Battle of Iran,” a conflagration likely to draw in the remainder of countries in the Middle East, partisans who may well begin to realize that we, as a nation, had no business meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, no right to have sent our soldiers a world away in order to occupy that of another country.

Anyone here disagree that --- with full respect to Fintan's analysis --- a Neocon war on Iran is still a reasonable possibility?

also says, You're right about getting onto the same page- the sooner the better. meaning "Americans need to get up to date on what's really going on, i.e., next level stuff."

I got some further info on US military history, but it wouldnt be right to post, as it's not mere mainstream fodder and the CIA could probably do some sort of language analysis if they really wanted to.
Back to top
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8821

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:13 pm    Post subject: Cold Fusion's CIA Mole Reply with quote

STEPHEN E. JONES: ""Is this a shortcut to fusion energy? Read my lips: No!"

Cold Fusion's CIA Mole

In the CIA Internet Fakes, released 4th August, 2005, we outed
a host of websites --either controlled by the CIA/FBI/KGB/ETC,
or hopelessly compromised by willingly gushing out heaps of Intel-
designed 9/11 Tabloid Crud. This analysis shows how the agency
has previously used Stephen E. Jones to destroy cold fusion research.

Latest: Audio by Fintan Dunne
Mp3: Dialup or DSL

by Fintan Dunne, BreakForNews.com 15 June, 2006


Some very interesting reading below...

Audio Show Links & References

Scholarly Group of "Experts" Questions 9/11

Prof. Steven E. Jones VIDEO and review: Feb. 1,

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven

The Physics Of September Eleventh

"Cold Fusion: The Musical"

Messenger: Dr. Stephen Jones? I've got a package here for Dr. Stephen Jones of Brigham Young University.
Jones: Not right now, I'm busy.
Messenger: But I've got a grant proposal here, Dr. Jones. It's from the Department of Energy. They want you to review it.
( Dr. Jones spins around dramatically. He takes the proposal.)
Jones: Department of Energy? Better let me have a look at it. Thanks kid.

Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion
By Malcolm W. Browne, Special to the NYT May 3, 1989

Hopes that a new kind of nuclear fusion might give the world an unlimited source of cheap energy appear to have been dealt a devastating blow by scientific evidence presented here. In two days of meetings lasting until midnight, members of the American Physical Society heard fresh experimental evidence from many researchers that nuclear fusion in a jar of water does not exist. Physicists seemed generally persuaded as the sessions ended that assertions of "cold fusion" were based on nothing more than experimental errors by scientists in Utah.

Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion, he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source. Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.

Dr. Jones himself spoke at the meeting, and although participants questioned him sharply about his experiment, questioning was generally friendly. He drew cheers and laughter when he concluded his talk by saying, "Is this a shortcut to fusion energy? Read my lips: No!" He defended his own experiment, describing his results as a "fragile flower" that would never grow into a "tree" producing useful energy, but could nevertheless "beautify" science.

Steven E. Jones on Wikipedia

The Jones [muon-catalyzed fusion] process.... demonstrated excellent validation that nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room temperature experiment. Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source. A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest findings. The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."

Muon-catalyzed fusion

Muon-catalyzed fusion is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at room temperature. Although it can be produced reliably with the right equipment and has been much studied, it is believed that the poor energy balance will prevent it from ever becoming a practical power source. It used to be known as cold fusion; however, this term is now avoided as it can create confusion with other suggested forms of room-temperature fusion.

In muon-catalyzed fusion, deuterium and tritium nuclei form atoms with muons, which are essentially heavy electrons. The muons orbit very close to the nuclei, shielding the positive charge of the nuclei and allowing them to move close enough to fuse. The muons survive the fusion reactions and remain available to catalyze further fusions. Andrei Sakharov and F. C. Frank predicted this effect of muon-catalyzed fusion on theoretical grounds before 1950.

The War Against Cold Fusion - What's really behind it?
Hal Plotkin, Special to SF Gate Monday, May 17, 1999

In this case, an unholy alliance seems to have come together. The principle players are the fossil fuel industry, which has no interest in seeing itself eclipsed by a new, non-polluting source of energy, and the mainstream physics community, which wants to protect, seemingly at all costs, the federal funding it relies on to continue its massively expensive hot fusion experiments.

In a telling interview, former Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) executive Tom Passell says that at least some of those involved in the campaign to debunk cold fusion intentionally misled congressional investigators and the public. Passell says that shortly after the ERAB panel persuasively denounced cold fusion as junk science in congressional testimony, some of the members of that panel quietly came to EPRI seeking money so they could study the phenomena themselves.

According to conventional nuclear theory, for example, the sun should be emitting a steady stream of neutrinos, particles that are produced in hot nuclear fusion reactions, as those reactions are currently understood. The only problem is, neutrinos coming from the sun have not been detected in the numbers current theory predicts. In the parlance of the field, this is known as the "problem of the sun's missing neutrinos." For some reason, the same mainstream physicists who claim cold fusion can't exist because cold fusion cells don't produce all the expected nuclear by-products don't make the same claim about the sun. Instead, they maintain it is merely a problem of neutrino measurement. The sun's "missing neutrinos" are there, they say, we just can't measure them accurately enough.

But at least some cold fusion theorists are beginning to think the two phenomena might be related. They suspect that more than one type of fusion may be occurring within the sun, and that what is happening in the little Pons-Flieschmann cells might provide at least part of the explanation about what is going on.

It may be hard to believe that people with vested interests could have been responsible for dampening, and nearly killing, this field for the last 10 years. Until you realize how much money is involved. We're not just talking about the $15 billion the U.S. has spent in the last few decades to support the work of hot fusion scientists... The foundation of the fossil fuel dependent international economy is also on the line, down to the last nuclear power plant, coal mine, and neighborhood gas station. It's no wonder some people are worried. It would be remarkable if they were not taking steps to stop advancements in this field.

What If Cold Fusion Is Real?

"Cold fusion" and "hoax" became synonymous in most people's minds, and today, everyone knows that the idea has been discredited. Or has it?

In March 1989, the University of Utah promoted the work using hyperbole it would live to regret: "Breakthrough process has potential to provide inexhaustible source of energy" was the headline on the press release. This seemed so implausible that The New York Times at first refused to print the story. But a reporter named Jerry Bishop, of The Wall Street Journal, was less inhibited. Partly catalyzed by Bishop's revelations, cold fusion became a major media event.

A science writer named Gary Taubes, who has written two books and several articles investigating allegations of fraudulent activity in science, went to Texas A&M on a fact-finding mission.

"We thought Taubes was genuine at first," Bockris told me recently, speaking in a clipped, precise British accent that he acquired before he moved to the United States in 1953. "We exposed our lab books to him, and told him our results. But then he said to Packham, my grad student, 'I've turned off the tape, now you can tell me - it's a fraud, isn't it? If you confess to me now, I won't be hard on you, you'll be able to pursue your career.'"

Palladium is a quixotic metal. "If you chop a rod into three or four sections," says Bockris, "you get the confusing and ridiculous effect that the first section works splendidly, and the second doesn't work at all, probably because of inconsistently distributed impurities." Cold fusion researchers have observed that it is inhibited, also, if the heavy water is excessively contaminated with water vapor from the atmosphere.

Pons and Fleischmann were not fully aware of these potential factors at the time of their press conference. A year later, the subtleties of cold fusion experimentation were better understood - but by this time, it was too late. The concept had been ridiculed and denounced.

...Martin Fleischmann was there, pacing impatiently, as bad-tempered as a snapping turtle - though he could be charming when he felt like it.... I asked why his lab in the south of France had lost its funding. "Minoru Toyoda was a great man," said Fleischmann. "Not the kind of man you find very often, who is willing to say, 'This is what I am going to do, and I don't care if you think I am mad.' After he died -" Fleischmann grimaced. "What you have to ask yourself is, who wants this discovery? Do you imagine the seven sisters [the world's top oil companies] want it? Does it fit into any idea of macroeconomics or microeconomics? I don't think so.

Significant, and ignored - though some mainstream scientists maintained a discreet interest in the field. Around 1992, McKubre says, he was summoned for an audience with legendary physicist Edward Teller. "He asked probing questions, in better depth, I think, than anyone else on the planet. You could see what a giant intellect he must have been in his time. I was subjected to this interrogation for four hours. At the end of it Teller said that he did not think that cold fusion was a reality, but if it were, he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics as he understood them, and it would prove to be an example of nuclear catalysis at an interface. I still don't understand what he meant by that, but I'm quite willing to believe that it's correct."

According to an estimate by David Nagel at the Naval Research Laboratory, only four of approximately 5,000 academic journals worldwide will consider papers that mention low-temperature fusion.

....Mallove also edits Infinite Energy, a magazine which Arthur C. Clarke had helped to fund; and this turned out to be a wild grab bag of eye-popping assertions and evangelistic rants against the establishment. In the March-June 1997 issue, for instance, an article was headlined:

Low-Energy Bulk-Process Alchemy
One-Tenth Gram of Thorium Becomes Titanium and Copper
Most Sacrosanct Principles of Physics Overturned

At the same time, buried among the far-fetched claims were rigorous reports from credentialed scientists. The result was schizophrenic, like a collision between American Journal of Physics and Weekly World News......

Whatever Happened to Cold Fusion? by David Goodstein

The origins of Cold Fusion have been loudly and widely documented in the press and popular literature. Pons and Fleischmann, fearing they were about to be scooped by a competitor named Steven Jones from nearby Brigham Young University, and with the encouragement of their own administration, held a press conference on March 23, 1989 at the University of Utah, to announce what seemed to be the scientific discovery of the century. Nuclear fusion, producing usable amounts of heat, could be induced to take place on a table-top by electrolyzing heavy water, using electrodes made of palladium and platinum, two precious metals. If so, the world's energy problems were at an end, to say nothing of the fiscal difficulties of the University of Utah. What followed was a kind of feeding frenzy, science by press conference and e-mail, confirmations and disconfirmations, claims and retractions, ugly charges and obfuscation, science gone berserk. For all practical purposes, it ended a mere 5 weeks after it began, on May 1st, 1989, at a dramatic session of The American Physical Society, in Baltimore. Although there were numerous presentations at this session, only two really counted. Steven Koonin and Nathan Lewis, speaking for himself and Charles Barnes, all three from Caltech, executed between them a perfect slam-dunk that cast Cold Fusion right out of the arena of mainstream science.

At the Baltimore meeting, Pons and Fleischmann did not attend, but Jones did, and he was the first speaker. He pointed out just how small was the effect he claimed to see compared to what Pons and Fleischmann were claiming.

Experiments done in the U.S. and in Japan, and reported at the Maui meeting indicate that the missing ingredient may have been found. In all the various Cold Fusion experiments, the first step is to load deuterium into the body of metallic palladium. The issue is how much deuterium gets into the metal. The ratio of the number of atoms of deuterium in the metal to the number of atoms of palladium is called x. It turns out, by means of electrolysis, or by putting the metal in deuterium gas, that it is rather easy to get x up to the range of about 0.6 or 0.7. That is already a startlingly high figure.... In other words, palladium (and certain other metals including titanium) soak up almost unbelievable amounts of hydrogen or deuterium if given the chance.... Both the American and Japanese groups showed data indicating there is a sharp threshold at x=0.85. Below that value (which can only be reached with great difficulty and under favorable circumstances) excess heat is never observed. But, once x gets above that value, excess heat is essentially always observed, according to the reports presented at Maui, and recounted by Franco Scaramuzzi in his seminar at the University of Rome.

Cold fusion on Wikipedia

The popular press sometimes use the term "cold fusion" to describe "globally cold, locally hot" plasma fusion that occurs in table-top apparatus such as pyroelectric fusion. Another form of true "locally cold" fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, is a well-established phenomenon but has currently no potential to become a source of energy.

The press conference of March 23, 1989 followed about a year of work of increasing tempo by Fleischmann and Pons, who had been working on their basic experiments since 1984. In 1988 they applied to the US Department of Energy for funding for a larger series of experiments: up to this point they had been running their experiments "out of pocket". The grant proposal was turned over to several people for peer review, including Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University. Jones had worked on muon-catalyzed fusion for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled Cold Nuclear Fusion that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987.

Both teams were in Utah, and met on several occasions to discuss sharing work and techniques. During this time Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", excess in that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone. If this were true, their device would have considerable commercial value, and should be protected by patents. Jones was measuring neutron flux instead, and seems to have considered it primarily of scientific interest, not commercial.

On May 1 the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion that ran past midnight; a string of failed experiments were reported. A second session started the next day with other negative reports, and 8 of the 9 leading speakers said that they ruled the Utah claim as dead. By the end of May much of the media attention had faded. As 1989 wore on, cold fusion was considered by mainstream scientists to be self-deception, experimental error and even fraud, and was held out as a prime example of pseudoscience. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected most patent applications related to cold fusion since then.

In 1991, Dr. Eugene Mallove said that the negative report issued by MIT's Plasma Fusion Center in 1989 was highly influential in the controversy, but was fraudulent: a chart was purposely modified to hide the fact that excess heat was actually observed at MIT. In protest of this alleged scientific misconduct, he resigned from his post of chief science writer at the MIT News office on June 7, 1991. He hypothesizes that the mainstream physics community had no interest in accepting the possibility of cold fusion, because it would take away funding from plasma research.

Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger says that he has experienced "the pressure for conformity in editor's rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous reviewers. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science".[43] He resigned as Member and Fellow of the American Physical Society, in protest of its peer review practice on cold fusion.

In 1995, Clean Energy Technology, Inc (CETI) demonstrated a 1-kilowatt cold fusion reactor at the Power-Gen '95 Americas power industry trade show in Anaheim, CA. They obtained several patents from the USPTO. As of 2006, no cold fusion reactor has been commercialized by CETI or the patent holders.

Cold Fusion's History

Pons and Fleischmann were more or less forced by their employer, The University of Utah, to come forward and make their announcement in a hasty manner, in order to ensure the University had a jump on the competition for patent rights to their discovery.

Timeline of cold fusion

1984 - Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah begin experimenting with electrolytic cells
1986 March - Brigham Young University develop plans for research using electrolytic cells
1987 July - Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University publishes an article entitled "Cold Nuclear Fusion" in Scientific American
1988 - Fleischmann and Pons apply to the US Department of Energy for funding for research
1988 Sept 28 - Jones reviews the application of Fleischmann and Pons, and recommends approval
1989 Feb 23 - Fleischmann and Pons visit Brigham Young University laboratory
1989 March 6 - the University of Utah and Brigham Young University meet and apparently agree to submit papers simultaneously on March 24
1989 March 11 - Fleischmann and Pons submit a Preliminary Note paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
1989 March 23 - Fleischmann and Pons announces the production of excess heat at a press conference at the University of Utah
1989 March 23 - Jones submit his paper to Nature

Fleischmann Joins D2Fusion to Develop Cold Fusion

Latest on Cold Fusion -- 17 Years and Heating Up

Cold Fusion -- The Sun in a bottle

Professor Steve Jones of BYU said his team had actually been producing similar results since 1985, but that the power outputs obtained has been microscopically small, too small in fact to be useful as a power source.

An unnamed spokesman for the Harwell research laboratory -- the home of institutional nuclear research in Britain -- spoke to the Daily Telegraph saying that 'we have not yet had the slightest repetition of the results claimed by professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.

Dr Richard Petrasso of the Plasma Fusion Centre of the ultra prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology presented the results of a series of intensive investigations into the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. The fundamental data put forward by the two men, said Petrasso, was probably a 'glitch'. Dr Ronald Parker, director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Centre, said; 'We're asserting that their neutron emission was below what they thought it was, including the possibility that it could have been none at all.' Thus within two months of its original announcement, cold fusion had been dealt a fatal blow by two of the world's most prestigious nuclear research centres, each receiving millions of pounds a year to fund research in hot fusion.

According to Dr Eugene Mallove, who worked as chief science writer in MIT's press office, ....some of those in charge at MIT's Plasma Fusion Centre had embarked on a deliberate policy of ridiculing cold fusion and that to do so they had -- almost incredibly -- fudged the results of their own research.

An Afternoon to Remember:
Cold Fusion Session of APS Meeting
(March 16, 2006)

A a wonderful opportunity to get up to speed in what has been happening “beneath the radar” of the conventionally-minded Establishment for the past nearly two decades.... My prayers is that Martin Fleischmann and Stan Pons will live long enough to receive the recognition (e.g., from the Swedish Royal Academy) that they so richly deserve as among mankind’s truly greatest benefactors.

Scott Chubb’s own paper appears to embody a very important theoretical breakthrough.... Using semi-classical band-state theory, in the light of many accepted deep results in solid-state physics, Scott has estimated that resonant tunneling times depend critically upon crystal size. According to Scott’s continuation of the theory which he had started in his ICCF11 paper (Proceedings, p. 663), crystals smaller than about 6 nm are too small and crystals larger than about 60 microns have tunneling times longer than a month!

To say that Fangel Gareev is an audacious thinker is an understatement. Reading his essay on “the universal resonance principle of synchronization” in the Proceedings of ICCF11 (pp. 469-473) motivated me to download and study the first reference in his Abstract (at arXiv Nucl-th/0511092) which is so thought-provoking that I am left mentally breathless. Following some published speculations of Schrödinger in his famous essay “What is Life?,” Gareev proposes that the radius of the lowest Bohr orbit is a universal length in nature and that everything in chemistry and even biochemistry can be understood in terms of integral multiples of said length and corresponding frequency harmonics.

Investigative reporter Steve Krivit has been diligently exploring every plausible development in the entire CF field, and surprised me by having persuaded Hyunik Yang and his former Russian collaborator Vysotskii to disclose at ICCF12 some of the formerly closely-held information regarding Innovative Energy Solutions Inc., where in June 2005 Fleischmann, McKubre, Hagelstein, Beaudette, Krivit, and myself were privileged to witness what purported to be the first large-scale (20 kilowatts!) CF power demonstration.

US Navy Report Supports Cold Fusion

By the Second International Conference on Cold Fusion, held at Villa Olmo, Como, Italy, in June/July 1991, the altitude toward Cold Fusion was beginning to take on a more scientific basis. The number of flash-in-the-pan "believers" had diminished, and the "skeptics" were beginning to be faced with having to explain the anomalous phenomenon, which by this time had been observed by many credible scientists throughout the world. Shortly after this conference, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) proposed a collaborative effort involving the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, which subsequently has become the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego (SSC San Diego); the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake; and the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). The effort's basic premise was to investigate the anomalous effects associated with the prolonged charging of the Pd/D system and "to contribute in collegial fashion to a coordinated tri-laboratory experiment."

We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time for government funding organizations to invest in this research. --Dr. Frank E. Gordon, Head Navigation and Applied Sciences Department. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego

Vol.I, 3.5 Meg ~121 pages

Vol. II, 178 pgs, 42,810 kbytes

Online library of over 400 original source scientific papers on cold fusion

Jed Rothwell's Cold Fusion Site

Cold Fusion for Dummies [PDF]

Early in the history, great effort was made to detect neutrons, an expected nuclear product from the d-d fusion reaction.Except for occasional bursts, the emission rate was found to be near the limit of detection or completely absent.This fact was used to reject theinitial claim. It is now believed that the few observed neutrons are caused by a secondary nuclear reaction, possibility having nothing to do witht hehelium producing reaction. Tritium is another expectedproduct of d-d fusion, which was sought. Too little tritium was detected so that once again the original claims were inconsistent with expectations. Nevertheless, the amount of tritium detected could not be explained by any prosaic process.... Various nuclear products normally associated with d-d fusion also have been detected as energeticemissions, but at very low rates. Clearly, unusual nuclear processes are occurring in material where none should be found.

Last edited by Fintan on Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:10 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Damian Flynn

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 219
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was Prof. Stephen E. Jones previously a woman?
Just wondering why his hips are so huge. His physique looks all out of proportion.

Nothing wrong with being a transexual though. It certainly would fit in with standard CIA recruitment practices.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just an offering ... on CIA FAKE-ism in general and specifically Dave Emory.

As a Jew, I'm a supporter of Arabs against Zionist fascism ... and the reverse. As a human being, I'm strongly against all forms of fascism.

That said, there's something about Dave Emory. He has a lot of detailed info.
Emory seems prejudiced towards Israel. I have heard him mention literal between Israeli Zionists and Fascists even Nazis. I also now know about Israeli support of Hamas, as a deterrent to Fatah and the possibility of peace breaking out accidentally with Arafat.

It's clear that Sami al-Arian was a strong Bush supporter, and a tight ally with the Grover Norquist/Newt Gingrich far Right Republicans. I saw al-Arian as a victim, but Emory scoffs at his liberal anti-fascist friends. I don't know how much I can trust this.

Bush's Buddy - The Acquittal of Sammy the Aryan

Some details on the Third Reich
FTR #155: Nuclear Weapons and the "Underground Reich"

For me to consider this balanced, Emory would have to also mention the brutal Israeli OCCUPATION at least once. Yet he covers the Bush connections to the Third Reich and other deep connections very well.

I don't think Emory is CIA funded, though John Loftus invites him to a conference, he complains that he might not have the money to go.

He mentions the Underground Reich funnelling weapons to the Middle East, and the use of populations for their agenda. Some INTERESTING titles.

FTR #155: Nuclear Weapons and the "Underground Reich"
FTR 544: Return of the Standard-I.G. Agreement of 1929.
FTR 520: Update On White Supremecists & Neo Nazi's
FTR 511: Uncle Sam & the Swastika, 25 Years Later
FTR #481: An Interview with John Buchanan (about the Bush-Nazi history)
FTR #450 - 9/11, Proxy War, and the Underground Reich
FTR 291: From Kennebunkport to Pearl Harbor: Bush, Moon, & the Rising Sun
FTR #350: It Took 3 Years To Kill Kennedy

can't wait to hear Fintans new stuff

Last edited by dilbert_g on Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Page 23 of 42

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.