Written By: - Date published: 7:16 am, June 17th, 2008 - 120 comments
Categories: economy, labour, polls -
Tags: peak oil, petrol
A reader sent us this graph. It plots President Bush’s approval rating and the price of petrol. (the price of petrol is upside-down, a fall in the price is a rise on the graph)
As you can see, spikes in the price have been followed by a fall in Bush’s support and the reverse is true too. Overall, the price of petrol is rising in line with the decline in Bush’s support.
I’ve plotted the same graph for Labour’s support and petrol prices here.
(sources MED and Roy Morgan)
The pattern is the same. While it is obviously far from only factor that influences poll numbers, populations’ growing discontent with the price of petrol is resulting in Bush, Labour, and every democratic government I’m aware of are losing support. That’s a major challenge for Labour as an incumbent government and a gift to National, despite the fact they have no ability to fix the problem.
The flipside of the message is simple: there are plenty of votes in easing voters’ petrol pain. National may look at doing so with some kind of tax cut on petrol Key isn’t keen on it but that wouldn’t stop him. But tax cuts can only offer temporary relief and opens up a hole in the infrastructure budget. The real solution is offering kiwis alternatives to buying petrol, by encouraging alternative fuels and investing in public transport.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
See this is were you get it wrong. We don’t theorise, all we try to do is to analyse.
It is not about understanding, I don’t agree with you, there is a difference.
If you can find it in you hart to watch this I would really appreciate it. This is a presentation from Greame MacQueen he address the very issues we disagree on.
http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/graeme-macqueen-3192008-university-of-waterloo/
Sorry that is the only link I have, ignore my comment. It is only 50 minutes long so what can it hurt. If I’m wrong I’m wrong and you can point it out to me.
The problem is that there are a multitude of witnesses describing explosions at the base of the buildings. They are well documented and it cost the New York times some four years to get them released. Just google and you will find them. Not only at the base of the buildings but around the top of the buildings as well.
http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/prominent-structural-engineers-say-official-version-of-911-impossible-defies-common-logic-violates-the-law-of-physics/
These are two engineers who also question the official version and this is the site of http://www.ae911truth.org/ architects and engineers who request a new investigation. That’s all we want, a new and independent investigation.
You know, we are a bit like those people who get into a life or dead discussion on a party and after every body has moved on we are still trying to get that annoying difference sorted out. LOL
By the way graffiti, very embarrassing. I should have caught that one.
Captcha: Capacity twirler hummmm
Hi Travellerev,
I appreciate the link, but I’m not going to spend 50 minutes watching it. I think we might as well agree to differ here, I actually quite like you but we’re coming at it from totally different angles.
If the link I sent you to the nist FAQS hasn’t convinced you then nothing I say will, and everything I’ve read so far from you (and I really have read all of it) just drives me nuts due to what I and the vast majority of international experts see as fundamentally flawed reasoning.
We’re not going to agree, we’re just going to get pissed at each other. I have the luxury that my perspective is the generally accepted one. If you think something’s being hidden though, good luck on the hunt
Shall we leave it at that?
Hi T-rex,
Sorry I could not respond earlier.
I’m happy to let you of the hook. You are what you say you are an old dinosaur. What made this fun for me though is the fact that a lot of people actually are interested in what I have to say.
So I would like to leave this thread with some more facts about 911 for those who do want to learn.
Fact- Contrary to what T-rex is suggesting People who question the official Conspiracy theory study everything there is to know about that day. We read every rapport, we watch every frame of film made on that day, we talk to scientists, architects, pilots yu name it we do it because it is all relevant and all we have left of that day. So analysing the NIST report is sort of compulsory for people like me.
Let’s start by mentioning that the NIST is not an independent institute. It is government funded and highly politicised.
Here are all the relevant reports
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
Fact- No CSI investigation was performed on the ground zero crime scene. Avery thing was shipped of in the quickest way with the conveniently sized steel from the inner core and outer core shipped of to China to be recycled.
Fact- the NIST report T-rex refers to examined the collapse of the buildings up until the moment of it’s collapse. It never describes or investigated the actual collapses. IN FACT NIST EVEN HAS HAD TO ADMIT THAT THEY HAD NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS.
You can find the letter here:
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911proof.com%2FNIST.pdf&images=yes
Fact- Until today no official explanation has been given about the 6.5 free fall speed collapse of WTC 7 which collapsed 6 hours after the Twin towers into it’s own footprint. It is expected sometime in the Next two months but don’t hold your breath.
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
Fact- The NIST report has been rejected by James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
He demands a new and independent review of the NIST report and of the official conspiracy theory. Pretty damning wouldn’t you say?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm
Gordon Ross a Scottish Mechanical and Manufacturing engineer tears the NIST report and Dr. Bazant to bits in his analysis:
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200704%2FNISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf&images=yes
Don’t believe me, do you own research.
I’ve enjoyed this and onto different subjects
Travellerev – I think you have completely misunderstood the points made in that letter. Do you have experience in multivariate system modelling? I do. They don’t say “we don’t have any indication as to why the building collapsed”. They say “we’ve modelled the building to the point of global instability”. Modelling beyond that point would be theoretically possible, but irrelevant as the system is completely non-linear and the results would be meaningless. NIST know this, but you and the writer of the letter appear to miss their point.
As to Gordon Ross, some of his points are valid, but his general understanding is not. NIST has already discounted the pancake collapse he’s describing – that was the first explanation which they rejected in the course of their analysis.
A couple of things to consider:
1) The video shows that the failure was progressive from the periphery to the core. This is consistent with both the NIST’s analysis AND Gordon Ross’s.
2) After the majority of the tower had collapsed there was still a significant, but hugely damaged, remnant of the core structure standing. I’ll grant you that there was nothing less to fall down on it, the falling stuff had already passed it. But what to you think happened to the energy in the falling material when it hit the ground? Some foundation damage maybe? Perhaps sufficient to collapse the remainder. You obviously believe some ludicrously small quantity of explosives could do the job.
Just to inject some real science into our discussion…
The towers were hit at (bottom level of damage) the 93rd and 77th floors respectively. They were 110 stories totalling 417m high. This means they points above the impact fell, on average, 384m and 354m respectively.
The towers weighed 500,000T each. So, roughly, the sections above the failure points weighed 80,000T and 150,000T respectively. So by the time they’ve hit the ground, they’d have:
E1 = m1.g.h1 = ~3×10^11 J = 300GJ
E2 = m2.g.h2 = ~5×10^11 J = 500GJ
For reference, the energy within 1 ton of TNT is 4.25×10^9 J. (4.25GJ).
So, the energy from tower 1 falling is equivalent to 70 tons of TNT. Tower 2, 117 tons of TNT.
Here is some data on the largest of americas mk80 munitions types, the 2000lb bomb.
It has a 430kg high explosive warhead.
So, the collapse energy from just the top levels was equivalent to the base of the tower being hit by…
T1 – 162 bombs
T2 – 272 bombs
Think that might do the trick? You don’t need to think, because you can watch a video of it.
I hope this doesn’t look overly scientific, it’s a disgusting oversimplification of all the events, but I thought it might put things in perspective.
—
For anyone thinking about buying into the demolitions bullsh*t, and who doesn’t believe the patently obvious explanations of the NIST OR the video evidence, have a look at http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Especially the sentence at the bottom:
Much like with climate change, sometimes it’s worth paying attention to scientists. Just not necessarily the really fringy ones with hazy reasoning.
Sorry mods – feel free to delete the second of those two posts.
[lprent: done]
T-rex
You can’t leave well enough alone can you?
It’s fine with me, the more people read this thread the more people want to know who is right on this one.
That means more people will start to do their own research.
In this letter: http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911proof.com%2FNIST.pdf&images=yes
NIST states unequivocally:
WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE OF THE TOTAL COLLAPSE.
So NIST can’t but you can?
You arrogant prick.
They didn’t even start with WTC 7. This building collapsed in 6.5 sec. on the same day and in the same complex 6 hours after the Twin towers, is as high as the sky tower in Auckland and housed local CIA head quarters, Giuliani’s bunker and other assorted squirrelly organisations and nobody bothers to investigate it? NIST still has given no explanation for the collapse of this building.
Have look and tell me this is not a controlled demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A it is 9 sec long
If you want to hear the explosions directly preceding the demolition watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 this is 6.5 minutes long.
Wait for the big kabooms at the end.
Be very careful about what you come up with because a Dutch demolition expert has already confirmed that this can be nothing but a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
Weeks after the collapse of the buildings pools of molten metal made work on the pile very dangerous. Carbon fires do not melt metal so how do you explain that one Einstein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7HI4kjtvA&feature=related
According to the scientists who wrote this paper, the sudden collapse was impossible:
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200703%2FSudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf&images=yes
This is an analysis of the mass and potential of the Twin Towers
The very subject of T-rex’s expertise.
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200703%2FGUrich%2FMassAndPeWtc.pdf&images=yes
This is a paper written by
1 Steven E. Jones S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Jeffrey Farrer Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Gregory S. Jenkins Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Frank Legge Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
James Gourley, Kevin Ryan,
5 Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Actually it’s the fringy scientists who usually come up with the goods.
If you want to have a good laugh about what accepted wisdom had to say about the courageous individuals who dared to ask questions throughout history go to this link. it’s hilarious:
http://world.std.com/~mica/cfskeptic.html
And lastly the 911 Ommision report did not even mention WTC 7.
So we are to believe that a 47 story skyscraper, the only other steel framed building to ever collapse due to fire next to the Twin Towers, was part of the same complex falls into it’s own footprint like a house of cards in 6.5 seconds wasn’t worth mentioning in what was supposed to be the real and independent investigation?
Hello? Folks.
Is somebody else beginning to smell a rat here?
Captcha: Eleventh power hmmm, very mysterious. LOL
Does the post not appearing mean I am in moderation
[lprent: Not this time. The spam system didn't like you - probably thought that there were too many links would be my guess]
Probably just that it’s long – mine took a while to come through too, don’t sweat it… and don’t post it again or you’ll get a doubleup like I did and Lynn will have to delete one
T-rex
My post just disappeared or did not show up. so either I’m not allowed to respond any more or I had the same bug as you happen to my post. I’ll assume it was just a bug and try again.
NIST states unequivocally a response for a correction of their rapport
WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE OF THE TOTAL COLLAPSE.
So they can’t but you can?
Pompous fool
WTC 7 collapsed into it’s own footprint in 6.5 sec. You watch this and make up your own mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Not quit convinced?
You need to hear the actual explosions preceding the freefall collapse? Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Now about the pools of molten metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7HI4kjtvA&feature=related
No carbon fire has ever produced polls of molten metal let alone for weeks and weeks.
Don’t believe me do you own research and don’t let pompous fools
bully you with a whole heap of pompous crap.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Yep that would do it.
Any chance of retrieving it?
If you use askimet you should be able too.
I have had to do it a couple of times on on my blog.
one of these links has anything malicious attached to it.
I prefer the second one in hind sight.
Cheers Iprent sorry for the trouble
Haha!
You’re the one who feels qualified to DISAGREE with the conclusions of the NIST despite still struggling to grasp basic conservation of energy and Newtons laws.
You’re the one who thinks she knows more about hydrogen augmented combustion than all the leading research institutes despite having only a vague grasp of the basics – for example not even knowing what the hydrogen was doing to improve performance.
And I’M the fool.
Is it cold up there on your cloud?
Since you’ve suddenly become obnoxious again, I’m going to rip a few of your more retarded comments apart. Earlier you said
OHHH MYYY GODDD! All in the same place, and all on the same day!!! It’s almost as though there was some big destructive event on that day that was common to two of the collapses, and the third was in a position to be affected by the aftermath!.
So NIST can’t but you can?
Yup, as I predicted, you’ve completely failed to understand their point. What they’re saying is that they can’t model a collapsing building, so they don’t know what was happening as it fell down, only what the points of failure were most likely to be at the moment just prior to falling.
Be very careful about what you come up with because a Dutch demolition expert has already confirmed that this can be nothing but a controlled demolition.
HAHA!! Well if he’s Dutch I guess he must be right, just like you eh? May I suggest that perhaps a controlled demolition expert will tend to see signs of controlled demolition in any building collapse… given that all the building collapses he’s seen were almost certainly controlled demolitions?
Now about the pools of molten metal: No carbon fire has ever produced polls of molten metal let alone for weeks and weeks.
Well obviously it’s not jet fuel that was burning, considering there wasn’t enough of it to burn anything like that long. Weird. It’s almost like there was something else acting as the fuel source. Like… I dunno… maybe two entire sky scrapers full of stuff or something. That’d need an ignition source though… hmmm… wonder if perhaps the 2TJ of gravitational potental energy from the collapse alone would do. Well since that’s equivalent to about 5% of the energy released by the nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima, I’m picking the answer is probably yes.
COINCIDENCE???
I just thought I’d throw that in because conspiracy people love saying “COINCIDENCE” on a regular basis, to suggest that clearly it’s not a coincidende, and is in fact a conspiracy and really Robert Murdoch chewed through the foundations with his teeth. Either that or the buildings were actually destroyed by 5% of the hiroshima bombs destructive force travelling forwards through time.
You say I can’t leave well enough alone – I’m just not going to let you bully me into keeping quiet with insults.
I have torn every single one of your stupid arguments to shreds, and you’ve totally failed to address almost every single one of my points. I’m now bored with it – so there you go, consider “well enough” let alone.
So what’s next? Oooh, I know!!! MOON LANDINGS!
Was the 1969 Apollo 11 landing on the moon faked travellerev?
Of course it was! Mumble mumble telescope crosshairs right?
Ok, now I’m baiting.
Could have ended gracefully, but noooo, you had to keep stirring. Hope you’re happy with the outcome
I commit to never again posting in response to you on this thread.
Final qualifier (and not in response to you, so I’m still holding to my commitment) – I await with interest the outcome of the WTC-7 investigation. At least that one isn’t quite so painfully obvious as the others (to me anyway). Although even if it turns out to be a controlled demolition that won’t in any way colour my perceptions of the cause of collapse of the main towers.
Adios!
Hallelujah,
You have not touched upon anything mate.
You just defended a thoroughly debunked theory.
You see after it became clear that the pancake theory was untenable NIST had to come up with something else and they did. We call it the the “Wham” theory.
You would have known about it if you had actually watched the 50 minute presentation, and then you wouldn’t have answered so shrilly and silly.
This is the theory ladies and gentlemen:
After the fires from the planes heated the steel beams to, let’s call it buckle point, the floors above acted like a hammer on the floors under it, pulverising the buildings as the hammer pounded on the floors below. This is an astounding theory since it violates at least two laws of Physics.
One being: Material falling will always take the path of least resistance but this bloody great big lump of concrete follows until the very end; The path of most resistance.
And not only that it violates the third law of Newton: For every force there is an equal force opposing it.
This means that when this bloody great big lump hurdles in free fall speed into the path of most resistance it seems not to meet any of this opposing force.
However this theory is moot because in order to even come close to validating this theory you have to have this bloody great big lump in the first place. You have to have a Wham moment after which it can go Kaboem, Kaboem, Kaboem.
But you see there is no bloody great big lump of Concrete and steel. There is no Wham moment. Because the top explodes at the same time as the rest of the building.
In fact the roof of the North tower comes down faster as the floor of the block that allegedly pummelled the rest of the building in a fin dust with objects no bigger than a telephone keypad to be found, indicating it is disintegrating before it can do the damage T-rex claimed it did.
This is the very moment I’m speaking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btftaMMav4I&feature=related
Watch the interesting wobble of the camera moments before the radio mast starts to fall toward the floors beneath it. This indicates that a fairly large event took place moments before the collapse. People in the towers testified to huge explosions at the bottom of the towers.
This is the 50 minute presentation that does away with the Wham theory much more eloquent than I could.
http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/graeme-macqueen-3192008-university-of-waterloo/
And last but not least: For this theory to become possible the steel really has to become very hot but steel has this niggly quality of acting like a heat sink. The heat gets transferred to the other parts of the steel. This means that none of the steel could have become hot enough to buckle. In fact this is what happened after the planes burned all their Kerosene off, most of it outside the buildings.
http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/911-and-the-twin-towers-sudden-collapse-initiation-was-impossible/
How come a woman could stand in the gaping hole were the plane impacted and not be burned to cinders while the steel was so hot it would buckle and allow for a free fall speed collapse of the building? In fact how could this woman hold on to the steel with bare hands if the steel was so hot.
Again, not in response to you – I retract my last comment. Having done a bit of further research, it’s bloody obvious that WTC7 wasn’t a controlled demolition.